Response to preventive cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischaemic and nonischaemic cardiomyopathy in MADIT-CRT

Alon Barsheshet, Ilan Goldenberg, Arthur J. Moss, Michael Eldar, David T. Huang, Scott McNitt, Helmut U. Klein, W. Jackson Hall, Mary W. Brown, Jeffrey Goldberger, Robert E. Goldstein, Claudio Schuger, Wojciech Zareba, James P. Daubert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

84 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

AimsThere are no data regarding the differential response to cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) by the aetiology of cardiomyopathy in mildly symptomatic patients. We evaluated the outcome of patients enrolled in MADIT-CRT by ischaemic and non-ischaemic aetiology of cardiomyopathy (ICM and non-ICM, respectively).Methods and resultsThe clinical response to CRT-D was assessed among ICM (n 1046) and non-ICM (n=774) patients enrolled in MADIT-CRT during an average follow-up of 2.4 years, and echocardiographic response was assessed at 1 year. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator vs. ICD therapy was associated with respective 34 (P=0.001) and 44 (P=0.002) reductions in the risk of heart failure or death among ICM and non-ICM patients (P for interaction 0.455). In the ICM group, CRT-D was associated with mean (±SD) 29 ± 14 and 18 ± 10 reductions in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), respectively. In the non-ICM group, CRT-D was associated with significantly greater volume reductions compared with the ICM group [37 ± 16 and 24 ± 12 reductions in LVESV and LVEDV, respectively (P < 0.001 for all)]. Risk subsets in the ICM group that showed a favourable clinical response to CRT-D included patients with QRS ≥150 ms, systolic blood pressure <115 mmHg, and left bundle branch block (LBBB), whereas in the non-ICM group females, patients with diabetes mellitus, and LBBB, displayed a favourable clinical response.ConclusionMildly symptomatic ICM and non-ICM patients show significant differences in the echocardiographic response to CRT-D and in the clinical benefit within risk subsets suggesting that risk assessment for CRT-D in this population should be aetiology-specific.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1622-1630
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Heart Journal
Volume32
Issue number13
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
Defibrillators
Cardiomyopathies
Stroke Volume
Bundle-Branch Block
Blood Pressure
Risk Reduction Behavior
Diabetes Mellitus
Heart Failure

Keywords

  • Cardiac resynchronization therapy
  • Heart failure
  • Ischaemic aetiology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Barsheshet, A., Goldenberg, I., Moss, A. J., Eldar, M., Huang, D. T., McNitt, S., ... Daubert, J. P. (2011). Response to preventive cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischaemic and nonischaemic cardiomyopathy in MADIT-CRT. European Heart Journal, 32(13), 1622-1630. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehq407

Response to preventive cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischaemic and nonischaemic cardiomyopathy in MADIT-CRT. / Barsheshet, Alon; Goldenberg, Ilan; Moss, Arthur J.; Eldar, Michael; Huang, David T.; McNitt, Scott; Klein, Helmut U.; Hall, W. Jackson; Brown, Mary W.; Goldberger, Jeffrey; Goldstein, Robert E.; Schuger, Claudio; Zareba, Wojciech; Daubert, James P.

In: European Heart Journal, Vol. 32, No. 13, 01.07.2011, p. 1622-1630.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Barsheshet, A, Goldenberg, I, Moss, AJ, Eldar, M, Huang, DT, McNitt, S, Klein, HU, Hall, WJ, Brown, MW, Goldberger, J, Goldstein, RE, Schuger, C, Zareba, W & Daubert, JP 2011, 'Response to preventive cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischaemic and nonischaemic cardiomyopathy in MADIT-CRT', European Heart Journal, vol. 32, no. 13, pp. 1622-1630. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehq407
Barsheshet, Alon ; Goldenberg, Ilan ; Moss, Arthur J. ; Eldar, Michael ; Huang, David T. ; McNitt, Scott ; Klein, Helmut U. ; Hall, W. Jackson ; Brown, Mary W. ; Goldberger, Jeffrey ; Goldstein, Robert E. ; Schuger, Claudio ; Zareba, Wojciech ; Daubert, James P. / Response to preventive cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischaemic and nonischaemic cardiomyopathy in MADIT-CRT. In: European Heart Journal. 2011 ; Vol. 32, No. 13. pp. 1622-1630.
@article{e57b9e6f25284f998b0dc7f7248504e5,
title = "Response to preventive cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischaemic and nonischaemic cardiomyopathy in MADIT-CRT",
abstract = "AimsThere are no data regarding the differential response to cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) by the aetiology of cardiomyopathy in mildly symptomatic patients. We evaluated the outcome of patients enrolled in MADIT-CRT by ischaemic and non-ischaemic aetiology of cardiomyopathy (ICM and non-ICM, respectively).Methods and resultsThe clinical response to CRT-D was assessed among ICM (n 1046) and non-ICM (n=774) patients enrolled in MADIT-CRT during an average follow-up of 2.4 years, and echocardiographic response was assessed at 1 year. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator vs. ICD therapy was associated with respective 34 (P=0.001) and 44 (P=0.002) reductions in the risk of heart failure or death among ICM and non-ICM patients (P for interaction 0.455). In the ICM group, CRT-D was associated with mean (±SD) 29 ± 14 and 18 ± 10 reductions in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), respectively. In the non-ICM group, CRT-D was associated with significantly greater volume reductions compared with the ICM group [37 ± 16 and 24 ± 12 reductions in LVESV and LVEDV, respectively (P < 0.001 for all)]. Risk subsets in the ICM group that showed a favourable clinical response to CRT-D included patients with QRS ≥150 ms, systolic blood pressure <115 mmHg, and left bundle branch block (LBBB), whereas in the non-ICM group females, patients with diabetes mellitus, and LBBB, displayed a favourable clinical response.ConclusionMildly symptomatic ICM and non-ICM patients show significant differences in the echocardiographic response to CRT-D and in the clinical benefit within risk subsets suggesting that risk assessment for CRT-D in this population should be aetiology-specific.",
keywords = "Cardiac resynchronization therapy, Heart failure, Ischaemic aetiology",
author = "Alon Barsheshet and Ilan Goldenberg and Moss, {Arthur J.} and Michael Eldar and Huang, {David T.} and Scott McNitt and Klein, {Helmut U.} and Hall, {W. Jackson} and Brown, {Mary W.} and Jeffrey Goldberger and Goldstein, {Robert E.} and Claudio Schuger and Wojciech Zareba and Daubert, {James P.}",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/eurheartj/ehq407",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "1622--1630",
journal = "European Heart Journal",
issn = "0195-668X",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "13",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response to preventive cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischaemic and nonischaemic cardiomyopathy in MADIT-CRT

