Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 8, 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
Cardiac Resynchronization With or Without Defibrillator in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy: A Nationwide Cohort Study
Padmini Selvaganesan1, Mohamad Karnib1,2, Irfan Helmy1,2
1Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH (P.S., M.K., I.H., I.R., M.N.O., R.A., A.I., J.S., V.S.).
Adding a defibrillator to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) did not improve long-term survival in a Veterans Affairs study. Further research is needed to confirm the benefits of CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) versus CRT pacemaker (CRT-P) in NICM patients.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Medical Devices
- Clinical Trials
Background:
- Evolving therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction necessitate clarity on defibrillator benefits during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).
- The specific impact of defibrillators in nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) patients undergoing CRT remains uncertain.
- This study addresses the long-term survival outcomes for NICM patients treated with CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) versus CRT pacemaker (CRT-P).
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the long-term survival rates of patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) receiving CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) compared to CRT pacemaker (CRT-P).
- To assess secondary outcomes including generator replacement, device infections, heart failure hospitalizations, and ventricular arrhythmias in NICM patients undergoing CRT.
Main Methods:
- A multicenter cohort study (DECIDE-CRT) analyzed data from 170 US Veterans Affairs hospitals.
- Patients with NICM receiving primary-prevention CRT-P or CRT-D between 2006 and 2020 were identified.
- Propensity score weighting and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to balance baseline characteristics and estimate all-cause mortality hazards.
Main Results:
- Of 3965 NICM patients, 3158 received CRT-D and 807 received CRT-P.
- After a median follow-up of 5.2 years, the adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.71-1.13; P=0.34), showing no significant difference.
- The CRT-D group experienced higher rates of generator replacement and device-related infections, with no significant difference in heart failure hospitalization rates.
Conclusions:
- This nationwide observational study did not find a clear survival advantage for adding a defibrillator to CRT in NICM patients.
- Residual confounding cannot be excluded, highlighting the need for further investigation.
- A randomized trial is recommended to definitively test the incremental value of CRT-D over CRT-P in the NICM population.
More Related Videos
10:17Real-Time Cardiac Mapping with a Noninvasive Imageless Electrocardiographic Imaging System
Published on: April 11, 2025
18:11A Research Method For Detecting Transient Myocardial Ischemia In Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome Using Continuous ST-segment Analysis
Published on: December 28, 2012
Related Concept Videos
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Cardiomyopathy IV: Restrictive Cardiomyopathy
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Cardiomyopathy III: Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Cardiomyopathy I: Introduction and Classification