The benefits of CRT with respect to EF and reverse remodeling were greater in patients with non-ischemic HF and less severe MR. Women may also derive more benefit than men with respect to the occurrence of HF hospitalization or death.

No abstract

Multiple clinical trials support the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure (HF). Unfortunately, several complicating issues have arisen from the universal use of ICDs in HF patients. An estimated 20% to 35% of HF patients who receive an ICD for primary prevention will experience an appropriate shock within 1 to 3 years of implant, and one-third of patients will experience an inappropriate shock. An ICD shock is associated with a 2- to 5-fold increase in mortality, with the most common cause being progressive HF. The median time from initial ICD shock to death ranges from 168 to 294 days depending on HF etiology and the appropriateness of the ICD therapy. Despite this prognosis, current guidelines do not provide a clear stepwise approach to managing these high-risk patients. An ICD shock increases HF event risk and should trigger a thorough evaluation to determine the etiology of the shock and guide subsequent therapeutic interventions. Several combinations of pharmacologic and device-based interventions such as adding amiodarone to baseline beta-blocker therapy, adjusting ICD sensitivity, and employing antitachycardia pacing may reduce future appropriate and inappropriate shocks. Aggressive HF surveillance and management is required after an ICD shock, as the risk of sudden cardiac death is transformed to an increased HF event risk.