[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
Purchase Options:
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure 1.  Change in the Primary End Point of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction at 6 Months Following Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Implantation
Change in the Primary End Point of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction at 6 Months Following Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Implantation

A, Each participant is presented in order, from left to right, of their baseline left ventricular ejection fraction value. The vertical lines show the change from their baseline to 6-month left ventricular ejection fraction value. B, Boxplots represent the change in left ventricular ejection fraction from the time of the implant to 6 months after cardiac resynchronization therapy. The open circles represent outlying maximum values (defined as 1.5 times the interquartile range above the 75th percentile value [interquartile range = 75th percentile - 25th percentile]).

Figure 2.  Subgroup Analysis for the Primary End Point of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) Change at 6 Months Following Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) Implantation
Subgroup Analysis for the Primary End Point of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) Change at 6 Months Following Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) Implantation

Boxplots represent mean LVEF change across different subgroups at 6 months following CRT. The New York Heart Association (NYHA) Classification provides a simple way of classifying the severity of heart failure. It categorizes patients in 1 of 4 classes based on their symptoms or limitations during physical exertion. NYHA class I is least severe and NYHA class IV is most severe. The open circles represent outlying maximum values (defined as 1.5 times the interquartile range above the 75th percentile value [interquartile range = 75th percentile - 25th percentile]).

Table 1.  Baseline Clinical Characteristics
Baseline Clinical Characteristics
Table 2.  Secondary and Tertiary Echocardiography End Points at Baseline and 6 Months Following Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Implantation
Secondary and Tertiary Echocardiography End Points at Baseline and 6 Months Following Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Implantation
Table 3.  Outcomes and Procedure-Related Adverse Events
Outcomes and Procedure-Related Adverse Events
1.
Armstrong  GT, Liu  Q, Yasui  Y,  et al.  Late mortality among 5-year survivors of childhood cancer: a summary from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.  J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(14):2328-2338. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.21.1425PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Swain  SM, Whaley  FS, Ewer  MS.  Congestive heart failure in patients treated with doxorubicin: a retrospective analysis of three trials.  Cancer. 2003;97(11):2869-2879. doi:10.1002/cncr.11407PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Cardinale  D, Colombo  A, Bacchiani  G,  et al.  Early detection of anthracycline cardiotoxicity and improvement with heart failure therapy.  Circulation. 2015;131(22):1981-1988. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.013777PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Baech  J, Hansen  SM, Lund  PE,  et al.  Cumulative anthracycline exposure and risk of cardiotoxicity: a Danish nationwide cohort study of 2440 lymphoma patients treated with or without anthracyclines.  Br J Haematol. 2018;183(5):717-726. doi:10.1111/bjh.15603PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Armenian  SH, Lacchetti  C, Barac  A,  et al.  Prevention and monitoring of cardiac dysfunction in survivors of adult cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(8):893-911. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.70.5400PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Ajijola  OA, Nandigam  KV, Chabner  BA,  et al.  Usefulness of cardiac resynchronization therapy in the management of doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy.  Am J Cardiol. 2008;101(9):1371-1372. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.12.037PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Epstein  AE, DiMarco  JP, Ellenbogen  KA,  et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; Heart Rhythm Society.  2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update incorporated into the ACCF/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(3):e6-e75. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Lang  RM, Bierig  M, Devereux  RB,  et al; Chamber Quantification Writing Group; American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee; European Association of Echocardiography.  Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology.  J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005;18(12):1440-1463. doi:10.1016/j.echo.2005.10.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Solomon  SD, Foster  E, Bourgoun  M,  et al; MADIT-CRT Investigators.  Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy on reverse remodeling and relation to outcome: multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial: cardiac resynchronization therapy.  Circulation. 2010;122(10):985-992. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.955039PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Goorin  AM, Borow  KM, Goldman  A,  et al.  Congestive heart failure due to adriamycin cardiotoxicity: its natural history in children.  Cancer. 1981;47(12):2810-2816. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19810615)47:12<2810::AID-CNCR2820471210>3.0.CO;2-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Felker  GM, Thompson  RE, Hare  JM,  et al.  Underlying causes and long-term survival in patients with initially unexplained cardiomyopathy.  N Engl J Med. 2000;342(15):1077-1084. doi:10.1056/NEJM200004133421502PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Fornaro  A, Olivotto  I, Rigacci  L,  et al.  Comparison of long-term outcome in anthracycline-related versus idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy: a single centre experience.  Eur J Heart Fail. 2018;20(5):898-906. doi:10.1002/ejhf.1049PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Slamon  D, Eiermann  W, Robert  N,  et al; Breast Cancer International Research Group.  Adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2011;365(14):1273-1283. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0910383PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Hall  PS, Harshman  LC, Srinivas  S, Witteles  RM.  The frequency and severity of cardiovascular toxicity from targeted therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients.  JACC Heart Fail. 2013;1(1):72-78. doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2012.09.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Spragg  DD, Kass  DA.  Pathobiology of left ventricular dyssynchrony and resynchronization.  Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2006;49(1):26-41. doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2006.05.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Bristow  MR, Saxon  LA, Boehmer  J,  et al; Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) Investigators.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2004;350(21):2140-2150. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa032423PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Moss  AJ, Hall  WJ, Cannom  DS,  et al; MADIT-CRT Trial Investigators.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events.  N Engl J Med. 2009;361(14):1329-1338. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0906431PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Goldenberg  I, Kutyifa  V, Klein  HU,  et al.  Survival with cardiac-resynchronization therapy in mild heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2014;370(18):1694-1701. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1401426PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Linde  C, Gold  MR, Abraham  WT,  et al; REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic left vEntricular dysfunction Study Group.  Long-term impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy in mild heart failure: 5-year results from the REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic left vEntricular dysfunction (REVERSE) Study.  Eur Heart J. 2013;34(33):2592-2599. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht160PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Tang  AS, Wells  GA, Talajic  M,  et al; Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial Investigators.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for mild-to-moderate heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2010;363(25):2385-2395. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1009540PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Cardinale  D, Colombo  A, Lamantia  G,  et al.  Anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy: clinical relevance and response to pharmacologic therapy.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(3):213-220. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.03.095PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Gulati  G, Heck  SL, Ree  AH,  et al.  Prevention of cardiac dysfunction during adjuvant breast cancer therapy (PRADA): a 2 × 2 factorial, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial of candesartan and metoprolol.  Eur Heart J. 2016;37(21):1671-1680. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw022PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Preliminary Communication
November 12, 2019

