Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 15, 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
Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and renal insufficiency
Evan C Adelstein1, Alaa Shalaby, Samir Saba
1Cardiovascular Institute, Electrophysiology Section, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. adelsteinec@upmc.edu
Background:
Renal insufficiency (RI) adversely impacts prognosis in heart failure (HF) patients, partly because renal and cardiac dysfunction are intertwined, yet few cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) studies have examined patients with moderate-to-severe RI.
Methods:
We analyzed 787 CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) recipients with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) measured prior to implant. Patients were grouped by GFR (in mL/min/1.73 m(2)): >or=60 (n = 376), 30-59 (n = 347), and <30 (n = 64). Overall survival, changes in left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction and LV end-systolic diameter, and GFR change at 3-6 months were compared among CRT-D groups and with a control cohort (n = 88), also stratified by GFR, in whom LV lead implant was unsuccessful and a standard defibrillator (SD) was placed. All patients met clinical criteria for CRT-D.
Results:
Among CRT-D recipients, overall survival improved incrementally with higher baseline GFR (for each 10 mL/min/1.73 m(2) increase, corrected hazard ratio [HR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.30, P < 0.0001). Survival among SD and CRT-D patients within GFR < 30 and GFR >or= 60 groups was similar, whereas CRT-D recipients with GFR 30-59 had significantly better survival compared to SD counterparts (HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.34-3.70; P = 0.002). This survival benefit was associated with improved renal and cardiac function. CRT recipients with GFR >or= 60 derived significant echocardiographic benefit but experienced a GFR decline, whereas those with GFR < 30 had no echocardiographic benefit but did improve GFR.
Conclusions:
CRT may provide the largest survival benefit in HF patients with moderate RI, perhaps by improving GFR and LV function. Severe baseline RI predicts poor survival and limited echocardiographic improvement despite a modest GFR increase, such that CRT may not benefit those with GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2). CRT recipients with normal renal function derive echocardiographic benefit but no overall survival advantage.
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies
Heart Failure Drugs: Inhibitors of Renin-Angiotensin System
Heart Failure V: Medical Management
Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy
Heart Failure Drugs: Diuretics
Extracorporeal Removal of Drugs: Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy
