The Addition of a Defibrillator to Resynchronization Therapy Decreases Mortality in Patients With Nonischemic
Bethany Doran1, Chaoqun Mei2, Paul D Varosy3
1Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Insights
Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) due to nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (CRT-D). Those with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) do not show this survival advantage.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Electrophysiology
- Heart Failure Management
Background:
- Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is used for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
- The benefit of adding an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) to CRT (CRT-D) versus CRT alone (CRT-P) in nonischemic HFrEF is unclear.
- Understanding the impact of etiology (ischemic vs. nonischemic) on CRT outcomes is crucial.
Purpose of the Study:
- To determine if patients with nonischemic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) benefit from CRT with an ICD (CRT-D) compared to CRT without an ICD (CRT-P).
- To analyze survival benefits based on the etiology of HFrEF.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of the COMPANION trial data.
- Cox proportional hazards modeling stratified by HFrEF etiology: nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM).
- Primary outcome: all-cause mortality (ACM); Secondary outcomes: cardiovascular mortality/heart failure hospitalization, sudden cardiac death.
Main Results:
- In the overall CRT population (n=1,212), CRT-D did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality (ACM) compared to CRT-P (HR 0.84).
- A significant interaction between device type and etiology was observed (p=0.015).
- In NICM patients (n=555), CRT-D was associated with reduced ACM (HR 0.54), while in ICM patients (n=657), CRT-D showed no significant reduction in ACM (HR 1.05).
Conclusions:
- Cardiac resynchronization therapy with an ICD (CRT-D) provides a survival benefit in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM).
- Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) receiving CRT-D did not demonstrate a significant reduction in all-cause mortality compared to CRT-P.
- The findings highlight the importance of considering HFrEF etiology when selecting CRT therapy.
Objectives:
The aim of this study was to determine whether patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) due to nonischemic etiology eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) benefit from an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).
Background:
It is uncertain whether CRT with an ICD (CRT-D) compared to without an ICD (CRT-P) is associated with a survival benefit in patients with nonischemic etiologies of HFrEF.
Methods:
Analyses of the COMPANION (Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure) trial were performed, using Cox proportional hazards modeling stratified by HFrEF etiology of nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) or ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality (ACM), and secondary outcomes were the combination of cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization and sudden cardiac death.
Results:
Among patients randomized to CRT (n = 1,212), 236 (19.5%) died, 131 and 105 in the CRT-P and CRT-D arms, respectively. The unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for CRT-D versus CRT-P were both 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65 to 1.09) for ACM, with a significant device-etiology interaction (pinteraction = 0.015 adjusted; pinteraction = 0.040 unadjusted). In patients with NICM (n = 555), CRT-D versus CRT-P was associated with reduced ACM (adjusted HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.86), while patients with ICM (n = 657) did not exhibit a between-device reduction in ACM (adjusted HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.44). The effects of CRT-D versus CRT-P on sudden cardiac death (advantage CRT-D) and cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization (no difference between CRT-P and CRT-D) were similar between the 2 HFrEF etiologies.
Conclusions:
COMPANION patients with NICM exhibited a decrease in ACM associated with CRT-D but not CRT-P treatment, whereas patients with ICM did not.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management
Dysrhythmias VI: Management of Dysrhythmias
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care