AU - Barsheshet, Alon

AU - Goldenberg, Ilan

AU - Moss, Arthur J.

AU - Eldar, Michael

AU - Huang, David T.

AU - McNitt, Scott

AU - Klein, Helmut U.

AU - Hall, W. Jackson

AU - Brown, Mary W.

AU - Goldberger, Jeffrey

AU - Goldstein, Robert E.

AU - Schuger, Claudio

AU - Zareba, Wojciech

AU - Daubert, James P.

PY - 2011/7/1

Y1 - 2011/7/1

N2 - AimsThere are no data regarding the differential response to cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) by the aetiology of cardiomyopathy in mildly symptomatic patients. We evaluated the outcome of patients enrolled in MADIT-CRT by ischaemic and non-ischaemic aetiology of cardiomyopathy (ICM and non-ICM, respectively).Methods and resultsThe clinical response to CRT-D was assessed among ICM (n 1046) and non-ICM (n=774) patients enrolled in MADIT-CRT during an average follow-up of 2.4 years, and echocardiographic response was assessed at 1 year. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator vs. ICD therapy was associated with respective 34 (P=0.001) and 44 (P=0.002) reductions in the risk of heart failure or death among ICM and non-ICM patients (P for interaction 0.455). In the ICM group, CRT-D was associated with mean (±SD) 29 ± 14 and 18 ± 10 reductions in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), respectively. In the non-ICM group, CRT-D was associated with significantly greater volume reductions compared with the ICM group [37 ± 16 and 24 ± 12 reductions in LVESV and LVEDV, respectively (P < 0.001 for all)]. Risk subsets in the ICM group that showed a favourable clinical response to CRT-D included patients with QRS ≥150 ms, systolic blood pressure <115 mmHg, and left bundle branch block (LBBB), whereas in the non-ICM group females, patients with diabetes mellitus, and LBBB, displayed a favourable clinical response.ConclusionMildly symptomatic ICM and non-ICM patients show significant differences in the echocardiographic response to CRT-D and in the clinical benefit within risk subsets suggesting that risk assessment for CRT-D in this population should be aetiology-specific.

AB - AimsThere are no data regarding the differential response to cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) by the aetiology of cardiomyopathy in mildly symptomatic patients. We evaluated the outcome of patients enrolled in MADIT-CRT by ischaemic and non-ischaemic aetiology of cardiomyopathy (ICM and non-ICM, respectively).Methods and resultsThe clinical response to CRT-D was assessed among ICM (n 1046) and non-ICM (n=774) patients enrolled in MADIT-CRT during an average follow-up of 2.4 years, and echocardiographic response was assessed at 1 year. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator vs. ICD therapy was associated with respective 34 (P=0.001) and 44 (P=0.002) reductions in the risk of heart failure or death among ICM and non-ICM patients (P for interaction 0.455). In the ICM group, CRT-D was associated with mean (±SD) 29 ± 14 and 18 ± 10 reductions in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), respectively. In the non-ICM group, CRT-D was associated with significantly greater volume reductions compared with the ICM group [37 ± 16 and 24 ± 12 reductions in LVESV and LVEDV, respectively (P < 0.001 for all)]. Risk subsets in the ICM group that showed a favourable clinical response to CRT-D included patients with QRS ≥150 ms, systolic blood pressure <115 mmHg, and left bundle branch block (LBBB), whereas in the non-ICM group females, patients with diabetes mellitus, and LBBB, displayed a favourable clinical response.ConclusionMildly symptomatic ICM and non-ICM patients show significant differences in the echocardiographic response to CRT-D and in the clinical benefit within risk subsets suggesting that risk assessment for CRT-D in this population should be aetiology-specific.

KW - Cardiac resynchronization therapy

KW - Heart failure

KW - Ischaemic aetiology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79951477105&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79951477105&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq407

DO - 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq407

M3 - Article

C2 - 21075774

AN - SCOPUS:79951477105

VL - 32

SP - 1622

EP - 1630

JO - European Heart Journal

JF - European Heart Journal

SN - 0195-668X

IS - 13

ER -