Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in continuous flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from ELECTRAM Investigators.
Kuldeep Shah, Vallabh Karpe, Mohit K Turagam, Mahek Shah, Andrea Natale, Rakesh Gopinathannair, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, Jalaj Garg
{"title":"Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in continuous flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from ELECTRAM Investigators.","authors":"Kuldeep Shah, Vallabh Karpe, Mohit K Turagam, Mahek Shah, Andrea Natale, Rakesh Gopinathannair, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, Jalaj Garg","doi":"10.4022/jafib.2441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Whether cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) continues to augment left ventricular remodeling in patients with the continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (cf-LVAD) remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all clinical studies examining the role of continued CRT in end-stage heart failure patients with cf-LVAD reporting all-cause mortality, ventricular arrhythmias, and ICD shocks. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) random-effects model was used to summarize data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies (7 retrospective and 1 randomized) with a total of 1,208 unique patients met inclusion criteria. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86 - 1.35, p = 0.51, I2=0%), all-cause hospitalization (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76-1.34, p = 0.95, I<sup>2</sup>=11%), ventricular arrhythmias (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 - 1.39, p = 0.58, I<sup>2</sup> =50%) and ICD shocks (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.57 - 1.33, p = 0.52, I<sup>2</sup> =65%) comparing CRT versus non-CRT. Subgroup analysis demonstrated significant reduction in ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 - 0.90, p = 0.001) and ICD shocks (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 - 0.97, p = 0.04) in \"CRT on\" group versus \"CRT off\" group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CRT was not associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality or increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias and ICD shocks compared to non-CRT in cf-LVAD patients. It remains to be determined which subgroup of cf-LVAD patients benefit from CRT. The findings of our study are intriguing, and therefore, larger studies in a randomized prospective manner should be undertaken to address this specifically.</p>","PeriodicalId":15072,"journal":{"name":"Journal of atrial fibrillation","volume":"13 4","pages":"2441"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8691299/pdf/jafib-13-02441.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of atrial fibrillation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4022/jafib.2441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Introduction: Whether cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) continues to augment left ventricular remodeling in patients with the continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (cf-LVAD) remains unclear.
Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all clinical studies examining the role of continued CRT in end-stage heart failure patients with cf-LVAD reporting all-cause mortality, ventricular arrhythmias, and ICD shocks. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) random-effects model was used to summarize data.
Results: Eight studies (7 retrospective and 1 randomized) with a total of 1,208 unique patients met inclusion criteria. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86 - 1.35, p = 0.51, I2=0%), all-cause hospitalization (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76-1.34, p = 0.95, I2=11%), ventricular arrhythmias (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 - 1.39, p = 0.58, I2 =50%) and ICD shocks (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.57 - 1.33, p = 0.52, I2 =65%) comparing CRT versus non-CRT. Subgroup analysis demonstrated significant reduction in ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 - 0.90, p = 0.001) and ICD shocks (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 - 0.97, p = 0.04) in "CRT on" group versus "CRT off" group.
Conclusions: CRT was not associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality or increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias and ICD shocks compared to non-CRT in cf-LVAD patients. It remains to be determined which subgroup of cf-LVAD patients benefit from CRT. The findings of our study are intriguing, and therefore, larger studies in a randomized prospective manner should be undertaken to address this specifically.
心脏再同步化治疗(CRT)是否会继续增强连续血流左室辅助装置(cf-LVAD)患者的左室重构尚不清楚。方法:我们对所有临床研究进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,这些研究检查了持续CRT在报告全因死亡率、室性心律失常和ICD休克的终末期心力衰竭合并cf-LVAD患者中的作用。采用Mantel-Haenszel风险比(RR)随机效应模型进行数据汇总。结果:8项研究(7项回顾性研究和1项随机研究)共1208例独特患者符合纳入标准。与非CRT组相比,全因死亡率(RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86 - 1.35, p = 0.51, I2=0%)、全因住院(RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76-1.34, p = 0.95, I2=11%)、室性心律失常(RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 - 1.39, p = 0.58, I2= 50%)和ICD休克(RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.57 - 1.33, p = 0.52, I2= 65%)均无差异。亚组分析显示,“开启”组与“关闭”组相比,室性心律失常(RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 - 0.90, p = 0.001)和ICD休克(RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 - 0.97, p = 0.04)显著降低。结论:与非CRT相比,CRT与cf-LVAD患者全因死亡率降低或室性心律失常和ICD休克风险增加无关。目前尚不清楚哪一组cf-LVAD患者受益于CRT。我们的研究结果很有趣,因此,应该进行更大规模的随机前瞻性研究来专门解决这个问题。