Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device replacement considerations: upgrade or downgrade? A complex decision in the current clinical setting

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and the older patient: the Dutch clinical practice

Background and objective

Balance between benefit and burden of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is more debatable in older patients, compared to younger patients. Of around 6000 yearly implanted ICDs in the Netherlands, 1:4 is received by patients ≥75 years. We aimed to evaluate the current clinical practice in the Netherlands for ICD implants and generator replacements, with a special focus on the older ICD patients.

Research design and methods

Cardiologists from all Dutch ICD implanting centres (n = 28) were interviewed. Questions aimed to evaluate outpatient care, pre-operative patient assessment, end-of-life-care counselling, evaluation of social and cognitive wellbeing, clinical evaluation of all patients prior to ICD replacement, and the consideration of the option to downgrade or not replace a device.

Results

Implanting cardiologists from all 28 implanting centres were approached for an interview. Response rate was 86%. Management appeared diverse. An age ≥80 years was consistently reported as incentive for more extensive patient evaluation. Patients were invited for counselling prior to device replacements in only the minority (46%) of hospitals. Downgrade or non-replacement was performed in rare cases. End-of-life care discussions were not standard procedure in 67% of the hospitals. Evaluation of social and cognitive wellbeing of patients was based solely on the general clinical impression of the physician in 83%, or not at all assessed in 8% of the centres.

Discussion and implication

A structured framework for care and evaluation of cognitive and/or physical limitations is currently absent in most hospitals. At time of ICD (re-)evaluation, several factors may be considered before deciding on (continuation of) ICD therapy: patient preferences and comorbidity, the need for pacemaker therapy, primary vs. secondary prevention, procedural risks, and patient preferences.

Reassessment of clinical variables in cardiac resynchronization defibrillator patients at the time of first replacement: Death after replacement of CRT (DARC) score

Introduction

Cardiac resynchronization defibrillator (CRT‐D) as primary prevention is known to reduce mortality. At the time of replacement, higher age and comorbidities may attenuate the benefit of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) therapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the progression of comorbidities after implantation and their association with mortality following CRT‐D generator replacement. In addition, a risk score was developed to identify patients at high risk for mortality after replacement.

Methods and Results

We identified patients implanted with a primary prevention CRT‐D (n = 648) who subsequently underwent elective generator replacement (n = 218) from two prospective ICD registries. The cohort consisted of 218 patients (median age: 70 years, male gender: 73%, mean left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]: 36 ± 11% at replacement). Median follow‐up after the replacement was 4.2 years during which 64 patients (29%) died and 11 patients (5%) received appropriate ICD shocks. An increase in comorbidities was observed in 77 patients (35%). The 5‐year mortality rate was 41% in patients with ≥2 comorbidities at the time of replacement. A risk score incorporating age, gender, LVEF, atrial fibrillation, anemia, chronic kidney disease, and history of appropriate ICD shocks at time of replacement accurately predicted 5‐year mortality (C‐statistic 0.829). Patients with a risk score of greater than 2.5 had excess mortality at 5‐year postreplacement compared with patients with a risk score less than 1.5 (57% vs. 6%; p < .001).

Conclusion

A simple risk score accurately predicts 5‐year mortality after replacement in CRT‐D patients, as patients with a risk score of greater than 2.5 are at high risk of dying despite ICD protection.

CRT Pacing: Midterm Follow-Up in LV Only Pacing without RV Lead in Patients with Normal AV Conduction

Background: The aim of our study was to assess the real life cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) fusion left ventricular (LV) only pacing in patients with normal AV conduction (NAVc) without right ventricular (RV) lead. Methods: Consecutive NAVc patients with CRT indication were implanted with a right atrium RA/LV DDD pacing system. Complete follow-up at 1, 3 and every 6 months thereafter included echocardiography and stress testing. Results: We analysed 55 patients (62 ± 11 years). All patients were responders with significant LV reverse remodelling (LV end-diastolic volume 193.7 ± 81 vs. 243.2 ± 82 mL at baseline, p < 0.002) and increased LV ejection fraction (38 ± 7.9% vs. 27 ± 5.2% at baseline, p < 0.001). Mitral regurgitation decreased in 38 patients (69%). During follow-up (35 ± 18 months), 20 patients (36%) needed reprogramming sensed/paced AV delay or maximum tracking rate (MTR) because of inadequate or lost LV capture at exercise test; personalized programming to achieve up to 100% fusion pacing was used in all patients. One patient developed Mobitz II second degree AV block and triple chamber CRT-P upgrade was performed; defibrillator upgrade was not necessary. Conclusions: LV only pacing CRT-P without RV lead showed a positive outcome in carefully selected patients.