The risk of ventricular arrhythmias in a Dutch CRT population: CRT-defibrillator versus CRT-pacemaker

Background

Patients eligible for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) have an indication for primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. However, response to CRT might influence processes involved in arrhythmogenesis and therefore change the necessity of ICD therapy in certain patients.

Method

In 202 CRT-defibrillator patients, the association between baseline variables, 6-month echocardiographic outcome (volume response: left ventricular end-systolic volume decrease < ≥15?% and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ >35?%) and the risk of first appropriate ICD therapy was analysed retrospectively.

Results

Fifty (25?%) patients received appropriate ICD therapy during a median follow-up of 37 (23–52) months. At baseline ischaemic cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio (HR) 2.0, p?=?0.019) and a B-type natriuretic peptide level >?163 pmol/l (HR 3.8, p??35?%. Three (6?%) patients with an LVEF >?35?% received appropriate ICD therapy following echocardiography at ±?6 months compared with 43 patients (29?%) with an LVEF ≤?35?% (p?=?0.001). LVEF post-CRT was more strongly associated to the risk of ventricular arrhythmias than volume response (LVEF >?35?%, HR 0.23, p?=?0.020).

Conclusion

Assessing the necessity of an ICD in patients eligible for CRT remains a challenge. Six months post-CRT an LVEF >?35?% identified patients at low risk of ventricular arrhythmias. LVEF might be used at the time of generator replacement to identify patients suitable for downgrading to a CRT-pacemaker.