PR Interval Identifies Clinical Response in Patients with Non-left Bundle Branch Block: a Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Substudy
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
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.
Clinical Trial Registration: http://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT00180271.
Optimizing outcomes from cardiac resynchronization therapy: what do recent data and insights say?.
de Vere F, Wijesuriya N, Howell S, Elliott M, Mehta V, Mannakkara N Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2024; 1-18.
PMID: 39695920 PMC: 11716670. DOI: 10.1080/14779072.2024.2445246.
Liu B, Dai W, Lou Y, Li Y, Wu Y, Du J Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 24(8):220.
PMID: 39076708 PMC: 11266765. DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2408220.
The Atrioventricular Coupling in Heart Failure: Pathophysiological and Therapeutic Aspects.
Terlizzi V, Barone R, Di Nunno N, Alcidi G, Brunetti N, Iacoviello M Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 25(5):169.
PMID: 39076484 PMC: 11267188. DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2505169.
Frontiers in conduction system pacing: treatment of long PR in patients with heart failure.
Kaza N, Keene D, Vijayaraman P, Whinnett Z Eur Heart J Suppl. 2023; 25(Suppl G):G27-G32.
PMID: 37970515 PMC: 10637839. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suad116.
Simon A, Pilecky D, Kiss L, Vamos M J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2023; 10(10).
PMID: 37887872 PMC: 10607456. DOI: 10.3390/jcdd10100425.