Aims: Prior studies have suggested that the benefit from primary preventive defibrillator treatment for patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathyy, treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy, may be age-dependent. We aimed to compare age-stratified mortality rates and mode of death in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy who are treated with either primary preventive cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) or CRT with pacemaker (CRT-P).
Methods And Results: All patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and CRT-P or primary preventive CRT-D who were implanted in Sweden during the period 2005-2020 were included. Propensity scoring was used to create a matched cohort. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 5 years. In all, 4027 patients were included: 2334 with CRT-P and 1693 with CRT-D. Crude 5-year mortality was 635 (27%) vs. 246 (15%), P < 0.001. In Cox regression analysis, adjusted for clinically relevant covariables, CRT-D was independently associated with higher 5-year survival [0.72 (0.61-0.85), P < 0.001]. Cardiovascular mortality was similar between groups (62 vs. 64%, P = 0.64), but death from heart failure was more common in the CRT-D group (46 vs. 36%, P = 0.007). In the matched cohort (n = 2414), 5-year mortality was 21% (24 vs. 16%, P < 0.001). In age-stratified analyses, CRT-P was associated with higher mortality in age groups <60 years and 70-79 years, but there was no difference in age groups 60-69 years or 80-89 years.
Conclusion: In this nationwide registry-based study, patients with CRT-D had better 5-year survival compared to patients with CRT-P. The interaction between age and mortality reduction was not consistent, but patients with CRT-D aged <60 years had the largest absolute mortality reduction.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10368447 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad187 | DOI Listing |
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
December 2024
Arrhythmia Unit, Department of Cardiology, Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain.
Background: Interventricular dyssynchrony derived from the classic non-physiological stimulation (n-PS) of the right ventricle (RV) is a known cause of left ventricular dysfunction (LVDys).
Methods: This was a prospective descriptive single-center study. We analyzed patients who develop LVDys with n-PS, and the results after upgrading to conduction system pacing (CSP).
Coron Artery Dis
October 2024
Department of Cardiology, Kocaeli City Hospital, Kocaeli, Turkey.
Cureus
November 2024
Department of Cardiology, Liv Hospital Ulus, Istanbul, TUR.
ESC Heart Fail
December 2024
Boston Scientific Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
December 2024
Servei de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, España.
Introduction: Right ventricular (RV) pacing can impair left ventricular function and cause heart failure, known as pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Upgrade to cardiac resynchronization (CRT) is its usual treatment; recently left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a potential alternative. Deep septal pacing (DSP), a simplified alternative to LBBAP, is still able to achieve narrower paced QRS than during conventional RV pacing.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!