Kuldeep Shah1, Vallabh Karpe2, Mohit K Turagam3, Mahek Shah4, Andrea Natale5, Rakesh Gopinathannair6, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy6, Jalaj Garg7. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Section of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Beaumont Hospital, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, Michigan. 2. Department of Medicine, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. Helmsley Electrophysiology Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 4. Division of Cardiology, Section of Heart Failure and Transplantation Cardiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA. 5. Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David's Medical Center, Austin, TX. 6. Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Kansas City, KS. 7. Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Whether cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) continues to augment left ventricular remodeling in patients with the continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (cf-LVAD) remains unclear. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all clinical studies examining the role of continued CRT in end-stage heart failure patients with cf-LVAD reporting all-cause mortality, ventricular arrhythmias, and ICD shocks. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) random-effects model was used to summarize data. RESULTS: Eight studies (7 retrospective and 1 randomized) with a total of 1,208 unique patients met inclusion criteria. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86 - 1.35, p = 0.51, I2=0%), all-cause hospitalization (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76-1.34, p = 0.95, I2=11%), ventricular arrhythmias (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 - 1.39, p = 0.58, I2 =50%) and ICD shocks (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.57 - 1.33, p = 0.52, I2 =65%) comparing CRT versus non-CRT. Subgroup analysis demonstrated significant reduction in ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 - 0.90, p = 0.001) and ICD shocks (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 - 0.97, p = 0.04) in "CRT on" group versus "CRT off" group. CONCLUSIONS: CRT was not associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality or increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias and ICD shocks compared to non-CRT in cf-LVAD patients. It remains to be determined which subgroup of cf-LVAD patients benefit from CRT. The findings of our study are intriguing, and therefore, larger studies in a randomized prospective manner should be undertaken to address this specifically.
INTRODUCTION: Whether cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) continues to augment left ventricular remodeling in patients with the continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (cf-LVAD) remains unclear. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all clinical studies examining the role of continued CRT in end-stage heart failure patients with cf-LVAD reporting all-cause mortality, ventricular arrhythmias, and ICD shocks. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) random-effects model was used to summarize data. RESULTS: Eight studies (7 retrospective and 1 randomized) with a total of 1,208 unique patients met inclusion criteria. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86 - 1.35, p = 0.51, I2=0%), all-cause hospitalization (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76-1.34, p = 0.95, I2=11%), ventricular arrhythmias (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 - 1.39, p = 0.58, I2 =50%) and ICD shocks (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.57 - 1.33, p = 0.52, I2 =65%) comparing CRT versus non-CRT. Subgroup analysis demonstrated significant reduction in ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 - 0.90, p = 0.001) and ICD shocks (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 - 0.97, p = 0.04) in "CRT on" group versus "CRT off" group. CONCLUSIONS: CRT was not associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality or increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias and ICD shocks compared to non-CRT in cf-LVAD patients. It remains to be determined which subgroup of cf-LVAD patients benefit from CRT. The findings of our study are intriguing, and therefore, larger studies in a randomized prospective manner should be undertaken to address this specifically.
Authors: Michael R Bristow; Leslie A Saxon; John Boehmer; Steven Krueger; David A Kass; Teresa De Marco; Peter Carson; Lorenzo DiCarlo; David DeMets; Bill G White; Dale W DeVries; Arthur M Feldman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John William Schleifer; Farouk Mookadam; Evan P Kransdorf; Udai Nanda; Jonathon C Adams; Stephen Cha; Octavio E Pajaro; David Eric Steidley; Robert L Scott; Tomas Carvajal; Rayya A Saadiq; Komandoor Srivathsan Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2016-05-28 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Anne-Christine Ruwald; Valentina Kutyifa; Martin H Ruwald; Scott Solomon; James P Daubert; Christian Jons; Andrew Brenyo; Scott McNitt; Duc Do; Kenji Tanabe; Amin Al-Ahmad; Paul Wang; Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-08-11 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Rakesh Gopinathannair; Henri Roukoz; Jaimin R Trivedi; Jennifer Cowger; Adarsh Bhan; Ashwin Ravichandran; Geetha Bhat; Emma J Birks; Mark S Slaughter; Mustafa M Ahmed Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: Travis D Richardson; Leslie Hale; Christopher Arteaga; Meng Xu; Mary Keebler; Kelly Schlendorf; Matthew Danter; Ashish Shah; JoAnn Lindenfeld; Christopher R Ellis Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 5.501