Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 13, 2026

Benefits of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in an Asynchronous Heart Failure Model Induced by Left Bundle Branch Ablation and Rapid Pacing
Published on: December 11, 2017
Burden of atrial fibrillation after cardiac resynchronization therapy
1Cardiovascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Insights
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) did not reduce atrial fibrillation (AF) burden in heart failure (HF) patients. However, CRT may delay the onset of new AF in some individuals.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Electrophysiology
- Heart Failure Management
Background:
- Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common complication in patients with chronic heart failure (HF).
- Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a treatment for HF that can improve cardiac function.
- The effect of CRT on AF burden in HF patients remains incompletely understood.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the impact of CRT on atrial fibrillation (AF) burden in patients with chronic heart failure (HF).
- To compare AF burden between CRT responders, nonresponders, and a control group.
Main Methods:
- A cohort study involving 27 patients who underwent CRT implantation without permanent AF.
- Patients were matched with CRT responders and nonresponders based on clinical characteristics.
- Device-documented high atrial rates and mode-switching episodes were analyzed over a median follow-up of 386 days.
Main Results:
- CRT responders showed significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction and NYHA functional class.
- No significant difference in AF burden was observed between CRT patients and controls.
- AF-free follow-up was longer in CRT patients without a prior history of AF.
Conclusions:
- Despite improving cardiac function and clinical status, CRT does not appear to decrease AF burden in HF patients.
- CRT may potentially delay the onset of new-onset AF in certain patient populations.
Abstract:
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may diminish atrial fibrillation (AF) burden in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). Each of 27 patients without permanent AF in whom CRT implantation was unsuccessful was paired with 2 active CRT patients-1 responder and 1 nonresponder-based on age, gender, cause of HF, and history of paroxysmal AF. Device-documented high atrial rates and mode-switching episodes were tabulated during a median follow-up of 386 days. CRT responders had significantly improved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction and New York Heart Association functional class compared with nonresponders and controls. Left atrial dimension change was similar among the groups (+0.03 +/- 0.92 cm controls; -0.18 +/- 0.80 cm responders; -0.11 +/- 1.01 cm nonresponders) despite a significant reduction in mitral regurgitation in responders compared with nonresponders. There was no significant difference in AF burden between controls and patients who underewent CRT when indexed over time. Median AF-free follow-up was significantly longer in patients who underwent CRT without a history of AF (log-rank p = 0.04), but no differences were seen in the overall cohorts. In conclusion, despite inducing LV reverse remodeling and clinical improvement, CRT does not appear to decrease AF burden in responders compared with nonresponders or matched controls in whom CRT implantation failed. CRT may, however, delay onset of new AF.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies
Cardiomyopathy IV: Restrictive Cardiomyopathy
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Cardiomyopathy III: Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Rheumatic Heart Disease I: Introduction

