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: The influence of left ventricular ejection fraction on the effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy: MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy). Author: Kutyifa V, Kloppe A, Zareba W, Solomon SD, McNitt S, Polonsky S, Barsheshet A, Merkely B, Lemke B, Nagy VK, Moss AJ, Goldenberg I. Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol; 2013 Mar 05; 61(9):936-44. PubMed ID: 23449428. Abstract: OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction and clinical outcome to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in mild heart failure patients enrolled in MADIT-CRT [corrected]. BACKGROUND: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a surrogate marker of heart failure (HF) status and associated risk. Data on the effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) in patients with mild HF and better LVEF are limited. METHODS: In the MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study, the echocardiography core laboratory assessed baseline LVEF independent of the enrolling centers and identified a range of LVEFs, including those >30% (i.e., beyond the eligibility criteria). Echocardiographic response with CRT, defined as percent change in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), was analyzed in 3 prespecified LVEF groups: >30%, 26% to 30%, and ≤25%. The primary endpoint was HF or death. Secondary endpoint included all-cause mortality. RESULTS: LVEF was evaluated in 1,809 study patients. There were 696 (38%) patients with LVEF >30% (in the range of 30.1% to 45.3%); 914 patients (50.5%) with LVEF 26% to 30%; and 199 patients with LVEF ≤25% (11%). The mean reduction in LVEDV with CRT-D therapy at the 1-year follow-up was directly related to increasing LVEF (LVEF >30%: 22.3%; LVEF 26% to 30%: 20.1%; and LVEF ≤25%: 18.7% reduction, respectively [p = 0.001]). CRT-D treatment similarly reduced the risk of HF/death in patients with LVEF >30% (hazard ratio [HR]: = 0.56 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39 to 0.82], p = 0.003), LVEF 26% to 30% (HR: 0.67: [95% CI: 0.50 to 0.90], p = 0.007), and LVEF ≤25% (HR: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.35 to 0.95], p = 0.03; all p values for LVEF-by-treatment interactions >0.1). CONCLUSIONS: In MADIT-CRT, the clinical benefit of CRT was evident regardless of baseline LVEF, including those with LVEF >30%, whereas the echocardiographic response was increased with increasing LVEF, indicating that CRT might benefit patients with better LVEF. (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [MADIT-CRT]; NCT00180271).[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]