You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 6, Issue 1
  • Outcomes of cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with heart failure with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Heart failure and cardiomyopathies
Original research article
Outcomes of cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with heart failure with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
  1. Usman Mustafa1,2,
  2. Jessica Atkins1,2,3,
  3. George Mina1,2,3,
  4. Desiree Dawson1,2,3,
  5. Catherine Vanchiere1,2,3,
  6. Narendra Duddyala1,2,3,
  7. Ryan Jones1,2,3,
  8. Pratap Reddy1,2,3 and
  9. Paari Dominic1,2,3
  1. 1 Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology and Center for Cardiovascular Disease & Sciences, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
  2. 2 Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology and Center for Cardiovascular Disease & Sciences, Louisiana State University Heatlh Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
  3. 3 Department of Medicine/Division of Cardiology and Center for Cardiovascular Disease & Sciences, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Paari Dominic; pdomi2{at}lsuhsc.edu

Abstract

Background Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) is beneficial in selected patients with heart failure (HF) in normal sinus rhythm (NSR). We sought to evaluate the impact of CRT with or without atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation in patients with HF with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF)

Methods and results Literature was searched (inception through 30 August 2017) for observational studies that reported outcomes in patients with HF with CRT and AF that reported all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Thirty-one studies with 83, 571 patients were included. CRT did not decrease mortality compared with internal cardioverter defibrillator or medical therapy alone in patients with HF and AF with indications for CRT (OR: 0.851, 95% CI 0.616 to 1.176, p=0.328, I2=86.954). CRT-AF patients had significantly higher all-cause and cardiovascular mortality than CRT-NSR patients ([OR: 1.472, 95% CI 1.301 to 1.664, p=0.000] and [OR: 1.857, 95% CI 1.350 to 2.554, p=0.000] respectively). Change in left ventricular ejection fraction was not different between CRT patients with and without AF (p=0.705). AVJ ablation, however, improved all-cause mortality in CRT-AF patients when compared with CRT-AF patients without AVJ ablation (OR: 0.485, 95% CI 0.247 to 0.952, p=0.035). With AVJ ablation, there was no difference in all-cause mortality in CRT-AF patients compared with CRT-NSR patients (OR: 1.245, 95% CI 0.914 to 1.696, p=0.165).

Conclusion The results of our meta-analysis suggest that AF was associated with decreased CRT benefits in patients with HF. CRT, however, benefits patients with AF with AVJ ablation.

  • implanted cardioverter defibrillator
  • atrioventricular junction ablation
  • biventricular pacing
  • ejection fraction

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2018-000937

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • UM and JA contributed equally.

    • Contributors UM, PD, JA, DD: design. PD, JA, UM: search and reconciliation. JA, UM, DD: data extraction and cross-verification. PD, GM: data analysis and guarantor. UM, JA, CV, PD: manuscript preparation. PD, ND, RJ, PR: study supervision and expertise in field.

    • Funding This article was supported in part by 2 U54 GM104940-02 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health which funds the Louisiana Clinical and Translational Science Center.

    • Disclaimer The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement Data are available upon reasonable request.