Future New Indications for CRT: Which Patients Might Benefit?
Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) is a non-pharmacological treatment for patients with severe congestive heart failure (CHF) due to systolic dysfunction who also present an intraventricular conduction abnormality and a QRS duration greater than 120 ms . CRT has been shown to improve functional status, quality of life, and exercise tolerance and to decrease hospitalisation frequency in these patients: recent results of the MUSTIC  and MIRACLE  trials are consistent in showing an improvement in NYHA class, quality of life scores, and distance covered during a 6-min walking test. A decrease in dynamic mitral regurgitation, increase in left ventricular ejection fraction, and reverse remodelling effect on the left ventricle has also been noted. The COMPANION study has recently demonstrated that CRT provides significantly better results regarding a combined endpoint of mortality and heart failure hospitalisation .
Consequently, CRT has been included in the current American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology guidelines for the implantation of permanent pacemakers as a therapeutic option for patients with systolic heart failure, NYHA class ≥ 3, QRS duration ≥ 130 ms, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter ≥ 55 mm and ejection fraction < 35% . According to these criteria, between 13% and 35% of patients with heart failure would be eligible for CRT [6, 7]. However, a growing body of evidence seems to suggest that a larger proportion of heart failure patients could benefit of CRT. Some of the ‘new’ indications for CRT are discussed in this paper.
KeywordsMitral Regurgitation Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy NYHA Class Heart Failure Hospitalisation Mechanical Dyssynchrony
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Hlatky MA, Massie BM (2004) Cardiac resynchronization for heart failure. Ann Intern Med 141:409–410Google Scholar
- 5.A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/NASPE Committee on Pacemaker Implantation). ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 guideline update for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrhythmia devices. American College of Cardiology website. Accessed October 12, 2002Google Scholar
- 10.Lamp B, Vogt J, Faber L et al (2004) Extended indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy? Eur Heart J 6(Suppl D): D128–D131Google Scholar
- 17.Funck RC, Mueller HH, Schade-Brittinger C et al (2003) Rationale, design and end points of a clinical study on biventricular pacing for atrioventricular block in left ventricular dysfunction to prevent cardiac desynchronization—the BIOPACE study. Europace, Suppl B, P–167 (B106)Google Scholar
- 18.Baldessaroni S, De Biase L, Fresco C et al (2002) Cumulative effect of complete left bundle-branch block and chronic atrial fibrillation on 1-year mortality and hospitalization in patients with congestive heart failure. A report from the Italian network on congestive heart failure. Eur Heart J 23:1692–1698Google Scholar
- 20.Young B, Abraham WT (2003) Cardiac resynchronization limits disease progression in patients with mild heart failure and an indication for ICD—results of a randomized study. Circulation 108:IV–629Google Scholar
- 21.Bristow MR, Feldman AM, Saxon LA et al (2003) Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces hospitalizations, and CRT with implantable defibrillator (CRT-D) reduces mortality in chronic heart failure: the COMPANION trial. Available at http://www.uchsc.edu/cvi/HFSA%20V3%20Late%20Breakerpresented%209.24.03.pdf. Accessed January 10Google Scholar