Elsevier

Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases

Volume 66, May–June 2021, Pages 46-52
Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases

Cardiac resynchronization therapy using a pacemaker or a defibrillator: Patient selection and evidence to support it

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2021.04.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment for patients with heart failure (HF), myocardial dysfunction and prolonged ventricular depolarization on surface electrocardiogram. CRT can be delivered by a pacemaker (CRT-P) or a combined pacemaker-defibrillator (CRT-D). Although these two types of devices are very different in size, function, and cost, current published guidelines do not distinguish between them, leaving the choice of which device to implant to the treating physician and the informed patient. In this paper, we review the published CRT clinical trial literature with focus on the outcomes of HF patients treated with CRT-P versus CRT-D. We also attempt to provide guidance as to the appropriate choice of CRT device type, in the absence of randomized prospective trials geared to answer this specific question.

Section snippets

Background

Heart failure (HF)1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is a disease of epidemic proportions in the United States (US) affecting over 5 million individuals. While the incidence of many diseases in the US is decreasing, HF represents one of few human diseases that are increasing in frequency.2,3 It is estimated than nearly 400,000 new cases of HF will be diagnosed in the next year,2 one million patients will be hospitalized, and 300,000 patients will die from HF in the US3. Although the development of new medications

CRT using a pacemaker (CRT-P) versus a defibrillator (CRT-D)

CRT can be delivered through a pacemaker (CRT-P) or a combined pacemaker-defibrillator (CRT-D). CRT-P devices are smaller (i.e. require a smaller surgical incision at implantation and protrude less under the skin) and cost a fraction of the price of CRT-D devices (cost of CRT-D is roughly $36,000 compared to $16,000 for CRT-P).12 Compared to optimal pharmacological treatment, both CRT-P and CRT-D have been shown in RCTs9,10 to reduce all-cause mortality and improve patient symptoms and cardiac

Current practices of implanting CRT devices in the US and other parts of the world

Absent clear guidance from cardiac societies on the choice of CRT device type, the practice across the world has gravitated towards more CRT-D implantations, with significant variations by region of the world and specific countries, perhaps partially driven by economic considerations.14,15 The preponderance of CRT-D use likely reflects the common notion among providers that defibrillator function adds protection to CRT recipients but also results from the fact that the indications for CRT and

Arguments for and against the use of defibrillator therapy in addition to CRT

Although it seems plausible that the CRT-D adds protection to HF patients, since it can serve as a safety net in the event of the occurrence of lethal VAs, this is not as plausible as it may seem on first examination. Conceptually, in the presence of one life-saving therapy (i.e. CRT), another life-saving therapy (i.e. an ICD) does not necessarily confer additive survival benefit, particularly when the burden of VAs is reduced with CRT in the context of improved cardiomyopathy and HF symptoms.11

Guidance as to the choice of the type of CRT device

Given the absence of clear guidance from published guidelines13 with regards to CRT device choice, many in the US have and continue to err on the side of ‘safety’ by overwhelmingly choosing to implant CRT-D devices. These trends are in part tempered in other parts of the world, partially driven by economic considerations. With these patterns of practice, there may be some reluctance from industry sponsors to fund trials of CRT-P versus CRT-D in all CRT-eligible HF patients or in a subset of

The way forward: an urgent need for device specific CRT guidelines

There is an evident paucity of information that guides the choice of CRT device in HF patients, particularly when it comes to randomized controlled data that can change guidelines and alter practice patterns. Except for the COMPANION trial9 which randomized HF patients to CRT-P, CRT-D, or guideline directed medical therapy, and has shown no significant outcome differences between the two CRT treatment arms, no other randomized trials have examined the impact of CRT device choice on mortality or

Disclosures

Dr. Saba reports research support from Abbott, Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr. Canterbury has nothing to disclose.

References (50)

  • H. Abu Daya et al.

    Echocardiography-guided left ventricular Lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy in ischemic vs nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients

    Heart Rhythm

    (2014)
  • C. Linde et al.

    Long-term benefits of biventricular pacing in congestive heart failure: results from the MUltisite STimulation in cardiomyopathy (MUSTIC) study

    J Am Coll Cardiol

    (2002)
  • C. Linde et al.

    REVERSE (REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic left vEntricular dysfunction) Study Group. Randomized trial of cardiac resynchronization in mildly symptomatic heart failure patients and in asymptomatic patients with left ventricular dysfunction and previous heart failure symptoms

    J Am Coll Cardiol

    (2008)
  • P.A. McKee

    Castelli WP MPmkW. The natural history of congestive heart failure: the Framingham study

    N Engl J Med

    (1997)
  • K.K. Ho et al.

    The epidemiology of heart failure: the framingham study

    J Am Coll Cardiol

    (1993)
  • M. Jessup et al.

    Heart failure

    N Engl J Med

    (2003)
  • M. Polikandrioti et al.

    Thomai, Leventzonis I Assessment of quality of life and anxiety in heart failure outpatients

    Arch Med Sci Atheroscler Dis

    (2019 Apr 12)
  • P.A. Heidenreich et al.

    Forecasting the impact of heart failure in the United States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association

    Circ Heart Fail

    (2013)
  • A.E. Epstein et al.

    ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines of cardiac rhythm abnormalities a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines writing committee to revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 guideline update for implantation o

    Circulation.

    (2008)
  • S. Cazeau et al.

    Effects of multisite biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and intraventricular conduction delay

    N Engl J Med

    (2001)
  • M.R. Bristow et al.

    Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure

    N Engl J Med

    (2004)
  • J.G.F. Cleland et al.

    The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure

    N Engl J Med

    (2005)
  • R. Michael et al.

    Economic value and cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy among patients with mild heart failure: projections from the REVERSE long-term follow-up

    JACC: Heart Failure

    (2017)
  • C. Lindvall et al.

    National trends in the utilization of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without implantable-cardioverter defibrillator

    Circulation.

    (2016)
  • M.J.P. Raatikainen et al.

    Statistics on the use of cardiac electronic devices and electrophysiological procedures in the European Society of Cardiology countries: 2014 report from the European Heart Rhythm Association

    Europace

    (2015)
  • Cited by (3)

    • Cardiac resynchronization

      2022, FMC Formacion Medica Continuada en Atencion Primaria
    View full text