https://doi.org/10.55788/a2ab1a84
Adaptive cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) did not reduce the risk of death or intervention for heart failure (HF) decompensation compared with conventional CRT in patients with HF, left bundle branch block (LBBB), and intact atrioventricular (AV) conduction, according to the AdaptResponse trial.
“Although CRT offers health benefits to patients with symptomatic HF, a prolonged QRS duration, and a reduced ejection fraction, up to 30% of the patients have been classified as non-responders to conventional CRT,” said Dr Bruce Wilkoff (Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA) [1]. “Pacing the left ventricle only may be superior to biventricular pacing if conduction to the right ventricle is intact” [2]. The AdaptResponse trial (NCT02205359) randomised 3,618 patients with HF, LBBB, and intact AV conduction 1:1 to adaptive CRT, switching between left ventricular pacing and biventricular pacing based on the patients’ AV and heart rhythm, or conventional CRT [3]. The primary endpoint was death from any cause or intervention for HF decompensation.
The primary endpoint was not met, and the trial was stopped after the third interim analysis due to futility. The event rate was 33.7% in the conventional CRT group and 30.8% in the adaptive CRT group (HR 0.89; P=0.077). Similarly, secondary endpoints did not reach a statistically significant difference between the 2 study groups. Finally, Dr Wilkoff mentioned that a post-hoc analysis showed that participants in the adaptive CRT group with ≥85% synchronised left ventricular pacing had a significantly lower rate of mortality and intervention for HF decompensation than patients in the conventional CRT group (HR 0.76; P=0.0037).
-
- Mullens W, et al. JACC. 2009;53(9):765–773.
- Vernooy K, et al. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2014;11(8):481–493.
- Wilkoff BL, et al. Adaptive versus conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure: primary results from the AdaptResponse global randomized trial. Late-Breaking Science Day 2, EHRA 2023, 16–18 April, Barcelona, Spain.
Copyright ©2023 Medicom Medical Publishers
Posted on
« Can we identify patients who may not benefit from ICD therapy? Next Article
Prolonged ECG monitoring detects relevant arrhythmias in HCM »
Table of Contents: EHRA 2023
Featured articles
CEASE-AF meets primary endpoint in persistent AF
ANTWERP score selects HF patients for AF ablation
Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation
Surgery saves lives in patients with oesophageal fistula
MANIFEST-PF: Good results for the pentaspline PFA catheter
POWER FAST III: High-power, short-duration radiofrequency ablation for AF
High-power, short-duration ablation linked to a higher stroke risk
Early or delayed ablation for AF?
CEASE-AF meets primary endpoint in persistent AF
Promising results for Marshall Plan ablation strategy
Updates on Devices
Can ICD-EG-derived information improve ventricular tachycardia ablation outcomes?
Prolonged ECG monitoring detects relevant arrhythmias in HCM
Does adaptive pacing work in patients with HF, LBBB, and intact AV conduction?
Can we identify patients who may not benefit from ICD therapy?
Miscellaneous
Statins display benefits for AF patients in a large population-based study
ANTWERP score selects HF patients for AF ablation
Epicardial ablation successful in Brugada syndrome
Highly increased risk of arrhythmias after mechanical ventilation for COVID-19
Related Articles
Support for COVID-19 booster shots in cancer patients

ERS 2021 Highlights Podcast
© 2023 Medicom Medical Publishers. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy