The effects of aetiology on outcome in patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy in the CARE-HF trial

Aims: Cardiac dyssynchrony is common in patients with heart failure, whether or not they have ischaemic heart disease (IHD). The effect of the underlying cause of cardiac dysfunction on the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is unknown. This issue was addressed using data from the CARE-HF trial.Methods and resultsPatients (n = 813) were grouped by heart failure aetiology (IHD n = 339 vs. non-IHD n = 473), and the primary composite (all-cause mortality or unplanned hospitalization for a major cardiovascular event) and principal secondary (all-cause mortality) endpoints analysed. Heart failure severity and the degree of dyssynchrony were compared between the groups by analysing baseline clinical and echocardiographic variables. Patients with IHD were more likely to be in NYHA class IV (7.5 vs. 4.0; P = 0.03) and to have higher NT-proBNP levels (2182 vs. 1725 pg/L), indicating more advanced heart failure. The degree of dyssynchrony was more pronounced in patients without IHD (assessed using mean QRS duration, interventricular mechanical delay, and aorta-pulmonary pre-ejection time). Left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular end-systolic volume improved to a lesser extent in the IHD group (4.53 vs. 8.50 and -35.68 vs. -58.52 cm 3). Despite these differences, CRT improved all-cause mortality, NYHA class, and hospitalization rates to a similar extent in patients with or without IHD.ConclusionThe benefits of CRT in patients with or without IHD were similar in relative terms in the CARE-HF study but as patients with IHD had a worse prognosis, the benefit in absolute terms may be greater

Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from the CARE-HF trial

AimsWhilst the CArdiac REsynchronization in Heart Failure (CARE-HF) trial has shown that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) leads to reduced morbidity and mortality, the cost-effectiveness of this therapy remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained and incremental cost per life year gained of CRT plus medical therapy compared to medical therapy alone.Methods and resultsThis prospective analysis based on intention to treat data from all patients enrolled in the CARE-HF trial at 82 clinical centres in 12 European countries. A total of 813 patients with New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction and cardiac dyssynchrony were randomized to CRT plus medical therapy (n=409) vs. medical therapy alone (n=404). During a mean follow-up of 29.4 months CRT was associated with increased costs (€4316, 95% CI: 1327–7485), survival (0.10 years, 95% CI: -0.01–0.21), and QALYs (0.22, 95% CI: 0.13–0.32). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €19319 per QALY gained (95% CI: 5482–45402) and €43596 per life-year gained (95% CI: -146236–223849). These results were sensitive to the costs of the device, procedure, and hospitalization.ConclusionTreatment with CRT appears cost-effective at the notional willingness to pay threshold of €29400 (£20000) per QALY gained

Longer-term effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on mortality in heart failure [the CArdiac REsynchronization-Heart Failure (CARE-HF) trial extension phase]

AIMS: The CArdiac REsynchronization-Heart Failure study randomized patients with left ventricular ejection fraction < or =35%, markers of cardiac dyssynchrony, and persistent moderate or severe symptoms of heart failure despite pharmacological therapy, to implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device or not. The main study observed substantial benefits on morbidity and mortality during a mean follow-up of 29.4 months [median 29.6, interquartile range (IQR) 23.6-34.6]. Prior to study closure, an extension phase lasting a further 8 months (allowing time for data analysis and presentation) was declared during which cross-over was discouraged. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was an extension of the already reported open-label randomized trial described above. The primary outcome of the extension phase was all-cause mortality from the time of randomization to completion of the extension phase. The secondary outcome was mode of death. The mean follow-up was 37.4 months (median 37.6, IQR 31.5-42.5, range 26.1-52.6 months). There were 154 deaths (38.1%) in 404 patients assigned to medical therapy and 101 deaths (24.7%) in 409 patients assigned to CRT (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.47-0.77, P<0.0001) without evidence of heterogeneity in pre-specified subgroups. A reduction in the risk of death due to heart failure (64 vs. 38 deaths; hazard ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.82, P=0.003) and sudden death was observed (55 vs. 32; hazard ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.84, P=0.005). CONCLUSION: The benefits of CRT observed in the main trial persist or increase with longer follow-up. Reduction in mortality was due to fewer deaths both from worsening heart failure and from sudden death

Surface electrocardiogram to predict outcome in candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy: a sub-analysis of the CARE-HF trial

International audienceAIMS: In CARE-HF, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) lowered morbidity and mortality in patients with moderate to severe heart failure. We examined whether baseline and follow-up electrocardiographic characteristics might predict long-term outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: CARE-HF randomly assigned 409 patients to medical therapy (MT) plus CRT, and 404 patients to MT alone. Electrocardiographic measurements were made at baseline during sinus rhythm, and at 3 months during paced or spontaneous rhythm depending on treatment assignment. Favourable outcome was defined as freedom from death, urgent transplantation, or cardiovascular hospitalization. Among patients assigned to CRT, 39% had unfavourable outcomes including 55 deaths. By single variable analysis, (i) prolonged PR interval, left QRS axis (but not QRS duration), and left bundle branch block (BBB) at baseline, and (ii) heart rate, PR, and QRS duration at 3 months predicted unfavourable outcome. By multiple variable analysis, treatment assignment (P = 0.0001), PR (P = 0.0004), and right BBB (P < 0.00013) at baseline predicted outcome, whereas baseline JTc and QRS duration at 3 months predicted all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization (P = 0.0071). CONCLUSION: In CARE-HF, QRS duration at baseline did not predict outcome, but QRS at 3 months was a predictor by single variable analysis. Patients with prolonged PR interval and the 5% of patients with right BBB had a particularly high event rate

Clinical course and outcome of patients enrolled in US and non-US centres in MADIT-CRT

n/