Bristow Michael R, Saxon Leslie A, Boehmer John, Krueger Steven, Kass David A, De Marco Teresa, Carson Peter, DiCarlo Lorenzo, DeMets David, White Bill G, DeVries Dale W, Feldman Arthur M
Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO 80262, USA.
N Engl J Med. 2004 May 20;350(21):2140-50. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa032423.
We tested the hypothesis that prophylactic cardiac-resynchronization therapy in the form of biventricular stimulation with a pacemaker with or without a defibrillator would reduce the risk of death and hospitalization among patients with advanced chronic heart failure and intraventricular conduction delays.
A total of 1520 patients who had advanced heart failure (New York Heart Association class III or IV) due to ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathies and a QRS interval of at least 120 msec were randomly assigned in a 1:2:2 ratio to receive optimal pharmacologic therapy (diuretics, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers, and spironolactone) alone or in combination with cardiac-resynchronization therapy with either a pacemaker or a pacemaker-defibrillator. The primary composite end point was the time to death from or hospitalization for any cause.
As compared with optimal pharmacologic therapy alone, cardiac-resynchronization therapy with a pacemaker decreased the risk of the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.81; P=0.014), as did cardiac-resynchronization therapy with a pacemaker-defibrillator (hazard ratio, 0.80; P=0.01). The risk of the combined end point of death from or hospitalization for heart failure was reduced by 34 percent in the pacemaker group (P<0.002) and by 40 percent in the pacemaker-defibrillator group (P<0.001 for the comparison with the pharmacologic-therapy group). A pacemaker reduced the risk of the secondary end point of death from any cause by 24 percent (P=0.059), and a pacemaker-defibrillator reduced the risk by 36 percent (P=0.003).
In patients with advanced heart failure and a prolonged QRS interval, cardiac-resynchronization therapy decreases the combined risk of death from any cause or first hospitalization and, when combined with an implantable defibrillator, significantly reduces mortality.
我们检验了这样一个假设,即采用带有或不带有除颤器的起搏器进行双心室刺激形式的预防性心脏再同步治疗,会降低晚期慢性心力衰竭和室内传导延迟患者的死亡风险和住院风险。
共有1520例因缺血性或非缺血性心肌病导致晚期心力衰竭(纽约心脏协会III或IV级)且QRS间期至少120毫秒的患者,按1:2:2的比例随机分组,分别接受单纯最佳药物治疗(利尿剂、血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂、β受体阻滞剂和螺内酯),或联合使用起搏器或起搏器除颤器进行心脏再同步治疗。主要复合终点是任何原因导致的死亡或住院时间。
与单纯最佳药物治疗相比,起搏器心脏再同步治疗降低了主要终点的风险(风险比,0.81;P = 0.014),起搏器除颤器心脏再同步治疗同样降低了风险(风险比,0.80;P = 0.01)。起搏器组心力衰竭导致的死亡或住院这一联合终点的风险降低了34%(P < 0.002),起搏器除颤器组降低了40%(与药物治疗组相比,P < 0.001)。起搏器使任何原因导致的死亡这一次要终点的风险降低了24%(P = 0.059),起搏器除颤器使该风险降低了36%(P = 0.003)。
在晚期心力衰竭且QRS间期延长的患者中,心脏再同步治疗降低了任何原因导致的死亡或首次住院的联合风险,并且与植入式除颤器联合使用时,显著降低了死亡率。