Optimizing outcomes from cardiac resynchronization therapy: what do recent data and insights say?
Felicity de Vere1,2, Nadeev Wijesuriya1,2, Sandra Howell1,2
1School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Introduction:
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for heart failure (HF) in approximately two-thirds of recipients, with a third remaining CRT 'non-responders.' There is an increasing body of evidence exploring the reasons behind non-response, as well as ways to preempt or counteract it.
Areas Covered:
This review will examine the most recent evidence regarding optimizing outcomes from CRT, as well as explore whether traditional CRT indeed remains the best first-line therapy for electrical resynchronization in HF. We will start by discussing methods of preempting non-response, such as refining patient selection and procedural technique, before reviewing how responses can be optimized post-implantation. For the purpose of this review, evidence was gathered from electronic literature searches (via PubMed and GoogleScholar), with a particular focus on primary evidence published in the last 5 years.
Expert Opinion:
Ever-expanding research in the field of device therapy has armed physicians with more tools than ever to treat dyssynchronous HF. Newer developments, such as artificial intelligence (AI) guided device programming and conduction system pacing (CSP) are particularly exciting, and we will discuss how they could eventually lead to truly personalized care by maximizing outcomes from CRT.
