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: PR interval identifies clinical response in patients with non-left bundle branch block: a Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy substudy.
    Author: Kutyifa V, Stockburger M, Daubert JP, Holmqvist F, Olshansky B, Schuger C, Klein H, Goldenberg I, Brenyo A, McNitt S, Merkely B, Zareba W, Moss AJ.
    Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol; 2014 Aug; 7(4):645-51. PubMed ID: 24963007.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: In Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT), patients with non-left bundle branch block (LBBB; including right bundle branch block, intraventricular conduction delay) did not have clinical benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D). We hypothesized that baseline PR interval modulates clinical response to CRT-D therapy in patients with non-LBBB. METHODS AND RESULTS: Non-LBBB patients (n=537; 30%) were divided into 2 groups based on their baseline PR interval as normal (including minimally prolonged) PR (PR <230 ms) and prolonged PR (PR ≥230 ms). The primary end point was heart failure or death. Separate secondary end points included heart failure events and all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare risk of end point events by CRT-D to implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in the PR subgroups. There were 96 patients (22%) with a prolonged PR and 438 patients (78%) with a normal PR interval. In non-LBBB patients with a prolonged PR interval, CRT-D treatment was associated with a 73% reduction in the risk of heart failure/death (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.57; P<0.001) and 81% decrease in the risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.57; P<0.001) compared with implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. In non-LBBB patients with normal PR, CRT-D therapy was associated with a trend toward an increased risk of heart failure/death (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.19; P=0.078; interaction P<0.001) and a more than 2-fold higher mortality (hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-4.09; P=0.022; interaction P<0.001) compared with implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The data support the use of CRT-D in MADIT-CRT non-LBBB patients with a prolonged PR interval. In non-LBBB patients with a normal PR interval, implantation of a CRT-D may be deleterious. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT00180271.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]