MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.043

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2019

Evaluation, Management, and Outcomes of Patients Poorly Responsive to Cardiac Resynchronization Device Therapy.

Varma Niraj, Boehmer John, Bhargava Kartikeya, Yoo Dale, Leonelli Fabio, Costanzo Mariarosa, Saxena Anil, Sun Lixian, Gold Michael R, Singh Jagmeet, Gill John, Auricchio Angelo

СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

"Nonresponse" to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is recognized, but definition(s) applied in practice, treatment(s), and their consequences are little known.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to assess nonresponse in the prospective, international, ADVANCE CRT registry (Advance Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Registry).

METHODS

Each subject's response was assessed at 6 months post-implantation using site-specific definitions and compared with the independently derived clinical composite score (CCS). Treatment(s) and hospitalization(s) were tracked during the following 6 months.

RESULTS

Of 1,524 subjects enrolled in 69 centers (68 ± 12 years of age, 32% female, ischemic disease 39%), 74.3% received CRT-defibrillator devices, using mainly quadripolar LV leads (75%) deployed laterally (78%). Indications for CRT were wider than past trials. Among 1,327 evaluable subjects, site-defined nonresponse was 20.0% (greater age, comorbidities, ischemic cardiomyopathy, non-left bundle branch block, and lower %CRT pacing vs. responders). Site definitions used mainly clinical criteria (echocardiography infrequently), and underestimated nonresponders by 35% compared with CCS (58% sensitivity vs. CCS). Overall, more site-defined nonresponders received treatment (55.9% vs. 38.3% of responders; p < 0.001) using medication changes and heart failure education, but device programming less frequently. Intensification of in-clinic/remote evaluations and involvement of heart failure specialists remained minimal. Remarkably, 44% of site-defined nonresponders received no additional treatment. Frequency and duration of hospitalizations, and death, among site-defined nonresponders was significantly higher than responders.

CONCLUSIONS

A high incidence of CRT nonresponders persists despite good patient selection and LV lead position, but site identification methods have modest sensitivity. Following diagnosis, nonresponders are often passively managed, without specialty care, with poor outcome. ADVANCE CRT exposes a vulnerable group of heart failure patients. (Advance Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Registry [ADVANCE CRT]; NCT01805154).

Для цитирования: Varma Niraj, Boehmer John, Bhargava Kartikeya, Yoo Dale, Leonelli Fabio, Costanzo Mariarosa, Saxena Anil, Sun Lixian, Gold Michael R, Singh Jagmeet, Gill John, Auricchio Angelo. Evaluation, Management, and Outcomes of Patients Poorly Responsive to Cardiac Resynchronization Device Therapy.. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.043.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.