Premium
The benefits of defibrillator in heart failure patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: A meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Long YuXiang,
Hu Yue,
Cui DiYu,
Hu Shuang,
Liu ZengZhang
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/pace.14150
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiac resynchronization therapy , cardiology , hazard ratio , heart failure , implantable cardioverter defibrillator , confidence interval , meta analysis , cardiomyopathy , randomized controlled trial , subgroup analysis , ejection fraction
Background Current guidelines did not provide recommendations on indications of an additional implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) to patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and it still remains controversial due to lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials. Method PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from the inception to May 2020 were systematically screened for studies reporting on the comparison of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT‐D) and cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacemaker (CRT‐P), focusing on the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of all‐cause mortality. We pooled the effects using a random‐effect model. Results Twenty‐one studies encompassing 69,919 patients were included in this meta‐analysis. With no restriction to characteristics of including population, CRT‐D was associated with a lower all‐cause mortality compared with CRT‐P significantly (aHR: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74‐0.87, I 2 = 36.8%, p < .001). This mortality benefit was also observed in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (aHR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.64‐0.86, I 2 = 0%, p < .001). However, there is no significant difference in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) (aHR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82‐1.01, I 2 = 0%, p = .087), older age (age ≥75 years, aHR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.83‐1.12, I 2 = 0%, p = .610). Subgroup analysis was performed and indicated the survival benefit of CRT‐D for primary prevention compared with CRT‐P (aHR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.79‐0.95, I 2 = 0%, p = .003). Conclusion After adjusted the differences in clinical characteristics, additional ICD therapy was associated with a reduced all‐cause mortality in patients receiving CRT. However, our work suggested that additional ICD may not be applied to elderly (≥75 years) or patients with NICM.