You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Download PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

30 September 2025

CRT-D or CRT-P: When There Is a Dilemma and How to Solve It

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
First Department of Cardiology, “Hippokration” Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece
2
Third Department of Cardiology, Sotiria Thoracic Diseases General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece
3
State Department of Cardiology, “Hippokration” General Hospital of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece
4
Department of Cardiology, Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center Athens, 17674 Athens, Greece
J. Clin. Med.2025, 14(19), 6933;https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14196933
This article belongs to the Special Issue Pushing Boundaries in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Clinical Innovations Transforming Heart Failure Management
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) represents a cornerstone in the management of patients with heart failure and electrical dyssynchrony, improving symptoms, reducing hospitalizations, and prolonging survival. CRT can be delivered via a pacemaker (CRT-P) or an ICD (CRT-D). Despite its widespread use, the mortality benefit of CRT-D over CRT-P remains uncertain, as no head-to-head randomized trials have been designed to directly compare the two modalities, making device selection a frequent clinical dilemma. In practice, CRT-D accounts for 70–80% of CRT implantations in developed countries, yet solid evidence demonstrating its superiority over CRT-P is lacking. Specific patient groups, including those with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, advanced age, multiple comorbidities, or limited life expectancy, may derive limited incremental benefit from CRT-D, which should be balanced against device costs and specific risks such as lead failure and inappropriate shocks. The present review aims to provide a comprehensive comparison between CRT-D and CRT-P, focusing on the existing body of evidence, criteria for patient selection, comparative clinical outcomes, and risk–benefit considerations for clinical decision-making.

1. Introduction

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, affecting 1–2% of the adult population, with a rising prevalence mainly due to ageing [1,2,3]. Patients with heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction commonly exhibit significant intraventricular conduction delay, resulting in electrical dyssynchrony, exacerbating cardiac function [4,5]. It has been reported that intraventricular conduction delays (IVCDs) occur in 15% to 30% of patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) [6,7]. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) has emerged as a cornerstone therapeutical intervention for such patients, aiming to achieve coordinated biventricular contraction and improve hemodynamic performance [8,9,10,11], raising the number of CRT implantations up to 76% from 2010 to 2019 [12]. Multiple randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown reduced mortality and hospitalizations as well as improvement of symptoms and quality of life in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) receiving a CRT device [8,9,11,13,14].
CRT can be delivered via cardiac resynchronization therapy with a pacemaker (CRT-P) and cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D). The mortality benefit of CRT-D compared to CRT-P remains uncertain, primarily due to the absence of head-to-head RCTs specifically designed to compare these two therapeutic modalities. Selecting the most appropriate device type requires an individualized risk assessment that takes into account multiple factors, including the underlying etiology, presence of myocardial scar tissue, patient age, comorbidities, and overall life expectancy. ICD-specific risks such as inappropriate shocks, lead failure, and high cost should also be considered.
This review aims to provide a comprehensive comparison between CRT-D and CRT-P, focusing on the existing body of evidence, criteria for patient selection, comparative clinical outcomes, and key considerations for clinical decision-making.

2. Clinical Effectiveness of CRT

Current understanding and clinical use of CRT is based on landmark RCTs conducted since 2002. The MIRACLE trial was the first prospective study to demonstrate the effectiveness of CRT over a six-month follow-up period in patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure and intraventricular conduction delay compared with medical treatment [13]. Similar results were reported in the CARE-HF trial, where patients at NYHA III-IV receiving CRT experienced significant improvement in quality of life and clinical outcomes as opposed to those treated with medication alone [15,16]. Along this line, patients with advanced heart failure, wide QRS interval, and CRT exhibited reduced combined risk of death from any cause or hospitalization in the COMPANION trial, the only study to randomize patients to CRT-D or CRT-P; however, the study was designed to assess the effectiveness of CRT compared to medical treatment [9]. Patients with mild heart failure (NYHA I-II) also benefit from CRT, as shown in the MADIT-CRT [10], RAFT [11], and REVERSE [14] clinical trials. The major clinical trials of CRT are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Major CRT clinical trials.

3. CRT Indications

CRT is recommended in selected patients with heart failure who remain symptomatic despite optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (OGMT). According to the 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy, CRT-D is indicated in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%, sinus rhythm, and a widened QRS complex, particularly with left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology [23]. The greatest benefit is observed among those with QRS duration ≥ 150 ms. Additionally, patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) may be candidates for CRT, given that adequate biventricular pacing can be ensured, either with medical treatment or following AV nodal ablation [23]. Patients who have received a conventional ICD and who subsequently develop symptomatic HF with LVEF ≤ 35% despite OGMT, and who have a significant proportion of RV pacing, should be considered for CRT upgrade [24,25]. In Table 2, we summarize available current guidelines regarding cardiac physiologic pacing indications.
Table 2. Current recommendations regarding cardiac physiologic pacing.

