Cardiac resynchronization reduces symptoms and improves left ventricular function in many patients with heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction and cardiac dyssynchrony. We evaluated its effects on morbidity and mortality. Patients with New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction and cardiac dyssynchrony who were receiving standard pharmacologic therapy were randomly assigned to receive medical therapy alone or with cardiac resynchronization. The primary end point was the time to death from any cause or an unplanned hospitalization for a major cardiovascular event. The principal secondary end point was death from any cause. A total of 813 patients were enrolled and followed for a mean of 29.4 months. The primary end point was reached by 159 patients in the cardiac-resynchronization group, as compared with 224 patients in the medical-therapy group (39 percent vs. 55 percent; hazard ratio, 0.63; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.51 to 0.77; P<0.001). There were 82 deaths in the cardiac-resynchronization group, as compared with 120 in the medical-therapy group (20 percent vs. 30 percent; hazard ratio 0.64; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.85; P<0.002). As compared with medical therapy, cardiac resynchronization reduced the interventricular mechanical delay, the end-systolic volume index, and the area of the mitral regurgitant jet; increased the left ventricular ejection fraction; and improved symptoms and the quality of life (P<0.01 for all comparisons). In patients with heart failure and cardiac dyssynchrony, cardiac resynchronization improves symptoms and the quality of life and reduces complications and the risk of death. These benefits are in addition to those afforded by standard pharmacologic therapy. The implantation of a cardiac-resynchronization device should routinely be considered in such patients.

Additional references are mentioned with ‘w’ in the main text and can be found on the online addenda along with 5 figures (1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12) and 10 tables (3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 19, 21, 22, 23). They are available on the ESC website only at http://www.escardio.org/guidelines-surveys/esc-guidelines/Pages/cardiac-pacing-and-cardiac-resynchronisation-therapy.aspx

ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG), Silvia G. Priori (Chairperson) (Italy), Jean-Jacques Blanc (France), Andrzej Budaj (Poland), John Camm (UK), Veronica Dean (France), Jaap Deckers (The Netherlands), Kenneth Dickstein (Norway), John Lekakis (Greece), Keith McGregor (France), Marco Metra (Italy), João Morais (Portugal), Ady Osterspey (Germany), Juan Tamargo (Spain), José Luis Zamorano (Spain) Document Reviewers, Marco Metra (CPG Review Coordinator) (Italy), Michael Böhm (Germany), Alain Cohen-Solal (France), Martin Cowie (UK), Ulf Dahlström (Sweden), Kenneth Dickstein (Norway), Gerasimos S. Filippatos (Greece), Edoardo Gronda (Italy), Richard Hobbs (UK), John K. Kjekshus (Norway), John McMurray (UK), Lars Rydén (Sweden), Gianfranco Sinagra (Italy), Juan Tamargo (Spain), Michal Tendera (Poland), Dirk van Veldhuisen (The Netherlands), Faiez Zannad (France)

Aims Many patients who receive a diagnosis of heart failure have neither a low left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction nor valve disease. Few substantial randomized controlled trials have been conducted in this population, none has focussed on patients with evidence of diastolic dysfunction and none has shown clear benefit on symptoms, morbidity, or mortality. Methods and results This was a randomized double-blind trial, comparing placebo with perindopril, 4 mg/day in patients aged ≥70 years with a diagnosis of heart failure, treated with diuretics and an echocardiogram suggesting diastolic dysfunction and excluding substantial LV systolic dysfunction or valve disease. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and unplanned heart failure related hospitalization with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. A total of 850 patients were randomized. Their mean age was 76 (SD 5) years and 55% were women. Median follow-up was 2.1 (IQR 1.5–2.8) years. Enrolment and event rates were lower than anticipated, reducing the power of the study to show a difference in the primary endpoint to 35%. Many patients withdrew from perindopril (28%) and placebo (26%) after 1 year and started taking open-label ACE-inhibitors. Overall, 107 patients assigned to placebo and 100 assigned to perindopril reached the primary endpoint (HR 0.919: 95% CI 0.700–1.208; P=0.545). By 1 year, reductions in the primary outcome (HR 0.692: 95% CI 0.474–1.010; P=0.055) and hospitalization for heart failure (HR 0.628: 95% CI 0.408–0.966; P=0.033) were observed and functional class (P<0.030) and 6-min corridor walk distance (P=0.011) had improved in those assigned to perindopril. Conclusion Uncertainty remains about the effects of perindopril on long-term morbidity and mortality in this clinical setting since this study had insufficient power for its primary endpoint. However, improved symptoms and exercise capacity and fewer hospitalizations for heart failure in the first year were observed on perindopril, during which most patients were on assigned therapy, suggesting that it may be of benefit in this patient population.