Recommendations on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF) are based on less robust evidence than those in sinus rhythm (SR). We aimed to assess the efficacy of CRT upgrade in the BUDAPEST-CRT Upgrade trial population by their baseline rhythm. Heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and previously implanted pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and ≥20% right ventricular (RV) pacing burden were randomized to CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) upgrade (n = 215) or ICD (n = 145). Primary [HF hospitalization (HFH), all-cause mortality, or <15% reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume] and secondary outcomes were investigated. At enrolment, 131 (36%) patients had AF, who had an increased risk for HFH as compared with those with SR [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 2.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26–7.13; P = 0.013]. The effect of CRT-D upgrade was similar in patients with AF as in those with SR [AF adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.06; 95% CI 0.02–0.17; P < 0.001; SR aOR 0.13; 95% CI 0.07–0.27; P < 0.001; interaction P = 0.29] during the mean follow-up time of 12.4 months. Also, it decreased the risk of HFH or all-cause mortality (aHR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16–0.70; P = 0.003; interaction P = 0.17) and improved the echocardiographic response (left ventricular end-diastolic volume difference −49.21 mL; 95% CI −69.10 to −29.32; P < 0.001; interaction P = 0.21). In HFrEF patients with AF and PM/ICD with high RV pacing burden, CRT-D upgrade decreased the risk of HFH and improved reverse remodelling when compared with ICD, similar to that seen in patients in SR. In AF patients CRT-D upgrade reduced the risk of mortality or HF hospitalization as compared with ICD, additionally echocardiographic parameters, symptoms, and NT-proBNP levels improved. However, the risk of HF hospitalization was higher in AF patients when compared with SR. AF, atrial fibrillation or flutter; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; aHR, adjusted hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; CRT-D, cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator; ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; HF, heart failure; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; LVESV, left ventricular end-systolic volume; NT-proBNP, N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; PM, pacemaker; RV, right ventricular; SR, sinus rhythm.

This study aimed to investigate the impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) on mortality, comparing it with CRT with a pacemaker (CRT-P). Additionally, the study sought to identify subgroups, evaluate the time trend in treatment effects, and analyze patient characteristics, considering the changing indications over the past decades. PubMed, CENTRAL, and Embase up to October 2021 were screened for studies comparing CRT-P and CRT-D, focusing on mortality. Altogether 26 observational studies were selected comprising 128 030 CRT patients, including 55 469 with CRT-P and 72 561 with CRT-D device. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator was able to reduce all-cause mortality by almost 20% over CRT-P [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76–0.94; P < 0.01] even in propensity-matched studies (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.80–0.87; P < 0.001) but not in those with non-ischaemic aetiology (HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.79–1.15; P = 0.19) or over 75 years (HR: 1.08; 95% CI 0.96–1.21; P = 0.17). When treatment effect on mortality was investigated by the median year of inclusion, there was a difference between studies released before 2015 and those thereafter. Time-trend effects could be also observed in patients’ characteristics: CRT-P candidates were getting older and the prevalence of ischaemic aetiology was increasing over time. The results of this systematic review of observational studies, mostly retrospective with meta-analysis, suggest that patients with CRT-D had a lower risk of mortality compared with CRT-P. However, subgroups could be identified, where CRT-D was not superior such as non-ischaemic and older patients. An improved treatment effect of CRT-D on mortality could be observed between the early and late studies partly related to the changed characteristics of CRT candidates.

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of mortality and hospitalization in the elderly. However, data are scarce about their response to device treatment such as cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to evaluate the age-related differences in the effectiveness of CRT, procedure-related complications, and long-term outcome. Between 2000 and 2020, 2656 patients undergoing CRT implantation were registered and analyzed retrospectively. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to their age: group I, < 65; group II, 65–75; and group III, > 75 years. The primary endpoint was the echocardiographic response defined as a relative increase > 15% in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) within 6 months, and the secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implantation. Procedure-related complications were also assessed. After implantation, LVEF showed significant improvement both in the total cohort [28% (IQR 24/33) vs. 35% (IQR 28/40); p < 0.01)] and in each subgroup (27% vs. 34%; p < 0.01, 29% vs. 35%; p < 0.01, 30% vs. 35%; p < 0.01). Response rate was similar in the 3 groups (64% vs. 62% vs. 56%; p = 0.41). During the follow-up, 1574 (59%) patients died. Kaplan–Meier curves revealed a significantly lower survival rate in the older groups (log-rank p < 0.001). The cumulative complication rates were similar among the three age groups (27% vs. 28% vs. 24%; p = 0.15). Our results demonstrate that CRT is as effective and safe therapy in the elderly as for young ones. The present data suggest that patients with appropriate indications benefit from CRT in the long term, regardless of age.

