Applicability of a risk score for prediction of the long-term benefit of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy

Barra, Sérgio; Looi, Khang‐Li; Gajendragadkar, Parag R; Khan, Fakhar Z.; Virdee, Munmohan; Agarwal, Sharad

doi:10.1093/europace/euv352

Cited by 25 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[18][19][20] In addition, patients with low (0-2) Goldenberg risk scores, which would indicate less comorbidity and a younger age, appeared to receive a substantial benefit from a defibrillator. 21 In a retrospective observational study, CRT-D recipients aged ≥75 years did not have lower mortality than CRT-P recipients after adjusting for possible confounders. 22 Further studies are required to determine which patients with no prior sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias will benefit from a defibrillator in CRT, and there may be a need for randomized studies, especially in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, to elucidate optimal CRT device selection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Survival and Heart Failure Hospitalization in Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With or Without a Defibrillator for Primary Prevention in Japan　― Analysis of the Japan Cardiac Device Treatment Registry Database ―

Yokoshiki

Shimizu

Mitsuhashi

et al. 2017

Circ J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Survival and Heart Failure Hospitalization in Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With or Without a Defibrillator for Primary Prevention in Japan　― Analysis of the Japan Cardiac Device Treatment Registry Database ―

Yokoshiki

Shimizu

Mitsuhashi

et al. 2017

Circ J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…14,18,19 Despite this, the superiority of CRT-D to CRT-P was reported in HFrEF patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, [20][21][22][23] those with nonischemic cardiomyopathy having left ventricular midwall fibrosis 24 and those with the Goldenberg (MADIT) risk scores 0-2. 25 More recently, CRT-D…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in the use of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy device in advancing age: Analysis of the Japan cardiac device treatment registry database

Yokoshiki

Shimizu²,

Mitsuhashi

et al. 2020

Journal of Arrhythmia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Trends of de novo implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) including implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT‐D) or pacemaker (CRT‐P) in advancing age are unknown. Methods Analysis of data from the Japan cardiac device treatment registry (JCDTR) with an implantation date between January 2006 and December 2016 was performed focusing on advancing age of ≧75 years. Results The cohort included 17 564 ICD, 9470 CRT‐D and 1087 CRT‐P recipients for de novo implantation. The rate of patients ≧75 years of age increased from 17.1% to 20.5% in ICD implantation (P = .052), from 19.7% to 30.0% in CRT‐D implantation (P < .0001), and from 40.0% to 64.0% in CRT‐P implantation (P = .17). There was an apparent increase in the percentage of nonischemic patients aged ≧75 years receiving ICD (10.9% in 2006 to 16.4% in 2016, P = .0008) and CRT‐D (17.1% in 2006 to 27.8% in 2016, P = .0001). The implantation for primary prevention ICD (P = .059) and CRT‐D (P = .012) was also associated with a temporal increase in the percentage of patients aged ≧75 years. Conclusions Proportion of patients ≧75 years of age for de novo CIED implantation gradually increased from 2006 to 2016, presumably because of the growing number of nonischemic cardiomyopathy and heart failure patients requiring primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

show abstract

“…Data obtained from a large European CRT consortium comprising French, UK, Czech and Swedish patients who received CRT implantation/upgrade between 2002 and 2012 in the context of ischaemic or non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy, and who completed at least 5 years of follow-up (8,(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). The indications for CRT, with or without a defibrillator, were as per the European Society of Cardiology and European Heart Rhythm Association guidelines (16) for those treated in French, Czech and Swedish Hospitals and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines [https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta120] for British patients.…”

Section: Study Design and Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Very long-term survival and late sudden cardiac death in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients

Barra

Duehmke

Providência

et al. 2019

European Heart Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims The very long-term outcome of patients who survive the first few years after receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has not been well described thus far. We aimed to provide long-term outcomes, especially with regard to the occurrence of sudden cardiac death (SCD), in CRT patients without (CRT-P) and with defibrillator (CRT-D). Methods and results A total of 1775 patients, with ischaemic or non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy, who were alive 5 years after CRT implantation, were enrolled in this multicentre European observational cohort study. Overall long-term mortality rates and specific causes of death were assessed, with a focus on late SCD. Over a mean follow-up of 30 months (interquartile range 10–42 months) beyond the first 5 years, we observed 473 deaths. The annual age-standardized mortality rates of CRT-D and CRT-P patients were 40.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 35.3–45.5] and 97.2 (95% CI 85.5–109.9) per 1000 patient-years, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was 0.99 (95% CI 0.79–1.22). Twenty-nine patients in total died of late SCD (14 with CRT-P, 15 with CRT-D), corresponding to 6.1% of all causes of death in both device groups. Specific annual SCD rates were 8.5 and 5.8 per 1000 patient-years in CRT-P and CRT-D patients, respectively, with no significant difference between groups (adjusted HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.45–2.44). Death due to progressive heart failure represented the principal cause of death (42.8% in CRT-P patients and 52.6% among CRT-D recipients), whereas approximately one-third of deaths in both device groups were due to non-cardiovascular death. Conclusion In this first description of very long-term outcomes among CRT recipients, progressive heart failure death still represented the most frequent cause of death in patients surviving the first 5 years after CRT implant. In contrast, SCD represents a very low proportion of late mortality irrespective of the presence of a defibrillator.

show abstract

Applicability of a risk score for prediction of the long-term benefit of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy

Abstract: A simple risk stratification score comprising five clinical risk factors may help identify CRT patients who are more likely to benefit from the presence of the defibrillator.

Cited by 25 publications

References 21 publications

Survival and Heart Failure Hospitalization in Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With or Without a Defibrillator for Primary Prevention in Japan　― Analysis of the Japan Cardiac Device Treatment Registry Database ―

Survival and Heart Failure Hospitalization in Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With or Without a Defibrillator for Primary Prevention in Japan　― Analysis of the Japan Cardiac Device Treatment Registry Database ―

Trends in the use of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy device in advancing age: Analysis of the Japan cardiac device treatment registry database

Very long-term survival and late sudden cardiac death in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Applicability of a risk score for prediction of the long-term benefit of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy

Abstract: A simple risk stratification score comprising five clinical risk factors may help identify CRT patients who are more likely to benefit from the presence of the defibrillator.

Cited by 25 publications

References 21 publications

Survival and Heart Failure Hospitalization in Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With or Without a Defibrillator for Primary Prevention in Japan ― Analysis of the Japan Cardiac Device Treatment Registry Database ―

Survival and Heart Failure Hospitalization in Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With or Without a Defibrillator for Primary Prevention in Japan ― Analysis of the Japan Cardiac Device Treatment Registry Database ―

Trends in the use of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy device in advancing age: Analysis of the Japan cardiac device treatment registry database

Very long-term survival and late sudden cardiac death in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Survival and Heart Failure Hospitalization in Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With or Without a Defibrillator for Primary Prevention in Japan　― Analysis of the Japan Cardiac Device Treatment Registry Database ―

Survival and Heart Failure Hospitalization in Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With or Without a Defibrillator for Primary Prevention in Japan　― Analysis of the Japan Cardiac Device Treatment Registry Database ―