47CRT-D versus CRT-P: are we on the right track?
Authors: Stassen J , Scherrenberg M , Vijgen J , Dilling D , Herbots L , Timmermans PH J , Schurmans J , Verwerft J , Koopman P 
Published: June 2020

Introduction

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) have both proven to reduce mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). However, randomised trials comparing CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P) vs CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) are lacking. Understanding a patient’s primary mode of death is therefore important as this may guide the proper use of CRT systems and avoid risks that are associated with under -or overtreatment with an ICD. 

Purpose 

This study aims to analyse the mode of death and the occurrence of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in patients who received a CRT-P or CRT-D. This may help in the future selection for an appropriate cardiac device in patients with HF. 

Methods 

Patients with HF undergoing CRT-P or CRT-D implantation in a tertiary hospital between January 2008 and December 2018 were retrospectively evaluated. CRT indications were in compliance with the ESC guidelines. The decision to implant CRT-D or CRT-P in primary prevention was left at the discretion of the treating physician but was based on ESC clinical guidance. Life threatening VAs (sustained ventricular tachycardia &gt; 30s not requiring therapy or appropriate therapy for VAs) and mode of death were analysed. 

Results 

511 patients were implanted with a CRT (CRT-D/CRT-P; n = 311/200) of which 410 (CRT-D/CRT-P; n= 245/165) were followed in our centre for 63,5 ± 38,1 months. Patients with CRT-P were older (77,6 ± 8,1 vs 66,8 ± 9,5 years; p &lt;0,001), more often female (39,4 vs 26,9%; p 0,006), had more a non-ischaemic cause (61,2 vs 44,9%; p 0,001) and a significant higher comorbidity burden. They also received less treatment with neurohumoral blockers. Baseline LVEF was higher in the CRT-P group (33,1 ± 8,9 vs 28,0 ± 7,6%, p &lt;0,001). 6 months follow-up showed a similar increase in LVEF in the CRT-P vs CRT-D group (+10,3 ± 9,6 vs +11,4 ± 10,8%, p 0,38).

Main reasons to choose for CRT-P were RV-pacing induced cardiomyopathy (CMP) (26,1%), multiple comorbidities (18,8%), HF complicated by high degree AV block or AV junction ablation (18,2%), non-ischaemic CMP with suspected good CRT response (10,3%), age (7,3%), other (19,3%).

6/165 patients with CRT-P (3,6%), of which 5 were detected by remoted telemonitoring, vs 51/245 with CRT-D (20,8%) experienced episodes of life-threatening arrhythmias (p &lt;0,001). All-cause mortality was higher in the CRT-P vs CRT-D group (36,4 vs 25,3%, p 0,005). However, the CRT-P group had a predominant non-cardiac mode of death (70,9 vs 43,3%, p &lt;0,001). Death secondary to a tachyarrhythmic event was present in only 1 patient (1,7%) in the CRT-P group. 

Conclusions

Guided by clinical parameters and presence of competitive non-cardiac causes of death, adequate decision between CRT-P or CRT-D implantation can be made. In our cohort, sudden cardiac death in the CRT-P group occurred only once. Remote monitoring is able to identify a subgroup of patients potentially benefiting from an upgrade from CRT-P to CRT-D.