Arrhythmic and mortality outcomes in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy without defibrillator

Abstract

Introduction

The routine implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillators in all patients who are candidates for this treatment is now being negotiated, mainly in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy.

Objective

We investigated the arrhythmic and mortality outcomes following CRT implantation in DCM, as well as the necessity for defibrillator capabilities in that particular group of patients.

Methods

we included 67- patients with DCM with EF ≤ 35%, QRS duration >130 msec and NYHA class II-IV, or those with EF ≤ 35% with indications of permanent pacing for implantation of CRT-P. Patients were followed to obtain good CRT response. Improved clinical outcomes were defined as improvement in at least one NYHA class, ≥5% increase in LVEF, and ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume versus baseline. Patients were classified into responder and non-responder. Patients were followed for 36 months regarding all-cause morbidity mainly ventricular tachycardia and all-cause mortality.

Results

CRT responder patients had better clinical outcomes than CRT non-responder patients (post NYHA, 1.3 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.6, p < 0.0001; post LVEF 30.0 ± 1.6 vs. 20.3 ± 2.2%, p < 0.0001; LVESV, 151.7 ± 7.6 vs. 190.4 ± 9.0 ml, p < 0.0001), with lower ventricular arrhythmia (p < 0.0001), lower mortality (p = 0.015) and lower all-cause morbidity (p < 0.001). This survival advantage may be related to the response to CRT response determined by clinical and echocardiographic parameters over a 36-month period of follow-up.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that CRT-P implantation without defibrillation backup is an encouraging treatment option for patients with DCM, principally those who responded to it. It may result in cost savings, a decrease in complications, and an improvement in all-cause morbidity, particularly ventricular arrhythmia and survival.