University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Advocate Christ Medical Center, Oak Lawn, IL, USA.
Sci Rep. 2020 Feb 13;10(1):2573. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-59117-w.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves outcomes in heart failure patients with wide QRS complex. However, CRT management following continuous flow Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) implant vary: some centers continue CRT while others turn off the left ventricular (LV) lead at LVAD implant. We sought to study the effect of continued CRT versus turning off CRT pacing following continuous flow LVAD implantation. A comprehensive retrospective multicenter cohort of 295 patients with LVAD and pre-existing CRT was studied. CRT was programmed off after LVAD implant in 44 patients. We compared their outcomes to the rest of the cohort using univariate and multivariate models. Mean age was 60 ± 12 years, 83% were males, 52% had ischemic cardiomyopathy and 54% were destination therapy. Mean follow-up was 2.4 ± 2.0 years, and mean LVAD support time was 1.7 ± 1.4 years. Patients with CRT OFF had a higher Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) mean profile (3.9 vs 3.3, p = 0.01), more secondary prevention indication for a defibrillator (64.9% vs 44.5%, p = 0.023), and more pre-LVAD ventricular arrhythmias (VA) (77% vs 60%, p = 0.048). There were no differences between the CRT OFF and CRT ON groups in overall mortality (Log rank p = 0.32, adjusted HR = 1.14 [0.54-2.22], p = 0.71), heart transplantation, cardiac and noncardiac mortality, all cause hospitalizations, hospitalizations for ICD shocks, and number and frequency of ICD shocks or anti-tachycardia pacing therapy. There were no differences in post LVAD atrial arrhythmias (AA) (Adjusted OR = 0.45 [0.18-1.06], p = 0.31) and ventricular arrhythmias (OR = 0.65 [0.41-1.78], p = 0.41). There was no difference in change in LVEF, LV end diastolic and end systolic diameters between the 2 groups. Our study suggests that turning off CRT pacing after LVAD implantation in patients with previous CRT pacing did not affect mortality, heart transplantation, device therapies or arrhythmia burden. A prospective study is needed to confirm these findings.
心脏再同步治疗(CRT)可改善宽 QRS 复合物心力衰竭患者的预后。然而,在连续流动左心室辅助装置(LVAD)植入后,CRT 的管理方式有所不同:一些中心继续进行 CRT,而另一些中心则在 LVAD 植入时关闭左心室(LV)导线。我们旨在研究连续流动 LVAD 植入后继续进行 CRT 与关闭 CRT 起搏的效果。对 295 例接受 LVAD 治疗且存在 CRT 的患者进行了一项全面的回顾性多中心队列研究。在 44 例患者中,LVAD 植入后将 CRT 编程关闭。我们使用单变量和多变量模型将他们的结果与队列的其余部分进行比较。平均年龄为 60±12 岁,83%为男性,52%为缺血性心肌病,54%为终末期心力衰竭。平均随访时间为 2.4±2.0 年,LVAD 支持时间平均为 1.7±1.4 年。CRT-OFF 组的 Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support(INTERMACS)平均评分较高(3.9 比 3.3,p=0.01),二级预防除颤器指征更多(64.9%比 44.5%,p=0.023),LVAD 前室性心律失常更多(77%比 60%,p=0.048)。CRT-OFF 组和 CRT-ON 组在总死亡率(Log rank p=0.32,调整后的 HR=1.14[0.54-2.22],p=0.71)、心脏移植、心脏和非心脏死亡率、全因住院率、ICD 电击治疗住院率、ICD 电击或抗心动过速起搏治疗的次数和频率方面均无差异。LVAD 后房性心律失常(调整后的 OR=0.45[0.18-1.06],p=0.31)和室性心律失常(OR=0.65[0.41-1.78],p=0.31)无差异。两组间左心室射血分数、LV 舒张末期和收缩末期直径的变化无差异。我们的研究表明,在先前接受 CRT 起搏的 LVAD 植入患者中关闭 CRT 起搏不会影响死亡率、心脏移植、器械治疗或心律失常负担。需要进行前瞻性研究来证实这些发现。