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

Midterm benefits of left univentricular pacing in patients with congestive heart failure.

International audienceBACKGROUND: Resynchronization therapy by simultaneous pacing of the right and left ventricles has gained wide acceptance as a useful treatment for patients with severe congestive heart failure. Several short-term hemodynamic studies in humans and animals failed to demonstrate any benefit of biventricular pacing over left univentricular pacing, but long-term studies on this pacing mode are lacking. The objective of this study was to assess the outcome over a 1-year period of patients paced exclusively in the left ventricle. METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinical, angiographic, echocardiographic, and ergometric data were collected at baseline and after 12 months in 22 patients (age, 69.3+/-6.5 years) with NYHA class III or IV (10 patients), sinus rhythm, left bundle-branch block, and no bradycardia indication for pacing. After 12 months, compared with baseline values, NYHA class improved significantly by 40% (P<0.0001), 6-minute walk distance by 30% (P=0.01), peak VO2 by 26% (P=0.01), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter by 5% (P=0.02), ejection fraction by 22% (P=0.07), mitral regurgitation area by 40% (P=0.01), and norepinephrine level by 37% (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe congestive heart failure, sinus rhythm, and left bundle-branch block despite optimal pharmacological treatment, left univentricular pacing is feasible and results in significant midterm benefit in exercise tolerance and left ventricular function

Long-term effects of upgrading from right ventricular pacing to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure.

In patients with heart failure who are RV-paced, upgrading to CRT is associated with a similar long-term risk of mortality and morbidity to patients undergoing de novo CRT. Symptomatic improvements and degree of reverse remodelling are also comparable