4. CRT-D or CRT-P

Should all patients with a CRT indication receive a defibrillator lead? The choice between the two is a frequent clinical dilemma. Recent survey studies have shown that CRT-D devices account for over 70–80% of all CRT implantations in developed countries [26,27,28]. However, this widespread use of CRT-D is not supported by solid evidence demonstrating its superiority over CRT-P.
In a post hoc analysis of the COMPANION study, CRT-D was associated with 36% mortality risk reduction compared to CRT-P, and regarding the cause of death, CRT-D significantly reduced sudden cardiac death (SCD) (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23–0.86; p = 0.02) compared to CRT-P (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.7–2.07; p = 0.50) [9]. Importantly, though, the COMPANION trial was underpowered to detect a survival benefit from CRT-D. A network meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials including >12,000 patients found that CRT-D reduced total mortality by 19% (95% CI 1–33%, unadjusted) compared with CRT-P [29]. Similar results were reported in a propensity-matched cohort, where CRT-D was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality than CRT-P in patients with heart failure of ischemic etiology and in patients with non-ischemic heart failure below 75 years of age [30]. Accordingly, recently published meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, including 55,469 CRT-P patients and 72,561 CRT-D patients, showed that patients with CRT-D had 26% lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with CRT-P. However, patients aged > 75 years old and those with non-ischemic heart failure were less likely to benefit from a CRT-D [31]. Along this line, a previous meta-analysis focused on non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) reported that the addition of a defibrillator was not significantly associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality in CRT-eligible patients [32]. The DANISH trial had similarly reported no significant difference in mortality risk in patients with NICM between the ICD and no-ICD arm, irrespective of CRT [33]. Likewise, data from observational studies from Kutyifa et al. and Barra et al. suggest substantial (24–30%) mortality benefit from CRT-D only in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy [34,35]. C-However, contradictory results were reported in another meta-analysis assessing the effect of CRT-P versus CRT-D on mortality in patients with NICM, where CRT-D was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (log HR − 0.169, SE 0.055; p = 0.002) compared to CRT-P [36]. CRT with pacing only was reported to be non-inferior to CRT-D in the retrospective observational RESET-CRT study in an overall population of 3569 patients with both ischemic and non-ischemic heart failure [22].
Although CRT-D may offer additional survival benefit over CRT-P, reducing sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk [9], there is data that CRT-P alone could confer SCD risk reduction. In particular, in the CARE HF extended study CRT-P reduced SCD risk by 5.6% [37]. Accumulating data from subgroup analyses from RCTs suggest that SCD risk is related to the extent of reverse LV remodeling with CRT; thus, CRT responders are at lower risk for malignant ventricular arrhythmias and SCD than non-responders [38,39]. Super responders have been described as more likely having nonischemic etiology with complete left bundle branch block, and possibly women, and are characterized by significant LVEF improvement to nearly normal [40]. A downgrade to CRT-P at the time of generator replacement has been proposed, given the favorable prognosis of the super responders and low risk of ventricular arrhythmia [41]. However, appropriate ICD shocks have been described in super responders, indicating that LVEF improvement alone is not sufficient to accurately stratify SCD risk [42,43]. Women are shown to be better responders, with a higher percentage of biventricular pacing, decreased rates of death, and fewer hospitalizations compared to male counterparts, although they are underrepresented in CRT trials and are less likely to receive CRT-D [44]. Current medical treatment may mitigate ventricular arrhythmia risk, particularly the use of sacubitril/valsartan and sodium–glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) [45,46]. Increasing comorbidities, on the other hand, are associated with a mortality risk that competes with sudden arrhythmic death. The incremental benefit of an ICD is questioned in certain clinical settings. High comorbidity burden such as advanced age, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and peripheral vascular disease is significant predictor of mortality in CRT-D recipients, attenuating the survival benefit of ICD therapy [47,48,49,50]. Data from observational studies suggest that the addition of ICD has no impact on survival in elderly patients undergoing implantation of a CRT device [51,52]. Adding ICD to CRT seems to be a better option for younger patients with good survival prognosis. Contrast-enhanced CMR-guided scar adds valuable information concerning the risk of ventricular arrhythmia. According to the Gaudi CRT study, the presence of myocardial scar independently can predict appropriate ICD therapies and SCD in CRT patients [53]. Similarly, patients with NICM and left ventricular midwall fibrosis in CMR benefit from more from CRT-D than CRT-P [54].
As no head-to-head RCTs directly comparing CRT-D to CRT-P have been developed, the mortality benefit of CRT-D is not established. While both patients with CRT-P and those with CRT-D share common risks such as lead dislodgement, pocket hematoma, venous complications, device malfunction, and infection, CRT-D carries a higher overall complication burden [55]. This is mainly due to increased rates of late lead- and generator-related problems and increased occurrence of infections. Inappropriate shocks and psychological distress should be taken into account, along with significantly higher costs involved due to greater complexity, hardware requirements, and shorter device runtime, needing more frequently battery replacement [23].
It is therefore crucial to reassess and refine patient selection criteria in order to identify which individuals will truly benefit from the addition of a defibrillator component. Table 3 and Table 4 summarize existing studies and meta-analyses, respectively, on the effect of CRT on mortality in patients with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Table 3. RCTs and observational data on the effect of CRT on mortality.
Table 4. Meta-analyses on the effect of CRT on mortality.

5. Our Two-Step Approach

A two-step, multifactorial, electrophysiology (EP)-guided approach was proposed for risk stratification and management of post-myocardial infarction patients [42]. According to current guidelines, ICD is suggested in patients with LVEF < 35% for primary prevention. However, the PRESERVE EF study revealed a high-risk subpopulation among those with preserved LVEF, who received an ICD following inducible sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia during PVS. The authors proposed a stepwise approach involving the assessment of non-invasive risk factors (NIRFs), specifically (i) >30 premature ventricular complexes/hour on 24 h electrocardiography, (ii) presence of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia on 24 h electrocardiography, (iii) 2/3 positive criteria for late potentials, either conventional or modified, (iv) QTc derived from 24 h electrocardiography >440 ms (men) or >450 ms (women) according to the Fridericia formula from a signal recorded in three pseudo-orthogonal leads, (v) ambulatory T wave alternans ≥65 μV in two Holter channels, (vi) standard deviation of normal RR intervals ≤75 ms on the 24 h electrocardiography, and (7) deceleration capacity ≤4.5 ms, heart rate turbulence onset ≥0%, and heart rate turbulence slope ≤2.5 ms [42,77]. The presence of at least one NIRF leads to subsequent programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS), and according to inducibility of sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (SMVT), to ICD implantation. In the PRESERVE-EF study by Gatzoulis et al., late potentials and the presence of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia had a higher predictive value for inducibility during PVS among the studied NIRFs. On the contrary, the recent REFINE-ICD trial randomized post-myocardial infarction patients with LVEF 36–50% and abnormal ECG markers (impaired heart rate turbulence and abnormal T wave alternans) to an ICD plus medical therapy or medical therapy alone. While the presence of abnormal ECG markers was associated with a higher rate of death, survival was not improved with ICDs compared with medical therapy alone [42]. Risk stratification for SCD in NICM is also traditionally based on LVEF, although LVEF as a sole criterion cannot accurately identify truly high-risk individuals [78]. The results from the DANISH trial questioned the utility of ICDs in NICM and low LVEF [33], while at the same time, considerable SCD risk exists among those with mildly reduced and preserved LVEF [79,80]. A similar approach to the ICM two-step EP-guided risk stratification approach has been suggested for patients with NICM and preserved ejection fraction, with pending results [81,82]. Unexplained syncope and LGE presence have been added to the risk stratification algorithm in the ReCONSIDER study [81,83]. A recently published comparative analysis of ICD efficacy in patients with ICM and NICM showed clear benefit in ICM, whereas no significant reduction in mortality or ventricular arrhythmias was shown in NICM [84]. Thus, patients with CRT-D indication who may not clearly benefit from a defibrillator lead, such as the elderly, patients with multiple comorbidities, or patients with NICM, could be subjected to this multifactorial strategy in order to assess SCD risk, facilitating decision making. Likewise, patients with a pacemaker who become eligible for CRT upgrade could be subjected to non-invasive programmed stimulation (NIPS) via the device in order to assess arrhythmic risk and proceed to CRT-D implantation [85].
Refinement of patient selection criteria is particularly warranted in NICM, where adjunctive tools such as CMR and genetic testing are gaining ground and together with EPS provide valuable guidance for risk stratification and clinical decision-making [86,87]. CMR provides reliable information about biventricular function and myocardial substrate through late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and advanced tissue mapping techniques. The extent and distribution of myocardial scar, especially in ischemic cardiomyopathy, are closely linked to the risk of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death; in such patients, the addition of defibrillator therapy may be justified. In NICM, mid-wall fibrosis detected by LGE or diffuse fibrosis identified by T1 mapping has also been associated with increased arrhythmic risk, potentially favoring CRT-D over CRT-P. A range of CMR parameters have been associated with SCD, including the presence and extent of LGE, T1 relaxation times, and myocardial strain [88,89]. For example, 252 patients with NICM and CRT, of whom 68 had LGE, were prospectively followed, and it was observed that CRT-D was associated with significantly higher survival than CRT-P only in patients with LGE. In patients without LGE, with their low arrhythmic risk, CRT-D offered no benefit compared with CRT-P [12]. Parallel advances in cardiogenetics have improved our understanding of the complex genetic architecture of dilated cardiomyopathy [90]. Identifying a causative gene variant in a patient with DCM improves prognostic accuracy regarding disease progression and may contribute to the indications for device implantation. Specifically, variants in genes such as LMNA, RBM20, PLN, and BAG3 are consistently associated with a worse prognosis and are recognized as risk modifiers for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death [91,92]. Similarly, pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in FLNC or desmosomal genes (e.g., DSP, DES) confer an increased susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmias and/or progression to heart failure [93]. Of note, previously published guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death proposed PVS as a risk factor along with syncope, LGE in CMR, and pathogenic mutations in certain genes in the suggested SCD risk stratification algorithm [94]. Currently, artificial intelligence (AI) is emerging as a complementary tool to imaging and genomics in cardiomyopathies [90,95]. By integrating multimodal data, AI may provide new insights, advancing our understanding of cardiomyopathies and potentially refining the choice between CRT-D and CRT-P. Although early in clinical use, AI offers a promising path toward precision medicine.

