Early performance of the Micra transcatheter pacemaker from the global clinical trial reported a 99.2% implant success rate, low and stable pacing capture thresholds, and a low (4.0%) rate of major complications up to 6 months. The purpose of this report was to describe the prespecified long-term safety objective of Micra at 12 months and electrical performance through 24 months. The Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study was a prospective single-arm study designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the Micra VVIR leadless/intracardiac pacemaker. Enrolled patients met class I or II guideline recommendations for de novo ventricular pacing. The long-term safety objective was freedom from a system- or procedure-related major complication at 12 months. A predefined historical control group of 2667 patients with transvenous pacemakers was used to compare major complication rates. The long-term safety objective was achieved with a freedom from major complication rate of 96.0% at 12 months (95% confidence interval 94.2%-97.2%; P < .0001 vs performance goal). The risk of major complications for patients with Micra (N = 726) was 48% lower than that for patients with transvenous systems through 12 months postimplant (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.77; P = .001). Across subgroups of age, sex, and comorbidities, Micra reduced the risk of major complications compared to transvenous systems. Electrical performance was excellent through 24 months, with a projected battery longevity of 12.1 years. Long-term performance of the Micra transcatheter pacemaker remains consistent with previously reported data. Few patients experienced major complications through 12 months of follow-up, and all patient subgroups benefited as compared to transvenous pacemaker historical control group.

De novo implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) reduces the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients with left bundle branch block, heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, among HFrEF patients with right ventricular pacing (RVP), the efficacy of CRT-D upgrade is uncertain. In this multicentre, randomized, controlled trial, 360 symptomatic (New York Heart Association Classes II–IVa) HFrEF patients with a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), high RVP burden ≥ 20%, and a wide paced QRS complex duration ≥ 150 ms were randomly assigned to receive CRT-D upgrade (n = 215) or ICD (n = 145) in a 3:2 ratio. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or <15% reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume assessed at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Over a median follow-up of 12.4 months, the primary outcome occurred in 58/179 (32.4%) in the CRT-D arm vs. 101/128 (78.9%) in the ICD arm (odds ratio 0.11; 95% confidence interval 0.06–0.19; P < .001). All-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization occurred in 22/215 (10%) in the CRT-D arm vs. 46/145 (32%) in the ICD arm (hazard ratio 0.27; 95% confidence interval 0.16–0.47; P < .001). The incidence of procedure- or device-related complications was similar between the two arms [CRT-D group 25/211 (12.3%) vs. ICD group 11/142 (7.8%)]. In pacemaker or ICD patients with significant RVP burden and reduced ejection fraction, upgrade to CRT-D compared with ICD therapy reduced the combined risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or absence of reverse remodelling. Main inclusion criteria and randomization by arms showing the result of 360 patients (215 CRT-D vs. 145 ICD) analysed by intention to treat. Primary and secondary outcomes showing a substantial treatment effect of CRT-D compared with ICD alone. Among patients with HF and reduced LVEF with intermittent or permanent RV pacing, CRT-D upgrade resulted in a lower incidence of the composite of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, or <15% decrease in LVESV as the primary outcome. Secondary outcome of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization also proved a substantially lower incidence in CRT-D patients compared with ICD. CI, confidence interval; CRT-D, cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator; HF, heart failure; HR, hazard ratio; ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESV, left ventricular end-systolic volume; OR, odds ratio; RV, right ventricular.

Remote monitoring is an established, guideline-recommended technology with unequivocal clinical benefits; however, its ability to improve survival is contradictory. The aim of our study was to investigate the effects of remote monitoring on mortality in an optimally treated heart failure patient population undergoing cardiac resynchronization defibrillator therapy (CRT-D) implantation in a large-volume tertiary referral center. The population of this single-center, retrospective, observational study included 231 consecutive patients receiving CRT-D devices in the Medical Centre of the Hungarian Defence Forces (Budapest, Hungary) from January 2011 to June 2016. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients on remote monitoring and conventional follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 28.4 (SD 18.1) months. Patients on remote monitoring were more likely to have atrial fibrillation, received heart failure management at our dedicated heart failure outpatient clinic more often, and have a slightly lower functional capacity. Crude all-cause mortality of remote-monitored patients was significantly lower compared with patients followed conventionally (hazard ratio [HR] 0.368, 95% CI 0.186-0.727, P=.004). The survival benefit remained statistically significant after adjustment for important baseline parameters (adjusted HR 0.361, 95% CI 0.181-0.722, P=.004). In this single-center, retrospective study of optimally treated heart failure patients undergoing CRT-D implantation, the use of remote monitoring systems was associated with a significantly better survival rate.

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.

Background: Kidney dysfunction (KD) is a main limiting factor of applying guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) and reaching the recommended target doses (TD) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Hypothesis: We aimed to assess the success of optimization, long‐term applicability, and adherence of neurohormonal antagonist triple therapy (TT:RASi [ACEi/ARB/ARNI] + βB + MRA) according to the KD after a HF hospitalization and to investigate its impact on prognosis.Methods: The data of 247 real‐world, consecutive patients were analyzed who were hospitalized in 2019−2021 for HFrEF and then were followed‐up for 1 year. The application and the ratio of reached TD of TT at hospital discharge and at 1 year were assessed comparing KD categories (eGFR: ≥90, 60−89, 45−59, 30−44, <30 mL/min/1.73 m²). Moreover, 1‐year all‐cause mortality and rehospitalization rates in KD subgroups were investigated.Results: Majority of the patients received TT at hospital discharge (77%) and at 1 year (73%). More severe KD led to a lower application ratio (p < .05) of TT (92%, 88%, 80%, 73%, 31%) at discharge and at 1 year (81%, 76%, 76%, 68%, 40%). Patients with more severe KD were less likely (p < .05) to receive TD of MRA (81%, 68%, 78%, 61%, 52%) at discharge and a RASi (53%, 49%, 45%, 21%, 27%) at 1 year.One‐year all‐cause mortality (14%, 15%, 16%, 33%, 48%, p < .001), the ratio of all‐cause rehospitalizations (30%, 35%, 40%, 43%, 52%, p = .028), and rehospitalizations for HF (8%, 13%, 18%, 20%, 38%, p = .001) were significantly higher in more severe KD categories.Conclusions: KD unfavorably affects the application of TT in HFrEF, however poorer mortality and rehospitalization rates among them highlight the role of the conscious implementation and up‐titration of GDMT.

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.