Frailty is a complex clinical syndrome associated with aging and comorbidities, which correlates with unfavorable outcomes. However, in heart failure patients, frailty is very common, data is scarce about those, who are eligible for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) implantation. We investigated the incidence of frailty and the association of Frailty Index (FI) with the outcome. Thirty baseline clinical parameters were used by the Rockwood cumulative deficit method to determine patients' FI in our single-center cohort. Based on previous studies, patients with FI ≤ 0.210 were considered as non-frail, those with FI 0.10–0.210 were classified in Frail-1, with FI > 0.10 in Frail-2 groups, respectively. Echocardiographic response after 12 months and all-cause mortality were investigated by frailty groups. Among 1004 included patients, 75 (7%) were considered Non-frail, 271 (27%) grouped in Frail-1, and 658 (66%) in Frail-2 with a median FI of 0.36 (0.28–0.43). Patients in Frail-2 group were older, with more comorbidities compared with non-frail patients or those in Group Frail-1. During the median follow-up time of 4.8 years, 29 (39%) patients died in the Non-frail, 140 (52%) in Frail-1, and 471 (72%) in the Frail-2 groups (log-rank p < 0.001). Group Frail-2 showed an unfavorable outcome compared to the non-frail (HR 2.49, 95%CI 1.92–3.22; p < 0.001) and the Frail-1 group (1.83, 95%CI 1.55–2.16; p < 0.001). In our HFrEF patients eligible for CRT implantation, patients were exceedingly vulnerable with a high prevalence of frailty. The calculated frailty index was associated with outcome and proved to be prevalent in individual risk stratification.

Background/Objectives: Remote telemedical management (RTM) in heart failure (HF) patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) is a reliable approach to follow device-specific and heart failure-related parameters. However, while some positive outcome data is available, results are inconclusive. We aimed to assess the benefits of continuous remote telemonitoring (RTM) compared to the in-person visit (IPV) in reducing all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH), cardiovascular (CV) deaths, and the occurrence of inappropriate therapy. Methods: The study comprised a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing RTM (device-related or other non-invasive telemonitoring systems) vs. IPV for the management of HF patients. The main endpoints were all-cause and CV mortality. Risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed. Hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched, and only randomized controlled studies were included. Results: Sixteen RCTs were identified, comprising a total of 11,232 enrolled patients. Seven studies evaluated all-cause mortality, resulting in an OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.96). When CV mortality was assessed, the RTM group showed a significant benefit compared to the IPV group (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97). The risk of bias ranged from “low” to “some concerns” for most outcomes, and the certainty was low to moderate depending on the specific outcomes. Conclusions: RTM proved to be superior in reducing all-cause and CV mortality compared to IPV; however, there is a clear need to have standardized alert actions to achieve the mortality benefit.

Background: AVIM is a pacing algorithm incorporated into dual-chamber pacemakers to treat hypertension. AVIM delivers repeating sequences of short and longer atrioventricular delays leading to reduced preload and afterload. The therapy lowers blood pressure while simultaneously modulating the autonomic nervous system. The marked blood pressure reducing capability of AVIM has been already confirmed by a previous randomized clinical trial using conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing. Nevertheless, whether a similar blood pressure reduction could be also achieved by AVIM when conduction system pacing (CSP) is applied instead of RV pacing has not been investigated yet. Considering the facts that CSP using Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) has been found to elicit more synchronous ventricular contraction and improved hemodynamics compared to RV pacing and AVIM is associated with a signficant burden of ventricular pacing, it is tempting to hypothesize that AVIM with CSP could be particularly beneficial. Purpose: To compare the effects of AVIM therapy when delivered via an LBBAP location with the effects when delivered using a traditional RV lead location. Methods: This single-center study evaluated subjects indicated for a dual chamber pacemaker who also had uncontrolled hypertension despite a stable dose of ³ 1 antihypertensive drug. Leads were placed in the RV or the LBBAP position. Subjects entered a run-in period of 4 weeks in which baseline office (oSBP)and 24-hour aSBP were measured. Subjects with baseline aSBP >130 mmHg and oSBP>140 mmHg at week 4 were included in the study. AVIM therapy was activated and a 24-hour aSBP was performed immediately after activation. Results: Using a dedicated CSP pacemaker lab setup, CSP was performed in 5 patients with the Select Secure electrode (model 3830-69 cm) delivered via a fixed curve sheath (C315HIS). During the run in phase, in 3 out of the 5 CSP-AVIM patients, high blood pressure did not reach the level of inclusion and therefore these patients were not used for further analysis. In the remaining two patients, AVIM was activated. These two patients had a V6 stimulus-peak time of 69 ms and 61 ms, while V1 stimulus peak time was: 121ms and 109ms respectively. The effect of AVIM on 24-hour aSBP in the activated CSP-AVIM patients was compared to the average effect seen in patients from the same center enrolled in the prior randomized study with leads in the RV. Table 1 shows individual aSBP values for the two patient groups. Results suggest that delivery of AVIM therapy through leads in either position generates a significant reduction in blood pressure: -24.1 mmHg vs. -15.4 mmHg when the lead is placed in LBBAP or RV positions respectively. Conclusion These results demonstrate a significant reduction in aSBP in both lead locations. Additional studies evaluating larger sample sizes are required to assess if specific lead positions are preferable.Table 1