Guglin Maya, Barold S Serge
Department of Cardiology, University of South Florida, 2 Tampa General Circle, Suite 5074, Tampa, FL 33618, USA.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2012 Aug;34(2):197-204. doi: 10.1007/s10840-011-9639-0. Epub 2011 Dec 17.
Three recent trials have demonstrated the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II patients with heart failure (HF) with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy as well as in NYHA class I (asymptomatic) patients mostly with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Earlier intervention with CRT in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients improves survival and reduces HF hospitalizations. The reduction or the prevention of HF hospitalizations is of paramount importance because the HF episodes seem to alter the natural history of disease and are associated with deterioration of left ventricular (LV) function and a marked increase in mortality. The CRT benefit is greatest in patients with a QRS ≥ 150 ms. At this time, it would seem prudent to consider CRT-D (D = ICD) therapy for class I NYHA patients with a QRS ≥ 150 ms and an LV ejection fraction ≤ 30% regardless of etiology. Although the data for NYHA class I patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy are scanty, the recommendation for class I patients is justified because CRT achieves a much greater degree of LV reverse remodeling in nonischemic compared to ischemic patients. With regard to lone ICDs, there is no evidence that they prevent sudden cardiac death more efficiently in symptomatic than in asymptomatic patients. Cardiomyopathy should be the primary target for device therapy regardless of symptoms for both CRT and lone ICD therapy. New guidelines are needed to address the role of CRT in hospitalized NYHA class IV HF patients or those who depend on inotropic therapy or an LV assist device because randomized CRT trials have not included these patients. CRT in these patients remains controversial. The mortality of such patients even with CRT is very high despite the occasional positive response. The role of CRT in patients waiting for cardiac transplantation also needs guidelines. With the expansion of CRT indications to minimally symptomatic or asymptomatic patients, the benefit of device therapy must be carefully weighed against the potential risk of lifelong device complications.
最近的三项试验表明,心脏再同步治疗(CRT)对纽约心脏协会(NYHA)心功能II级的缺血性或非缺血性心肌病心力衰竭(HF)患者以及大多为缺血性心肌病的NYHA心功能I级(无症状)患者有益。对无症状或症状轻微的患者早期进行CRT干预可提高生存率并减少HF住院次数。减少或预防HF住院至关重要,因为HF发作似乎会改变疾病的自然病程,并与左心室(LV)功能恶化和死亡率显著增加相关。CRT对QRS≥150 ms的患者益处最大。此时,对于QRS≥150 ms且LV射血分数≤30%的NYHA心功能I级患者,无论病因如何,考虑CRT-D(D =植入式心脏除颤器)治疗似乎是谨慎的做法。尽管NYHA心功能I级非缺血性心肌病患者的数据较少,但对I级患者的推荐是合理的,因为与缺血性患者相比,CRT在非缺血性患者中实现了更大程度的LV逆向重构。关于单独植入ICD,没有证据表明它们在有症状的患者中比无症状的患者更有效地预防心脏性猝死。无论症状如何,心肌病都应是CRT和单独植入ICD治疗的器械治疗主要目标。需要新的指南来阐明CRT在住院的NYHA心功能IV级HF患者或依赖正性肌力治疗或LV辅助装置的患者中的作用,因为CRT随机试验未纳入这些患者。CRT在这些患者中仍存在争议。尽管偶尔有阳性反应,但这类患者即使接受CRT治疗死亡率也非常高。CRT在等待心脏移植患者中的作用也需要指南。随着CRT适应症扩展到症状轻微或无症状的患者,必须仔细权衡器械治疗的益处与终身器械并发症的潜在风险。