These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Response to preventive cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischaemic and nonischaemic cardiomyopathy in MADIT-CRT.
    Author: Barsheshet A, Goldenberg I, Moss AJ, Eldar M, Huang DT, McNitt S, Klein HU, Hall WJ, Brown MW, Goldberger JJ, Goldstein RE, Schuger C, Zareba W, Daubert JP.
    Journal: Eur Heart J; 2011 Jul; 32(13):1622-30. PubMed ID: 21075774.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: There are no data regarding the differential response to cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) by the aetiology of cardiomyopathy in mildly symptomatic patients. We evaluated the outcome of patients enrolled in MADIT-CRT by ischaemic and non-ischaemic aetiology of cardiomyopathy (ICM and non-ICM, respectively). METHODS AND RESULTS: The clinical response to CRT-D was assessed among ICM (n = 1046) and non-ICM (n = 774) patients enrolled in MADIT-CRT during an average follow-up of 2.4 years, and echocardiographic response was assessed at 1 year. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator vs. ICD therapy was associated with respective 34% (P = 0.001) and 44% (P = 0.002) reductions in the risk of heart failure or death among ICM and non-ICM patients (P for interaction = 0.455). In the ICM group, CRT-D was associated with mean (±SD) 29 ± 14% and 18 ± 10% reductions in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), respectively. In the non-ICM group, CRT-D was associated with significantly greater volume reductions compared with the ICM group [37 ± 16% and 24 ± 12% reductions in LVESV and LVEDV, respectively (P < 0.001 for all)]. Risk subsets in the ICM group that showed a favourable clinical response to CRT-D included patients with QRS ≥150 ms, systolic blood pressure <115 mmHg, and left bundle branch block (LBBB), whereas in the non-ICM group females, patients with diabetes mellitus, and LBBB, displayed a favourable clinical response. CONCLUSION: Mildly symptomatic ICM and non-ICM patients show significant differences in the echocardiographic response to CRT-D and in the clinical benefit within risk subsets suggesting that risk assessment for CRT-D in this population should be aetiology-specific.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]