Age-Stratified Clinical Outcome in Patients with Known Heart Failure Who Receive Pacemaker, Resynchronization
Cecilia Rorsman1,2, Maiwand Farouq2,3, Sofia Marinko2,3
1Cardiology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Insights
Patients with heart failure (HF) receiving cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) have varying prognoses. Pacemaker recipients faced higher mortality, while cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients experienced more HF events.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Electrophysiology
- Public Health
Background:
- Patients with heart failure (HF) and bradycardia may receive different cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED).
- Device selection depends on conduction disease, age, and comorbidities.
- Prognosis post-CIED implantation varies by device type.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the 5-year prognosis for HF patients after CIED implantation.
- To stratify outcomes based on the type of CIED device implanted.
- To analyze HF hospitalization and mortality risks across different CIEDs.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective cohort study of 37,745 patients with HF and a right ventricular lead (2005-2018).
- Data sourced from the Swedish Pacemaker Registry, crossmatched with population and national disease registries.
- Primary outcomes: 5-year risk of HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
Main Results:
- Single-chamber pacemaker recipients had the highest 5-year mortality (61%).
- Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients had the highest proportion of cardiovascular mortality.
- Adjusted mortality was higher for pacemaker patients across all age groups; HF hospitalization was most common in CRT-P patients.
Conclusions:
- Device selection for HF patients reflects their overall clinical status.
- HF-related events were observed in all CIED groups.
- CRT-treated patients experienced a higher incidence of HF-related events.
Introduction:
Patients with heart failure (HF) and bradycardia may be eligible for different types of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), depending on the presence of atrioventricular conduction disease, age, and comorbidities. We aimed to assess the prognosis for these patients, after CIED implantation, stratified for the type of CIED device.
Methods:
All patients with preexisting HF diagnosis who received a CIED with a right ventricular lead during the period 2005-2018 in Sweden were identified via the pacemaker registry. Data were crossmatched with the population registry and national disease registries. The outcome was 5-year risk of HF hospitalization and mortality.
Results:
A total of 37,745 patients were included in the study. Comparing demographics for implantable cardioverter defibrillator versus pacemaker implants, median age was 66 years versus 83 years, 20% versus 41% were female, 64% versus 50% had ischemic heart disease, and 35% versus 67% had atrial fibrillation (all p < 0.001). Five-year mortality was highest in single-chamber pacemaker recipients (61% compared to average 40%, p < 0.001), but the proportion of cardiovascular mortality was highest for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients (68% vs. 63% p < 0.001). Adjusted mortality was higher for pacemaker patients in all age decile groups (ranging from <60 to >90 years old, all p < 0.001), HF hospitalization occurred in 28% (dual-chamber pacemaker) to 39% (CRT-P) of patients, and cause of death was HF in 15% (dual-chamber pacemaker) to 25% (CRT-D), all p < 0.001.
Conclusion:
In this large real-world cohort of CIED-treated patients with prior HF, demography and mortality data indicate that clinicians chose devices according to the overall status of the patient. HF-related events occurred in all groups but were more common in CRT-treated patients.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure Drugs: Inotropic Agents
Pathophysiology of Heart Failure
Pulse rhythm
Conversely, an irregular pulse pattern is termed dysrhythmia, stemming from disruptions in cardiac...


