4.5 Article

PR Interval Identifies Clinical Response in Patients With Non-Left Bundle Branch Block A Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Substudy

Journal

CIRCULATION-ARRHYTHMIA AND ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 645-651

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCEP.113.001299

Keywords

atrioventricular block; cardiac resynchronization therapy; defibrillators, implantable; heart failure; mortality

Funding

  1. Boston Scientific, St. Paul, Minnesota
  2. Biotronik
  3. Boston Scientific
  4. Medtronic
  5. Sorin Group
  6. Sweden-America Foundation
  7. Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation
  8. Swedish Heart Association
  9. Fulbright Commission

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available