Association of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With Change in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Patients With Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiomyopathy

Author Affiliations
  • 1Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston
  • 2Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 3Moffitt Cancer Center, University of South Florida, Tampa
  • 4MedStar Washington Hospital Center & MedStar Heart and Vascular Institute, Washington, DC
  • 5Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center, Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
  • 6Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
JAMA. 2019;322(18):1799-1805. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.16658
Key Points

Question  Is cardiac resynchronization therapy associated with improvement in left ventricular function in patients with chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy?

Findings  In this uncontrolled, prospective, cohort study that included 26 patients with chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy and follow-up data at 6 months, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction changed from 28% to 39%, a difference that was statistically significant.

Meaning  Cardiac resynchronization therapy was significantly associated with improvement in left ventricular function, but the findings are limited by the small sample size, short follow-up, and absence of a control group.

Abstract

Importance  The incidence of chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy is increasing and is associated with poor clinical outcomes.

Objective  To assess the association of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with improvement in cardiac function, as well as clinical improvement in patients with chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy.

Design, Setting, and Participants  The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiomyopathy was an uncontrolled, prospective, cohort study conducted between November 21, 2014, and June 21, 2018, at 12 tertiary centers with cardio-oncology programs in the United States. Thirty patients were implanted with CRT owing to reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF≤35%), New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure symptoms, and wide QRS complex, with established chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy and were followed up for 6 months after CRT implantation. The date of final follow-up was February 6, 2019.

Exposures  CRT implantation according to standard of care.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary end point was change in LVEF from baseline to 6 months after initiating CRT. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and change in left ventricular end-systolic volume and end-diastolic volume.

Results  Among 30 patients who were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 64 [11] years; 26 women [87%]; 73% had a history of breast cancer; 20% had a history of lymphoma or leukemia), primary end point data were available for 26 patients and secondary end point data were available for 23 patients. Patients had nonischemic cardiomyopathy with left bundle branch block, median LVEF of 29%, and a mean QRS duration of 152 ms. Patients with CRT experienced a statistically significant improvement in mean LVEF at 6 months from 28% to 39% (difference, 10.6% [95% CI, 8.0%-13.3%]; P < .001). This was accompanied by a reduction in LV end-systolic volume from 122.7 to 89.0 mL (difference, 37.0 mL [95% CI, 28.2-45.8]) and reduction in LV end-diastolic volume from 171.0 to 143.2 mL (difference, 31.9 mL [95% CI, 22.1-41.6]) (both P < .001). Adverse events included a procedure-related pneumothorax (1 patient), a device pocket infection (1 patient), and heart failure requiring hospitalization during follow-up (1 patient).

