The benefits of defibrillator in heart failure patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines did not provide recommendations on indications of an additional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) to patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and it still remains controversial due to lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials.

METHOD

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from the inception to May 2020 were systematically screened for studies reporting on the comparison of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) and cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacemaker (CRT-P), focusing on the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of all-cause mortality. We pooled the effects using a random-effect model.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies encompassing 69,919 patients were included in this meta-analysis. With no restriction to characteristics of including population, CRT-D was associated with a lower all-cause mortality compared with CRT-P significantly (aHR: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-0.87, I = 36.8%, p < .001). This mortality benefit was also observed in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (aHR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.64-0.86, I = 0%, p < .001). However, there is no significant difference in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) (aHR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82-1.01, I = 0%, p = .087), older age (age ≥75 years, aHR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.83-1.12, I = 0%, p = .610). Subgroup analysis was performed and indicated the survival benefit of CRT-D for primary prevention compared with CRT-P (aHR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.79-0.95, I = 0%, p = .003).

CONCLUSION

After adjusted the differences in clinical characteristics, additional ICD therapy was associated with a reduced all-cause mortality in patients receiving CRT. However, our work suggested that additional ICD may not be applied to elderly (≥75 years) or patients with NICM.