6. CRT Non-Responders

Non-responders to CRT comprise a rather non negligeable amount of CRT receivers, and nonresponse to CRT has been related to right ventricular dysfunction. Approximately 30% of patients fail to exhibit clinical or echocardiographic improvement with CRT [96], partly attributed to the non-physiologic electrical resynchronization between an epicardial wavefront from the CS lead and the RV endocardium, suboptimal lead position, presence of LV scar, and latency due to localized conduction delay [97]. Moreover, in 5–7% of cases, CS lead implantation may be unsuccessful because of anatomic challenges, high pacing thresholds, or phrenic nerve stimulation [98]. Several approaches have been proposed to address this issue, including direct pacing of the conduction system (His bundle or left bundle branch pacing), pacing the left ventricle from multiple sites within the coronary sinus (multipoint pacing), or preferential LV pacing [99,100,101].
It is noteworthy that biventricular pacing may be complicated by ventricular proarrhythmia in the early post-implantation period; a rare but clinically significant phenomenon [102,103,104,105,106]. For example, VT storm occurred in 4% of the 191 patients included in a prospective study examining the incidence of VT storm after CRT-D implantation [104]. Similarly, 5 of 145 consecutive patients (3.4%) receiving a CRT device over a 4-year period experienced ventricular tachyarrhythmia after initiation of biventricular pacing in a case series study [107]. The causes of the proarrhythmogenicity are multiple. The reversal of the direction of the activation of the LV wall, from the epicardium to the endocardium, results in prolongation of repolarization that may trigger polymorphic VT. Secondarily, pacing close to or within myocardial scar and regions of slow conduction may increase the likelihood of VT. CRT responders, though, are less likely to experience ventricular proarrhythmia compared to non-responders [108]. Data suggest a modest effect of biventricular pacing on the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation as well [102]. Conduction system pacing through more physiological pacing and more effective resynchronization promotes remodeling, providing a less arrhythmogenic substrate compared with biventricular pacing.

7. Role of Conduction System Pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP)—whether His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP)—has emerged as a possible alternative to achieve cardiac resynchronization [99,109,110,111]. HBP has been associated with higher pacing thresholds, lower implantation success rates, and significant rates of crossover to other pacing modalities [112,113]. Recently, LBBAP has been proposed as viable and effective alternative to HBP, offering higher procedural success and lower pacing thresholds [114,115]. In LEVEL-AT, a single-center, prospective, randomized, parallel, controlled, clinical trial patients allocated to biventricular pacing or CSP (either HBP or LBBP) presented similar degrees of cardiac resynchronization, ventricular reverse remodeling, and clinical outcomes [99]. LBBP-CRT demonstrated greater LVEF improvement than BiVP-CRT in heart failure patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB in a prospective randomized trial of 40 patients [109]. Data from an observational retrospective study including 1778 eligible patients suggest improved clinical outcomes in those receiving LBBAP compared with BVP [116]. Along this line, findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis including 3141 patients indicate reduced mortality and hospitalizations in LBBAP receivers compared to BVP [117]. Upgrading to LBBP is feasible and effective in CRT non-responders, achieving marked cardiac function improvement and better clinical outcomes, rendering it a reasonable alternative pacing strategy [102]. Table 5 summarizes clinical trials on CSP vs. CRT.
Table 5. Clinical trials on CSP vs. CRT.

8. Conclusions

Due to lack of robust clinical evidence, the choice between CRT-D and CRT-P should be based on shared decision making and individualized risk assessment. The two step EP-guided approach could serve as a risk stratification tool. Factors that should be taken into account are age, etiology of heart failure, life expectancy, major comorbidities, poor renal function, and, of course, patient preference. Further studies are needed to identify subpopulations of patients with indications for CRT who will benefit the most from CRT-D implantation, justifying device-related risks compared to CRT-P alone.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.T. and K.G.; data curation, C.-K.A., A.K., P.A., O.K., and A.V.; writing—original draft preparation, A.L., I.D., and A.X., writing—review and editing, A.L., D.T. and K.G.; visualization A.-E.K., N.M., S.A., and P.D.; supervision, D.T. and C.T.; project administration P.X., S.S. (Stergios Soulaidopoulos), and S.S. (Skevos Sideris). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CRTCardiac resynchronization therapy
RCTsRandomized clinical trials
LVEFLeft ventricular ejection fraction
LBBBLeft bundle branch block
AFAtrial fibrillation
RVRight ventricular
OGMTOptimal guideline-directed medical therapy
PVSProgrammed ventricular stimulation
NIRFsNon-invasive risk factors
NIPSNon-invasive programmed stimulation
EPElectrophysiology
SCDSudden cardiac death
SMVTSustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia
CSPConduction system pacing
HBPHis bundle pacing
LBBAPLeft bundle branch area pacing
CMRCardiac magnetic resonance
NICMNon-ischemic cardiomyopathy
ICMIschemic cardiomyopathy
LGELate gadolinium enhancement
DCMDilated cardiomyopathy