Conclusions and Relevance  In this preliminary study of patients with chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy, CRT was associated with improvement in LVEF after 6 months. The findings are limited by the small sample size, short follow-up, and absence of a control group.

Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02164721

Introduction

With the advent of new therapies and an increasing number of long-term cancer survivors, the incidence of chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy (CHIC) has been increasing. Patients with CHIC have presented with heart failure several months to years after the administration of chemotherapy, especially anthracyclines.1 Data from several studies inclusive of these patients from 1988 through 2014 have demonstrated left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, with 5% presenting with overt symptomatic heart failure.2-4

CHIC is a progressive condition that is associated with a decreased quality of life and poor clinical outcomes.5 When this form of cardiomyopathy is accompanied by abnormal electrical activation of the ventricles manifested by left bundle branch block (LBBB), the prospects of clinical recovery are minimal. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) could potentially improve cardiac function and outcomes in this clinical setting.6 Despite the magnitude of this clinical problem, this patient group has not been evaluated for their response to CRT in a systematic manner. The study hypothesis was that CHIC is a distinct pathophysiologic entity and that CRT may improve clinical outcomes in these patients.

The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiomyopathy (MADIT-CHIC) was an uncontrolled, prospective, cohort study in cancer survivors with CHIC designed to assess the association of CRT with LV reverse remodeling and clinical improvement.

Methods
Trial Design and Oversight

From November 21, 2014, through June 21, 2018, patients were enrolled from 12 tertiary centers with cardio-oncology programs in the United States and implanted with CRT. All enrolling sites had the study protocol (Supplement 1) approved by the local institutional review board. All patients provided written informed consent. In an attempt to determine whether there were any race/ethnic differences in response to CRT, this information was collected at the time of enrollment. Race/ethnicity was self-reported into fixed categories. The primary hypothesis was that CRT is associated with an improvement in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 6-month follow-up. Follow-up ended at 6 months following CRT implantation. An independent data and safety monitoring board regularly reviewed adverse events and outcomes for safety.

Recruitment and Follow-up

Patients enrolled in the study had a diagnosis of CHIC, defined as a history of exposure to chemotherapy known to cause LV dysfunction, no evidence of heart failure prior to chemotherapy initiation, and the development of clinical heart failure with systolic dysfunction at least 6 months after the completion of their cancer treatment, without other evident cause of the cardiomyopathy as ascertained by the enrolling physician.

The study included men or women aged 18 to 80 years of age with either a class I or class II indication for CRT according to current US guidelines (Box 1 in Supplement 2).7 Class I indication included patients with LVEF of 35% or less, sinus rhythm, LBBB, QRS of 150 ms or more, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II, III, or IV symptoms on guideline-directed medical therapy. Class IIa indication included patients with LVEF of 35% or less, LBBB, QRS of 120 to 149 ms, and NYHA class II, III, or IV symptoms on guideline-directed medical therapy (class IIa1) or those with LVEF of 35% or less, non-LBBB, and QRS of 150 ms or more (class IIa2). Exclusion criteria are listed in Box 2 in Supplement 2. Patients in the study were followed up by telephone 3 months after CRT implantation and had a 6-month clinic visit including clinical evaluation, device testing, and echocardiogram.

Therapy

Patients enrolled in the study were implanted with a commercially available CRT–defibrillator/pacemaker generator (CRT-pacemaker was implanted in 4 patients), with the device implant procedure performed by a qualified physician per local standard-of-care guidelines. All device components used in the study were market-released products. CRT-pacemaker consists of a biventricular pacemaker, while CRT-defibrillator consists of a biventricular pacemaker and automatic defibrillator. Devices were programmed according to a prespecified programming protocol to maximize biventricular pacing for optimal outcomes.

Echocardiographic Studies

Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, served as the central echocardiography core laboratory with assessment of the echocardiography images without the knowledge of clinical characteristics or outcomes. Two-dimensional echocardiography was performed at baseline and at the 6-month follow-up to assess changes in LV volumes and ejection fraction. Complete measurement of baseline and 6-month LV volumes were available in paired samples for analysis. Volumes were estimated by averaging those derived from the 2-chamber and 4-chamber views according to the Simpson method,8 and the LVEF was calculated using the Simpson biplane formula.8

Study End Points

The primary end point of the study was change in LVEF from baseline to 6 months after initiating CRT. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and changes in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) and LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) at 6 months following CRT. Tertiary end points included changes in NYHA functional class and change in left atrial size from baseline to 6 months. Heart failure events were also reported as a post hoc analysis, defined as an event requiring an inpatient hospitalization with augmented treatment for heart failure per center investigators.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables are expressed as mean (SD). Categorical data are summarized as frequencies and percentages. Clinical characteristics are shown for the total patient population.

