» Articles » PMID: 29540431

Device Complications with Addition of Defibrillation to Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy for Primary Prevention

Abstract

Objective: In patients indicated for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), the choice between a CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P) versus defibrillator (CRT-D) remains controversial and indications in this setting have not been well delineated. Apart from inappropriate therapies, which are inherent to the presence of a defibrillator, whether adding defibrillator to CRT in the primary prevention setting impacts risk of other acute and late device-related complications has not been well studied and may bear relevance for device selection.

Methods: Observational multicentre European cohort study of 3008 consecutive patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy and no history of sustained ventricular arrhythmias, undergoing CRT implantation with (CRT-D, n=1785) or without (CRT-P, n=1223) defibrillator. Using propensity score and competing risk analyses, we assessed the risk of significant device-related complications requiring surgical reintervention. Inappropriate shocks were not considered except those due to lead malfunction requiring lead revision.

Results: Acute complications occurred in 148 patients (4.9%), without significant difference between groups, even after considering potential confounders (OR=1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.00, p=0.47). During a mean follow-up of 41.4±29 months, late complications occurred in 475 patients, giving an annual incidence rate of 26 (95% CI 9 to 43) and 15 (95% CI 6 to 24) per 1000 patient-years in CRT-D and CRT-P patients, respectively. CRT-D was independently associated with increased occurrence of late complications (HR=1.68, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.23, p=0.001). In particular, when compared with CRT-P, CRT-D was associated with an increased risk of device-related infection (HR 2.10, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.45, p=0.004). Acute complications did not predict overall late complications, but predicted device-related infection (HR 2.85, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.56, p<0.001).

Conclusions: Compared with CRT-P, CRT-D is associated with a similar risk of periprocedural complications but increased risk of long-term complications, mainly infection. This needs to be considered in the decision of implanting CRT with or without a defibrillator.

Citing Articles

Sex Differences in Ventricular Arrhythmias and Adverse Outcomes Following Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Markson F, Allihien S, Antia A, Kesiena O, Kwaku K JACC Adv. 2024; 3(7):101042.

PMID: 39130035 PMC: 11312788. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101042.


Arrhythmic and mortality outcomes in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy without defibrillator.

Samy M, Hamdy R Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2023; 23(6):171-176.

PMID: 37574049 PMC: 10685097. DOI: 10.1016/j.ipej.2023.08.002.


A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of cardiac resynchronisation therapy with or without defibrillator based on health claims data.

Hadwiger M, Schumann L, Eisemann N, Dagres N, Hindricks G, Haug J Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2022; 20(1):48.

PMID: 36056371 PMC: 9438143. DOI: 10.1186/s12962-022-00384-x.


Device runtime and costs of cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers - a health claims data analysis.

Hadwiger M, Dagres N, Hindricks G, LHoest H, Marschall U, Katalinic A Ger Med Sci. 2022; 20:Doc02.

PMID: 35465639 PMC: 9006313. DOI: 10.3205/000304.


Prevention of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: guidelines and conventional prophylaxis.

Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, Ostrowska B Europace. 2021; .

PMID: 34037227 PMC: 8221047. DOI: 10.1093/europace/euab071.