1. |
- Dickstein, Kenneth, et al.
(författare)
-
CRT Survey II : a European Society of Cardiology survey of cardiac resynchronisation therapy in 11 088 patients-who is doing what to whom and how?
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : WILEY. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 20:6, s. 1039-1051
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality in appropriately selected patients with heart failure and is strongly recommended for such patients by guidelines. A European Society of Cardiology (ESC) CRT survey conducted in 2008-2009 showed considerable variation in guideline adherence and large individual, national and regional differences in patient selection, implantation practice and follow-up. Accordingly, two ESC associations, the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Failure Association, designed a second prospective survey to describe contemporary clinical practice regarding CRT. Methods and results A survey of the clinical practice of CRT-P and CRT-D implantation was conducted from October 2015 to December 2016 in 42 ESC member countries. Implanting centres provided information about their hospital and CRT service and were asked to complete a web-based case report form collecting information on patient characteristics, investigations, implantation procedures and complications during the index hospitalisation. The 11 088 patients enrolled represented 11% of the total number of expected implantations in participating countries during the survey period; 32% of patients were aged >= 75 years, 28% of procedures were upgrades from a permanent pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and 30% were CRT-P rather than CRT-D. Most patients (88%) had a QRS duration >= 130 ms, 73% had left bundle branch block and 26% were in atrial fibrillation at the time of implantation. Large geographical variations in clinical practice were observed. Conclusion CRT Survey II provides a valuable source of information on contemporary clinical practice with respect to CRT implantation in a large sample of ESC member states. The survey permits assessment of guideline adherence and demonstrates variations in patient selection, management, implantation procedure and follow-up strategy.
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
- Normand, Camilla, et al.
(författare)
-
Cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator : what determines the choice?-findings from the ESC CRT Survey II
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Europace. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1099-5129 .- 1532-2092. ; 21:6, s. 918-927
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: The decision to implant a cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker (CRT-P) or a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) may be challenging. There are no clear guideline recommendations as no randomized study of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been designed to compare the effects of CRT-P with those of CRT-D on patients' outcomes. In the CRT Survey II, we studied patient and implantation centre characteristics associated with the choice of CRT-P vs. CRT-D.METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinical practice data from 10 692 patients undergoing CRT implantation of whom 7467 (70%) patients received a CRT-D and 3225 (30%) received a CRT-P across 42 ESC countries were collected and analysed between October 2015 and January 2017. Factors favouring the selection of CRT-P implantation included age >75 years, female gender, non-ischaemic heart failure (HF) aetiology, New York Heart Association functional Class III/IV symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction >25%, atrial fibrillation, atrioventricular (AV) block II/III, and implantation in a university hospital.CONCLUSION: In a large cohort from the CRT Survey II, we found that patients allocated to receive CRT-P exhibited particular phenotypes with more symptomatic HF, more frequent comorbidities, advanced age, female gender, non-ischaemic HF aetiology, atrial fibrillation, and evidence of AV block. There were substantial differences in the proportion of patients allocated to receive CRT-P vs. CRT-D between countries.
|
|