References

  1. Conrad, N.; Judge, A.; Tran, J.; Mohseni, H.; Hedgecott, D.; Crespillo, A.P.; Allison, M.; Hemingway, H.; Cleland, J.G.; McMurray, J.J.V.; et al. Temporal trends and patterns in heart failure incidence: A population-based study of 4 million individuals. Lancet 2018, 391, 572–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Dunlay, S.M.; Weston, S.A.; Jacobsen, S.J.; Roger, V.L. Risk Factors for Heart Failure: A Population-Based Case-Control Study. Am. J. Med. 2009, 122, 1023–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Virani, S.S.; Alonso, A.; Benjamin, E.J.; Bittencourt, M.S.; Callaway, C.W.; Carson, A.P.; Chamberlain, A.M.; Chang, A.R.; Cheng, S.; Delling, F.N.; et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2020 Update: A Report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2020, 141, e139–e596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Leclercq, C.; Hare, J.M. Ventricular resynchronization: Current state of the art. Circulation 2004, 109, 296–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Leclercq, C.; Kass, D.A. Retiming the failing heart: Principles and current clinical status of cardiac resynchronization. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2002, 39, 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lund, L.H.; Jurga, J.; Edner, M.; Benson, L.; Dahlström, U.; Linde, C.; Alehagen, U. Prevalence, correlates, and prognostic significance of QRS prolongation in heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Eur. Heart J. 2012, 34, 529–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shamim, W.; Francis, D.P.; Yousufuddin, M.; Varney, S.; Pieopli, M.F.; Anker, S.D.; Coats, A.J. Intraventricular conduction delay: A prognostic marker in chronic heart failure. Int. J. Cardiol. 1999, 70, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cleland, J.G.; Daubert, J.C.; Erdmann, E.; Freemantle, N.; Gras, D.; Kappenberger, L.; Tavazzi, L. The effect of cardiac resynchro-nization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 352, 1539–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bristow, M.R.; Saxon, L.A.; Boehmer, J.; Krueger, S.; Kass, D.A.; De Marco, T.; Carson, P.; DiCarlo, L.; DeMets, D.; White, B.G.; et al. Cardiac-Resynchronization Therapy with or without an Implantable Defibrillator in Advanced Chronic Heart Failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 350, 2140–2150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Moss, A.J.; Hall, W.J.; Cannom, D.S.; Klein, H.; Brown, M.W.; Daubert, J.P.; Estes, N.A.M., III; Foster, E.; Greenberg, H.; Higgins, S.L.; et al. Cardiac-Resynchronization Therapy for the Prevention of Heart-Failure Events. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009, 361, 1329–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tang, A.S.; Wells, G.A.; Talajic, M.; Arnold, M.O.; Sheldon, R.; Connolly, S.; Hohnloser, S.H.; Nichol, G.; Birnie, D.H.; Sapp, J.L.; et al. Cardiac-Resynchronization Therapy for Mild-to-Moderate Heart Failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 363, 2385–2395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Leyva, F.; Zegard, A.; Patel, P.; Stegemann, B.; Marshall, H.; Ludman, P.; de Bono, J.; Boriani, G.; Qiu, T. Improved prognosis after cardiac resyn-chronization therapy over a decade. Europace 2023, 25, euad141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Abraham, W.T.; Fisher, W.G.; Smith, A.L.; Delurgio, D.B.; Leon, A.R.; Loh, E.; Kocovic, D.Z.; Packer, M.; Clavell, A.L.; Hayes, D.L.; et al. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002, 346, 1845–1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Linde, C.; Abraham, W.T.; Gold, M.R.; John Sutton, M.; Ghio, S.; Daubert, C.; REVERSE Study Group. Randomized trial of cardiac resynchronization in mildly symptomatic heart failure patients and in asymptomatic patients with left ventricular dysfunction and previous heart failure symptoms. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2008, 52, 1834–1843. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Cleland, J.; Daubert, J.; Erdmann, E.; Freemantle, N.; Gras, D.; Kappenberger, L.; Klein, W.; Tavazzi, L. The CARE-HF study Steering Committee and Investigators The CARE-HF study (CArdiac REsynchronisation in Heart Failure study): Rationale, design and end-points. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2001, 3, 481–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Cleland, J.G.; Freemantle, N.; Erdmann, E.; Gras, D.; Kappenberger, L.; Tavazzi, L.; Daubert, J. Long-term mortality with cardiac resynchronization therapy in the Cardiac Resynchronization-Heart Failure (CARE-HF) trial. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2012, 14, 628–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Auricchio, A.; Stellbrink, C.; Sack, S.; Block, M.; Vogt, J.; Bakker, P.; Mortensen, P.; Klein, H.; PATH-CHF Study Group. The Pacing Therapies for Congestive Heart Fail-ure (PATH-CHF) study: Rationale, design, and endpoints of a prospective randomized multicenter study. Am. J. Cardiol. 1999, 83, 130D–135D. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cazeau, S.; Leclercq, C.; Lavergne, T.; Walker, S.; Varma, C.; Linde, C.; Garrigue, S.; Kappenberger, L.; Haywood, G.A.; Santini, M.; et al. Effects of Multisite Biventricular Pacing in Patients with Heart Failure and Intraventricular Conduction Delay. N. Engl. J. Med. 2001, 344, 873–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Young, J.B.; Abraham, W.T.; Smith, A.L.; Leon, A.R.; Lieberman, R.; Wilkoff, B.; Canby, R.C.; Schroeder, J.S.; Liem, L.B.; Hall, S.; et al. Combined cardiac resynchronization and implantable cardioversion defibrillation in advanced chronic heart failure: The MIRACLE ICD Trial. JAMA 2003, 289, 2685–2694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Higgins, S.L.; Hummel, J.D.; Niazi, I.K.; Giudici, M.C.; Worley, S.J.; Saxon, L.A.; Boehmer, J.P.; Higginbotham, M.B.; De Marco, T.; Foster, E.; et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for the treatment of heart failure in patients with intraventricular conduction delay and malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2003, 42, 1454–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kindermann, M.; Hennen, B.; Jung, J.; Geisel, J.; Böhm, M.; Fröhlig, G. Biventricular versus conventional right ventricular stimulation for patients with standard pacing indication and left ventricular dysfunction: The Homburg Biventricular Pacing Evaluation (HOBIPACE). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2006, 47, 1927–1937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hadwiger, M.; Dagres, N.; Haug, J.; Wolf, M.; Marschall, U.; Tijssen, J.; Katalinic, A.; Frielitz, F.S.; Hindricks, G. Survival of patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillator: The RESET-CRT project. Eur. Heart J. 2022, 43, 2591–2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Glikson, M.; Nielsen, J.C.; Kronborg, M.B.; Michowitz, Y.; Auricchio, A.; Barbash, I.M.; Barrabés, J.A.; Boriani, G.; Braunschweig, F.; Brignole, M.; et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 3427–3520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Merkely, B.; Hatala, R.; Wranicz, J.K.; Duray, G.; Földesi, C.; Som, Z.; Németh, M.; Goscinska-Bis, K.; Gellér, L.; Zima, E.; et al. Upgrade of right ventricular pacing to cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: A randomized trial. Eur. Heart J. 2023, 44, 4259–4269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Sideris, S.; Poulidakis, E.; Aggeli, C.; Gatzoulis, K.; Vlaseros, I.; Dilaveris, P.; Sotiropoulos, I.; Papoutis, D.; Xristakopoulos, S.; Manakos, K.; et al. Upgrading pacemaker to cardiac resynchronization therapy: An option for patients with chronic right ventricular pacing and heart failure. Hell. J. Cardiol. 2014, 55, 17–23. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sridhar, A.R.M.; Yarlagadda, V.; Parasa, S.; Reddy, Y.M.; Patel, D.; Lakkireddy, D.; Wilkoff, B.L.; Dawn, B. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: US Trends and Disparities in Utilization and Outcomes. Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophysiol. 2016, 9, e003108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yokoshiki, H.; Shimizu, A.; Mitsuhashi, T.; Furushima, H.; Sekiguchi, Y.; Manaka, T.; Nishii, N.; Ueyama, T.; Morita, N.; Nitta, T.; et al. Trends and determinant factors in the use of cardiac resynchronization therapy devices in Japan: Analysis of the Japan cardiac device treatment registry database. J. Arrhythmia 2016, 32, 486–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Banks, H.; Torbica, A.; Valzania, C.; Varabyova, Y.; Rupel, V.P.; Taylor, R.S.; Hunger, T.; Walker, S.; Boriani, G.; Fattore, G.; et al. Five year trends (2008–2012) in cardiac implantable electrical device utilization in five European nations: A case study in cross-country comparisons using administrative databases. Europace 2017, 20, 643–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Woods, B.; Hawkins, N.; Mealing, S.; Sutton, A.; Abraham, W.T.; Beshai, J.F.; Klein, H.; Sculpher, M.; Plummer, C.J.; Cowie, M.R. Individual patient data network meta-analysis of mortality effects of implantable cardiac devices. Heart 2015, 101, 1800–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liang, Y.; Wang, J.; Yu, Z.; Zhang, M.; Pan, L.; Nie, Y.; Su, Y.; Ge, J. Comparison between cardiac resynchronization therapy with and without defibrillator on long-term mortality: A propensity score matched analysis. J. Cardiol. 2020, 75, 432–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Veres, B.; Fehérvári, P.; Engh, M.A.; Hegyi, P.; Gharehdaghi, S.; Zima, E.; Duray, G.; Merkely, B.; Kosztin, A. Time-trend treatment effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillator on mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Europace 2023, 25, euad289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Patel, D.; Kumar, A.; Black-Maier, E.; Morgan, R.L.; Trulock, K.; Wilner, B.; Nemer, D.; Donnellan, E.; Tarakji, K.G.; Cantillon, D.J.; et al. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With or Without Defibrillation in Patients with Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Circ. Arrhythmia Electrophysiol. 2021, 14, e008991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Køber, L.; Thune, J.J.; Nielsen, J.C.; Haarbo, J.; Videbæk, L.; Korup, E.; Jensen, G.; Hildebrandt, P.; Steffensen, F.H.; Bruun, N.E.; et al. Defibrillator Implantation in Patients with Nonischemic Systolic Heart Failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 1221–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Kutyifa, V.; Geller, L.; Bogyi, P.; Zima, E.; Aktas, M.K.; Ozcan, E.E.; Becker, D.; Nagy, V.K.; Kosztin, A.; Szilagyi, S.; et al. Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter defibrillator versus cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacemaker on mortality in heart failure patients: Results of a high-volume, single-centre experience. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2014, 16, 1323–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Barra, S.; Boveda, S.; Providência, R.; Sadoul, N.; Duehmke, R.; Reitan, C.; Borgquist, R.; Narayanan, K.; Hidden-Lucet, F.; Klug, D.; et al. Adding Defibrillation Therapy to Cardi-ac Resynchronization on the Basis of the Myocardial Substrate. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017, 69, 1669–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Al-Sadawi, M.; Aslam, F.; Tao, M.; Salam, S.; Alsaiqali, M.; Singh, A.; Fan, R.; Rashba, E.J. Is CRT-D superior to CRT-P in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy? Int. J. Arrhythmia 2023, 24, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cleland, J.G.; Daubert, J.-C.; Erdmann, E.; Freemantle, N.; Gras, D.; Kappenberger, L.; Tavazzi, L.; The CARE-HF Study Investigators. Longer-term effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on mortality in heart failure [the CArdiac REsynchronization-Heart Failure (CARE-HF) trial extension phase]. Eur. Heart J. 2006, 27, 1928–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gold, M.R.; Daubert, J.C.; Abraham, W.T.; Hassager, C.; Dinerman, J.L.; Hudnall, J.H.; Cerkvenik, J.; Linde, C. Implantable defibrillators im-prove survival in patients with mildly symptomatic heart failure receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy: Analysis of the long-term follow-up of remodeling in systolic left ventricular dysfunction (REVERSE). Circ. Arrhythm. Electro-physiol. 2013, 6, 1163–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gold, M.R.; Linde, C.; Abraham, W.T.; Gardiwal, A.; Daubert, J.-C. The impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy on the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias in mild heart failure. Heart Rhythm. 2011, 8, 679–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. García-Lunar, I.; Castro-Urda, V.; Toquero-Ramos, J.; Mingo-Santos, S.; Moñivas-Palomero, V.; Mitroi, C.D.; Sánchez-García, M.; Pérez-Pereira, E.; Delgado, H.E.; Fernández-Lozano, I. Ventricular Arrhythmias in Super-responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 2014, 67, 883–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fang, F.; Yu, C.-M. Shall CRT-D be downgraded to CRT-P in super-responders of cardiac resynchronization therapy? Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 2014, 67, 875–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gatzoulis, K.A.; Tsiachris, D.; Arsenos, P.; Antoniou, C.-K.; Dilaveris, P.; Sideris, S.; Kanoupakis, E.; Simantirakis, E.; Korantzopoulos, P.; Goudevenos, I.; et al. Arrhythmic risk stratification in post-myocardial infarction patients with preserved ejection fraction: The PRESERVE EF study. Eur. Heart J. 2019, 40, 2940–2949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Steffel, J.; Milosevic, G.; Hurlimann, A.; Krasniqi, N.; Namdar, M.; Ruschitzka, F.; Luscher, T.F.; Duru, F.; Holzmeister, J.; Hurlimann, D. Characteristics and long-term outcome of echocardiographic super-responders to cardiac resynchronisation therapy: ‘real world’ experience from a single tertiary care centre. Heart 2011, 97, 1668–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. de Waard, D.; Manlucu, J.; Gillis, A.M.; Sapp, J.; Bernick, J.; Doucette, S.; Tang, A.; Wells, G.; Parkash, R. Cardiac Resynchronization in Women: A Substudy of the Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2019, 5, 1036–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Zannad, F.; Ferreira, J.P.; Pocock, S.J.; Anker, S.D.; Butler, J.; Filippatos, G.; Brueckmann, M.; Ofstad, A.P.; Pfarr, E.; Jamal, W.; et al. SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A meta-analysis of the EMPEROR-Reduced and DAPA-HF trials. Lancet 2020, 396, 819–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Mcmurray, J.J.V.; Packer, M.; Desai, A.S.; Gong, J.; Lefkowitz, M.P.; Rizkala, A.R.; Rouleau, J.L.; Shi, V.C.; Solomon, S.D.; Swedberg, K.; et al. Angiotensin–Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure. PARADIGM-HF Investigators and Committees. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 993–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Pun, P.H.; Al-Khatib, S.M.; Han, J.Y.; Edwards, R.; Bardy, G.H.; Bigger, J.T.; Buxton, A.E.; Moss, A.J.; Lee, K.L.; Steinman, R.; et al. Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death in CKD: A Meta-analysis of Patient-Level Data From 3 Randomized Trials. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2014, 64, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Theuns, D.A.; Schaer, B.A.; Soliman, O.I.; Altmann, D.; Sticherling, C.; Geleijnse, M.L.; Osswald, S.; Jordaens, L. The prognosis of implantable defibrillator patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy: Comorbidity burden as predictor of mortality. Europace 2010, 13, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Goldenberg, I.; Vyas, A.K.; Hall, W.J.; Moss, A.J.; Wang, H.; He, H.; Zareba, W.; McNitt, S.; Andrews, M.L.; MADIT-II Investigators. Risk Stratification for Primary Implantation of a Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Patients With Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2008, 51, 288–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Leyva, F.; Zegard, A.; Okafor, O.; de Bono, J.; McNulty, D.; Ahmed, A.; Marshall, H.; Ray, D.; Qiu, T. Survival after cardiac resynchronization therapy: Results from 50 084 implantations. Europace 2019, 21, 754–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, Y.; Sharbaugh, M.S.; Althouse, A.D.; Mulukutla, S.; Saba, S. Cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers versus defibrillators in older non-ischemic cardiomyopathy patients. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol. J. 2019, 19, 4–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Döring, M.; Ebert, M.; Dagres, N.; Müssigbrodt, A.; Bode, K.; Knopp, H.; Kühl, M.; Hindricks, G.; Richter, S. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in the ageing population—With or without an implantable defibrillator? Int. J. Cardiol. 2018, 263, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Acosta, J.; Fernández-Armenta, J.; Borràs, R.; Anguera, I.; Bisbal, F.; Martí-Almor, J.; Tolosana, J.M.; Penela, D.; Andreu, D.; Soto-Iglesias, D.; et al. Scar Characterization to Predict Life-Threatening Arrhythmic Events and Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: The GAUDI-CRT Study. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2018, 11, 561–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Leyva, F.; Zegard, A.; Acquaye, E.; Gubran, C.; Taylor, R.; Foley, P.W.; Umar, F.; Patel, K.; Panting, J.; Marshall, H.; et al. Outcomes of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with or Without Defibrillation in Patients with Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017, 70, 1216–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Barra, S.; Providência, R.; Boveda, S.; Duehmke, R.; Narayanan, K.; Chow, A.W.; Piot, O.; Klug, D.; Defaye, P.; Gras, D.; et al. Device complications with addition of defibrillation to cardiac resynchronisation therapy for primary prevention. Heart 2018, 104, 1529–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Doran, B.; Mei, C.; Varosy, P.D.; Kao, D.P.; Saxon, L.A.; Feldman, A.M.; DeMets, D.; Bristow, M.R. The Addition of a Defibrillator to Resynchronization Therapy Decreases Mortality in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy. JACC Heart Fail. 2021, 9, 439–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Morani, G.; Gasparini, M.; Zanon, F.; Casali, E.; Spotti, A.; Reggiani, A.; Bertaglia, E.; Solimene, F.; Molon, G.; Accogli, M.; et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator improves long-term survival compared with cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker in patients with a class IA indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy: Data from the Contak Italian Registry. Europace 2013, 15, 1273–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Looi, K.-L.; Gajendragadkar, P.R.; Khan, F.Z.; Elsik, M.; Begley, D.A.; Fynn, S.P.; Grace, A.A.; Heck, P.M.; Virdee, M.; Agarwal, S. Cardiac resynchronisation therapy: Pacemaker versus internal cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with impaired left ventricular function. Heart 2014, 100, 794–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gold, M.R.; Padhiar, A.; Mealing, S.; Sidhu, M.K.; Tsintzos, S.I.; Abraham, W.T. Long-Term Extrapolation of Clinical Benefits Among Patients With Mild Heart Failure Receiving Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Analysis of the 5-Year Follow-Up From the REVERSE Study. JACC Heart Fail. 2015, 3, 691–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Marijon, E.; Leclercq, C.; Narayanan, K.; Boveda, S.; Klug, D.; Lacaze-Gadonneix, J.; Defaye, P.; Jacob, S.; Piot, O.; Deharo, J.-C.; et al. Causes-of-death analysis of patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: An analysis of the CeRtiTuDe cohort study. Eur. Heart J. 2015, 36, 2767–2776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Reitan, C.; Chaudhry, U.; Bakos, Z.; Brandt, J.; Wang, L.; Platonov, P.G.; Borgquist, R. Long-Term Results of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Comparison between CRT-Pacemakers versus Primary Prophylactic CRT-Defibrillators. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2015, 38, 758–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Munir, M.B.; Althouse, A.D.; Rijal, S.; Shah, M.B.; Abu Daya, H.; Adelstein, E.; Saba, S. Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Older Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Recipients Using a Pacemaker versus a Defibrillator. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2016, 27, 730–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Witt, C.T.; Kronborg, M.B.; Nohr, E.A.; Mortensen, P.T.; Gerdes, C.; Jensen, H.K.; Nielsen, J.C. Adding the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator to cardiac resynchronization therapy is associated with improved long-term survival in ischaemic, but not in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Europace 2016, 18, 413–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Drozd, M.; Gierula, J.; Lowry, J.E.; Paton, M.F.; Joy, E.; Jamil, H.A.; Cubbon, R.M.; Kearney, M.T.; Cairns, D.A.; Witte, K.K. Cardiac resynchronization therapy outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure: Cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacemaker versus cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator. J. Cardiovasc. Med. 2017, 18, 962–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Laish-Farkash, A.; Bruoha, S.; Katz, A.; Goldenberg, I.; Suleiman, M.; Michowitz, Y.; Shlomo, N.; Einhorn-Cohen, M.; Khalameizer, V. Morbidity and mortality with cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacing vs. with defibrillation in octogenarian patients in a real-world setting. Europace 2017, 19, 1357–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Martens, P.; Verbrugge, F.H.; Nijst, P.; Dupont, M.; Nuyens, D.; Herendael, H.V.; Rivero-Ayerza, M.; Tang, W.H.; Mullens, W. Incremental benefit of cardiac resynchronisation therapy with versus without a defibrillator. Heart 2017, 103, 1977–1984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yokoshiki, H.; Shimizu, A.; Mitsuhashi, T.; Furushima, H.; Sekiguchi, Y.; Manaka, T.; Nishii, N.; Ueyama, T.; Morita, N.; Okamura, H.; et al. Survival and Heart Failure Hospitalization in Patients With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With or Without a Defibrillator for Primary Prevention in Japan—Analysis of the Japan Cardiac Device Treatment Registry Database. Circ. J. 2017, 81, 1798–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Leyva, F.; Zegard, A.; Umar, F.; Taylor, R.J.; Acquaye, E.; Gubran, C.; Chalil, S.; Patel, K.; Panting, J.; Marshall, H.; et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillation: Impact of the aetiology of cardiomyopathy. Europace 2018, 20, 1804–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Saba, S.; McLaughlin, T.; He, M.; Althouse, A.; Mulukutla, S.; Hernandez, I. Cardiac resynchronization therapy using pacemakers vs defibrillators in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy: The United States experience from 2007 to 2014. Heart Rhythm. 2019, 16, 1065–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Barra, S.; Duehmke, R.; Providência, R.; Narayanan, K.; Reitan, C.; Roubicek, T.; Polasek, R.; Chow, A.; Defaye, P.; Fauchier, L.; et al. Very long-term survival and late sudden cardiac death in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients. Eur. Heart J. 2019, 40, 2121–2127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gras, M.; Bisson, A.; Bodin, A.; Herbert, J.; Babuty, D.; Pierre, B.; Clementy, N.; Fauchier, L. Mortality and cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillation in primary prevention. Europace 2020, 22, 1224–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Huang, W.; Wu, S.; Vijayaraman, P.; Su, L.; Chen, X.; Cai, B.; Zou, J.; Lan, R.; Fu, G.; Mao, G.; et al. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Using Left Bundle Branch Pacing. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2020, 6, 849–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Schrage, B.; Lund, L.H.; Melin, M.; Benson, L.; Uijl, A.; Dahlström, U.; Braunschweig, F.; Linde, C.; Savarese, G. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillator in patients with heart failure. Europace 2022, 24, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Farouq, M.; Rorsman, C.; Marinko, S.; Mörtsell, D.; Chaudhry, U.; Wang, L.; Platonov, P.G.; Borgquist, R. Age-stratified comparison of prognosis in cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without prophylactic defibrillator for nonischemic cardiomyopathy-a nationwide cohort study. Europace 2023, 25, euad187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Liu, F.; Gao, X.; Luo, J. An updated meta-analysis of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillation in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2023, 10, 1078570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Devesa Neto, V.; Costa, G.; Santos, L.F.; Costa, A.; Teixeira, R.; Goncalves, L. Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cardiac resynchronization therapy with versus without defibrillation in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Europace 2024, 26, euae102.488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gatzoulis, K.A.; Arsenos, P.; Trachanas, K.; Dilaveris, P.; Antoniou, C.; Tsiachris, D.; Sideris, S.; Kolettis, T.M.; Tousoulis, D. Signal-averaged electrocardiography: Past, present. Signal-averaged electrocardiography: Past, present, and future. J. Arrhythm. 2018, 34, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Milaras, N.; Dourvas, P.; Doundoulakis, I.; Sotiriou, Z.; Nevras, V.; Xintarakou, A.; Laina, A.; Soulaidopoulos, S.; Zachos, P.; Kordalis, A.; et al. Noninvasive electrocardiographic risk factors for sudden cardiac death in dilated ca rdiomyopathy: Is ambulatory electrocardiography still relevant? Heart Fail. Rev. 2023, 28, 865–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Stecker, E.C.; Vickers, C.; Waltz, J.; Socoteanu, C.; John, B.T.; Mariani, R.; McAnulty, J.H.; Gunson, K.; Jui, J.; Chugh, S.S. Population-based analysis of sudden cardiac death with and without left ventricular systolic dysfunction: Two-year findings from the Oregon Sudden Unexpected Death Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2006, 47, 1161–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gorgels, A.P.; Gijsbers, C.; de Vreede-Swagemakers, J.; Lousberg, A.; Wellens, H.J. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest-the relevance of heart failure. The Maastricht Circulatory Arrest Registry. Eur. Heart J. 2003, 24, 1204–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gatzoulis, K.A.; Dilaveris, P.; Arsenos, P.; Tsiachris, D.; Antoniou, C.-K.; Sideris, S.; Kolettis, T.; Kanoupakis, E.; Sideris, A.; Flevari, P.; et al. Arrhythmic risk stratification in nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy: The ReCONSIDER study design—A two-step, multifactorial, electrophysiology-inclusive approach. Hell. J. Cardiol. 2021, 62, 169–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Laina, A.; Gatzoulis, K.; Soulaidopoulos, S.; Arsenos, P.; Doundoulakis, I.; Tsiachris, D.; Sideris, S.; Kordalis, A.; Tousoulis, D.; Tsioufis, K. Time to reconsider risk stratification in dilated cardiomyopathy. Hell. J. Cardiol. 2021, 62, 392–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Doundoulakis, I.; Tsiachris, D.; Kordalis, A.; Soulaidopoulos, S.; Arsenos, P.; Xintarakou, A.; Koliastasis, L.; Vlachakis, P.K.; Tsioufis, K.; Gatzoulis, K.A. Management of Patients with Unexplained Syncope and Bundle Branch Block: Predictive Factors of Recurrent Syncope. Cureus 2023, 15, e35827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Demir, E.; Köse, M.R.; Şimşek, E.; Orman, M.N.; Zoghi, M.; Gürgün, C.; Nalbantgil, S. Comparative analysis of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy in patients with heart failure. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 24631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Frontera, A.; Prolic Kalinsek, T.; Hadjis, A.; Della Bella, P. Noninvasive programmed stimulation in the setting of ven-tricular tachycardia catheter ablation. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2020, 31, 1828–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Kariki, O.; Antoniou, C.-K.; Mavrogeni, S.; Gatzoulis, K.A. Updating the Risk Stratification for Sudden Cardiac Death in Cardiomyopathies: The Evolving Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging. An Approach for the Electrophysiologist. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Xintarakou, A.; Kariki, O.; Doundoulakis, I.; Arsenos, P.; Soulaidopoulos, S.; Laina, A.; Xydis, P.; Kordalis, A.; Nakas, N.; Theofilou, A.; et al. The Role of Genetics in Risk Stratification Strategy of Dilated Cardiomyopathy. Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 23, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Halliday, B.P.; Gulati, A.; Ali, A.; Guha, K.; Newsome, S.; Arzanauskaite, M.; Vassiliou, V.S.; Lota, A.; Izgi, C.; Tayal, U.; et al. Association Between Midwall Late Gadolinium Enhancement and Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients With Dilated Cardiomyopathy and Mild and Moderate Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction. Circulation 2017, 135, 2106–2115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Keil, L.; Chevalier, C.; Kirchhof, P.; Blankenberg, S.; Lund, G.; Müllerleile, K.; Magnussen, C. CMR-Based Risk Stratification of Sudden Cardiac Death and Use of Implantable Cardioverter–Defibrillator in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 7115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Antonopoulos, A.S.; Xintarakou, A.; Protonotarios, A.; Lazaros, G.; Miliou, A.; Tsioufis, K.; Vlachopoulos, C. Imagenetics for Precision Medicine in Dilated Cardiomyopathy. Circ. Genom. Precis. Med. 2024, 17, e004301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Arbelo, E.; Protonotarios, A.; Gimeno, J.R.; Arbustini, E.; Barriales-Villa, R.; Basso, C.; Bezzina, C.R.; Biagini, E.; Blom, N.A.; de Boer, R.A.; et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiomyopathies. Eur. Heart J. 2023, 44, 3503–3626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gigli, M.; Merlo, M.; Graw, S.L.; Barbati, G.; Rowland, T.J.; Slavov, D.B.; Stolfo, D.; Haywood, M.E.; Ferro, M.D.; Altinier, A.; et al. Genetic Risk of Arrhythmic Phenotypes in Patients with Dilated Cardiomyopathy. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 74, 1480–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Gasperetti, A.; Carrick, R.T.; Costa, S.; Compagnucci, P.; Bosman, L.P.; Chivulescu, M.; Tichnell, C.; Murray, B.; Tandri, H.; Tadros, R.; et al. Programmed Ventricular Stimulation as an Additional Primary Prevention Risk Stratification Tool in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy: A Multinational Study. Circulation 2022, 146, 1434–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Zeppenfeld, K.; Tfelt-Hansen, J.; de Riva, M.; Winkel, B.G.; Behr, E.R.; Blom, N.A.; Charron, P.; Corrado, D.; Dagres, N.; de Chillou, C.; et al. 2022 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Eur. Heart J. 2022, 43, 3997–4126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Trayanova, N.A.; Popescu, D.M.; Shade, J.K. Machine Learning in Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. Circ. Res. 2021, 128, 544–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ellenbogen, K.A.; Huizar, J.F. Foreseeing super-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: A perspective for clini-cians. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2012, 59, 2374–2377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Daubert, C.; Behar, N.; Martins, R.P.; Mabo, P.; Leclercq, C. Avoiding non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy: A practical guide. Eur. Heart J. 2017, 38, 1463–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hummel, J.D.; Coppess, M.A.; Osborn, J.S.; Yee, R.; Fung, J.W.; Augostini, R.; Li, S.; Hine, D.; Singh, J.P. Real-World Assessment of Acute Left Ventricular Lead Implant Success and Complication Rates: Results from the Attain Success Clinical Trial. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2016, 39, 1246–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pujol-Lopez, M.; Jiménez-Arjona, R.; Garre, P.; Guasch, E.; Borràs, R.; Doltra, A.; Ferró, E.; García-Ribas, C.; Niebla, M.; Carro, E.; et al. Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing in Heart Failure and Wide QRS Patients. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2022, 8, 1431–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Antoniou, C.-K.; Chrysohoou, C.; Manolakou, P.; Tsiachris, D.; Kordalis, A.; Tsioufis, K.; Gatzoulis, K.A. Multipoint Left Ventricular Pacing as Alternative Approach in Cases of Biventricular Pacing Failure. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Dilaveris, P.; Antoniou, C.-K.; Chrysohoou, C.; Xydis, P.; Konstantinou, K.; Manolakou, P.; Kordalis, A.; Gatzoulis, K.; Tsioufis, C. Comparative Trial of the Effects of Left Ventricular and Biventricular Pacing on Indices of Cardiac Function and Clinical Course of Patients with Heart Failure: Rationale and Design of the READAPT Randomized Trial. Angiology 2021, 72, 961–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Herweg, B.; Sharma, P.S.; Cano, Ó.; Ponnusamy, S.S.; Zanon, F.; Jastrzebski, M.; Zou, J.; Chelu, M.G.; Vernooy, K.; Whinnett, Z.I.; et al. Arrhythmic Risk in Biventricular Pacing Compared with Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Results From the I-CLAS Study. Circulation 2024, 149, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Fish, J.M.; Brugada, J.; Antzelevitch, C. Potential Proarrhythmic Effects of Biventricular Pacing. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2005, 46, 2340–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nayak, H.M.; Verdino, R.J.; Russo, A.M.; Gerstenfeld, E.P.; Hsia, H.H.; Lin, D.; Dixit, S.; Cooper, J.M.; Callans, D.J.; Marchlinski, F.E. Ventricular Tachycardia Storm After Initiation of Biventricular Pacing: Incidence, Clinical Characteristics, Management, and Outcome. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2008, 19, 708–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Bradfield, J.S.; Shivkumar, K. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy–Induced Proarrhythmia. Circ. Arrhythmia Electrophysiol. 2014, 7, 1000–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Vouliotis, A.I.; Tsiachris, D.; Dilaveris, P.; Sideris, S.; Gatzoulis, K.A. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Proarrhythmia: Weathering the Storm. Hosp. Chron. 2012, 7, 234–240. [Google Scholar]
  107. Shukla, G.; Chaudhry, G.M.; Orlov, M.; Hoffmeister, P.; Haffajee, C. Potential proarrhythmic effect of biventricular pacing: Fact or myth? Heart Rhythm. 2005, 2, 951–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Deif, B.; Ballantyne, B.; Almehmadi, F.; Mikhail, M.; McIntyre, W.F.; Manlucu, J.; Yee, R.; Sapp, J.L.; Roberts, J.D.; Healey, J.S.; et al. Cardiac resynchronization is pro-arrhythmic in the absence of reverse ventricular remodelling: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc. Res. 2018, 114, 1435–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Wang, Y.; Zhu, H.; Hou, X.; Wang, Z.; Zou, F.; Qian, Z.; Wei, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhang, L.; Li, X.; et al. Randomized Trial of Left Bundle Branch vs Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2022, 80, 1205–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Upadhyay, G.A.; Vijayaraman, P.; Nayak, H.M.; Verma, N.; Dandamudi, G.; Sharma, P.S.; Saleem, M.; Mandrola, J.; Genovese, D.; Tung, R. His Corrective Pacing or Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization in Heart Failure. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 74, 157–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Vinther, M.; Risum, N.; Svendsen, J.H.; Møgelvang, R.; Philbert, B.T. A Randomized Trial of His Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing in Symptomatic HF Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block (His-Alternative). JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2021, 7, 1422–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Archontakis, S.; Sideris, K.; Laina, A.; Arsenos, P.; Paraskevopoulou, D.; Tyrovola, D.; Gatzoulis, K.; Tousoulis, D.; Tsioufis, K.; Sideris, S. His bundle pacing: A promising alternative strategy for anti-bradycardic pacing—Report of a single-center experience. Hell. J. Cardiol. 2021, 64, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Lustgarten, D.L.; Crespo, E.M.; Arkhipova-Jenkins, I.; Lobel, R.; Winget, J.; Koehler, J.; Liberman, E.; Sheldon, T. His-bundle pacing versus biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients: A crossover design comparison. Heart Rhythm. 2015, 12, 1548–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Vijayaraman, P.; Herweg, B.; Verma, A.; Sharma, P.S.; Batul, S.A.; Ponnusamy, S.S.; Schaller, R.D.; Cano, O.; Molina-Lerma, M.; Curila, K.; et al. Rescue left bundle branch area pacing in coronary venous lead failure or nonresponse to biventricular pacing: Results from International LBBAP Collaborative Study Group. Heart Rhythm. 2022, 19, 1272–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Vijayaraman, P.; Ponnusamy, S.; Cano, Ó.; Sharma, P.S.; Naperkowski, A.; Subsposh, F.A.; Moskal, P.; Bednarek, A.; Dal Forno, A.R.; Young, W.; et al. Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Results from the International LBBAP Collaborative Study Group. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2021, 7, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Vijayaraman, P.; Sharma, P.S.; Cano, Ó.; Ponnusamy, S.S.; Herweg, B.; Zanon, F.; Jastrzebski, M.; Zou, J.; Chelu, M.G.; Vernooy, K.; et al. Comparison of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Biventricular Pacing in Candidates for Resynchronization Therapy. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2023, 82, 228–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Leventopoulos, G.; Travlos, C.K.; Anagnostopoulou, V.; Patrinos, P.; Papageorgiou, A.; Perperis, A.; Gale, C.P.; Gatzoulis, K.A.; Davlouros, P. Clinical Out-comes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared with Biventricular Pacing in Patients with Heart Failure Requiring Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2023, 24, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Vijayaraman, P.; Pokharel, P.; Subzposh, F.A.; Oren, J.W.; Storm, R.H.; Batul, S.A.; Beer, D.A.; Hughes, G.; Leri, G.; Manganiello, M.; et al. His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing Optimized Trial of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy vs Biventricular Pacing: HOT-CRT Clinical Trial. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2023, 9, 2628–2638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Pujol-López, M.; Graterol, F.R.; Borràs, R.; Garcia-Ribas, C.; Guichard, J.B.; Regany-Closa, M.; Jiménez-Arjona, R.; Niebla, M.; Poza, M.; Carro, E.; et al. Clinical Response to Resynchronization Therapy: Conduction System Pacing vs. Biventricular Pacing: The CONSYST-CRT trial. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2025, 11, 1820–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Management Strategy for Non-Responsive and Refractory Celiac Disease in Adults: A Review Article
Previous
Cardiovascular Physiology During Mechanical Circulatory Support: Implications for Management and Monitoring
Next