De novo implantation vs. upgrade cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with conventional pacemakers or implanted defibrillators are often considered for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Our aim was to summarize the available evidences regarding the clinical benefits of upgrade procedures. A systematic literature search was performed from studies published between 2006 and 2017 in order to compare the outcome of CRT upgrade vs. de novo implantations. Outcome data on all-cause mortality, heart failure events, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class, QRS narrowing and echocardiographic parameters were analysed. A total of 16 reports were analysed comprising 489,568 CRT recipients, of whom 468,205 patients underwent de novo and 21,363 upgrade procedures. All-cause mortality was similar after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88-1.60, p = 0.27). The risk of heart failure was also similar in both groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70-1.32, p = 0.81). There was no significant difference in clinical response after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations in terms of improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (DeltaEF de novo - 6.85% vs. upgrade - 9.35%; p = 0.235), NYHA class (DeltaNYHA de novo - 0.74 vs. upgrade - 0.70; p = 0.737) and QRS narrowing (DeltaQRS de novo - 9.6 ms vs. upgrade - 29.5 ms; p = 0.485). Our systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available studies reports that CRT upgrade is associated with similar risk for all-cause mortality compared to de novo resynchronization therapy. Benefits on reverse remodelling and functional capacity improved similarly in both groups suggesting that CRT upgrade may be safely and effectively offered in routine practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero Database-CRD42016043747

The Alberta Heart Failure Etiology and Analysis Research Team (HEART) study

BACKGROUND: Nationally, symptomatic heart failure affects 1.5-2% of Canadians, incurs $3 billion in hospital costs annually and the global burden is expected to double in the next 1–2 decades. The current one-year mortality rate after diagnosis of heart failure remains high at >25%. Consequently, new therapeutic strategies need to be developed for this debilitating condition. METHODS/DESIGN: The objective of the Alberta HEART program (http://albertaheartresearch.ca) is to develop novel diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic approaches to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. We hypothesize that novel imaging techniques and biomarkers will aid in describing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Furthermore, the development of new diagnostic criteria will allow us to: 1) better define risk factors associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; 2) elucidate clinical, cellular and molecular mechanisms involved with the development and progression of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; 3) design and test new therapeutic strategies for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Additionally, Alberta HEART provides training and education for enhancing translational medicine, knowledge translation and clinical practice in heart failure. This is a prospective observational cohort study of patients with, or at risk for, heart failure. Patients will have sequential testing including quality of life and clinical outcomes over 12 months. After that time, study participants will be passively followed via linkage to external administrative databases. Clinical outcomes of interest include death, hospitalization, emergency department visits, physician resource use and/or heart transplant. Patients will be followed for a total of 5 years. DISCUSSION: Alberta HEART has the primary objective to define new diagnostic criteria for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. New criteria will allow for targeted therapies, diagnostic tests and further understanding of the patients, both at-risk for and with heart failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02052804

Chapter 13: Current Management and Treatment

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) is escalating rapidly, consuming significant healthcare resources, inflicts significant morbidity and mortality, and greatly impacts quality of life. Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a frequent cause of HF and is characterized by a progressive course. Nowadays pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies have dramatically changed DCM\u2019s natural history. Familial screening program represents the first step in order to identify preclinic manifestation of DCM: first-degree relatives carrying a disease-causing mutation or without a clear genetic background must perform a periodic clinical and instrumental evaluation. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of HF and LV dysfunction should receive recommended therapies: beta-blockers (BB), ACE inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), aldosterone antagonists, and more recently angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and ivabradine are established therapies for chronic HF. In case of persistent systolic dysfunction and/or severe intraventricular conduction delay, an ICD and/or CRT are indicated. Finally, heart transplantation and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) are options that can be used in critically ill HF who can\u2019t be stabilized by medical therapy alone