Aims
Despite our prior report suggesting heart failure (HF) risk reduction from cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT‐D) in mild HF patients with higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF > 30%), data on mortality benefit in this cohort are lacking. We aimed to assess long‐term mortality benefit from CRT‐D in mild HF patients by LVEF > 30%.
Methods and results
Among 1274 patients with mild HF and left bundle branch block enrolled in MADIT‐CRT, we analysed long‐term effects of CRT‐D vs. implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy only, and reverse remodelling to CRT‐D (left ventricular end‐systolic volume percent change ≥ median at 1 year), on all‐cause mortality and HF for the LVEF ≤ 30% and LVEF > 30 subgroups using Kaplan–Meier and Cox analyses. During long‐term follow‐up, CRT‐D vs. ICD was associated with reduction in all‐cause mortality in both patients with LVEF > 30% and LVEF ≤ 30% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25–0.85, P = 0.036 vs. HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49–0.98, P = 0.013, interaction P = 0.261]. The efficacy of CRT‐D vs. ICD only to reduce HF was similar in those with LVEF above and below 30% (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.35–0.61, P < 0.001 vs. HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35–0.61, P < 0.001; interaction P = 0.342). Patients with CRT‐D‐induced reverse remodelling had significant mortality reduction when compared to ICD, with either LVEF > 30% or LVEF ≤ 30% (HR 0.17 and 0.39), but no mortality benefit was seen in patients with less reverse remodelling. HF events, however, were reduced in both CRT‐D‐induced high and low reverse remodelling vs. ICD only, in both LVEF subgroups.
Conclusions
In MADIT‐CRT, left bundle branch block patients with higher LVEF (> 30%) derive long‐term mortality benefit from CRT‐D when exhibiting significant reverse remodelling.
Clinical Trial registration: http://ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00180271, NCT01294449, and NCT02060110