Study Power and Sample Size Calculation

According to similar analyses in 749 patients from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT), but comparing 1-year LVEF with baseline, the SD of the improvement in LVEF was approximately 5 percentage points.9 Using this estimate of SD and comparison with t tests using a 2-sided .05 significance level, it was estimated that 80% power to detect effect sizes as small as 2 percentage points could be achieved with 65 to 75 enrolled patients (assuming a dropout rate of 20%-30%) and that detection of effect sizes of 5 or more points could be achieved enrolling 15 or fewer patients.

Primary End Point

The prespecified primary end point analysis on LVEF improvement at 6 months was planned to be analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with covariate adjustments. Missing data in the study were relatively infrequent, with 4 data points missing for LVEF improvement and 7 data points missing for LVEDV and LVESV improvement, and therefore, multiple imputation was not performed. Patients with missing data were excluded from the analyses. Baseline LVEF was tested in the model, but it had a P value greater than .2, and therefore it was omitted per the statistical analysis section of the study protocol. Further, the final analysis did not include regression variables for disease etiology or study centers because of the homogeneity of etiology (all but 1 patient had nonischemic cardiomyopathy) and the small number of centers in this study. All participants with complete data on the primary end point were included in the primary analysis.

Secondary and Tertiary End Points

The secondary and tertiary end point analyses were not prespecified in the protocol and are therefore exploratory. Changes in echocardiography variables and NYHA functional class from baseline to 6 months were tested for normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.

Post Hoc Subgroup Analyses

Exploratory (post hoc) analyses of changes in the primary end point in relevant subgroups that were identified following completion of data collection were performed.

There were no missing data on subgroup determinations. Because there were no adjustment covariates, normally distributed variables were tested using paired t tests; nonnormally distributed variables were tested with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. All statistical tests were 2-sided and a P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Because of the potential for type I error due to multiple comparisons, findings for analyses of secondary end points should be interpreted as exploratory. Analyses were carried out with SAS software (version 9.4, SAS Institute). All analyses used version 1.0 of the database, which was released on March 30, 2019.

Results
Study Population

Thirty patients were prospectively enrolled from 12 tertiary centers with cardio-oncology programs between November 21, 2014, and June 21, 2018. In the overall study, the mean (SD) age was 64 (11) years. A total of 26 patients (87%) were women, 21 (75%) were white, and all but 1 patient had a confirmed diagnosis of nonischemic cardiomyopathy, with a median LVEF of 29% (Table 1). All patients had LBBB and all except 1 patient had sinus rhythm at the time of enrollment. A total of 8 patients (27%) had a history of atrial arrhythmias, and 3 patients (10%) had a history of ventricular arrhythmias. Most patients had a history of breast cancer (73%), 6 patients (20%) had a history of lymphoma or leukemia, and 2 patients (7%) had a diagnosis of sarcoma; of these patients, 24 (83%) received anthracycline therapy (mean equivalent cumulative doxorubicin dose, 307 mg/m2). Besides anthracyclines, 3 patients received cyclophosphamide; 1, trastuzumab; 1, dasatinib; and 1, docetaxel. All patients had symptomatic heart failure, with 17 patients (57%) in NYHA class II and 13 patients (43%) in NYHA class III. The median age at cancer diagnosis was 52 years, with a median heart failure diagnosis time of 13.8 years from the last cancer diagnosis. Guideline-directed medical therapy at enrollment included the use of β-blockers in 93% of the patients, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocker in 77%, and loop diuretics in 93% of the patients (Table 1). Four patients had CRT pacemakers and 26 had CRT defibrillators implanted.

Primary End Point

Of the 30 enrolled patients, 26 complete paired echocardiography data sets were available for analysis. One patient had insufficient quality of echocardiography images, 1 patient moved away, 1 patient had echocardiography done at a different center and images could not be obtained, and 1 patient had echocardiography performed at 3 months instead of the 6-month visit per physician discretion. Patients with CRT experienced a statistically significant improvement in mean LVEF at 6 months from 28% to 39% (difference, 10.6% [95% CI, 8.0%-13.3%]; P < .001) (Figure 1).

Secondary End Points

There was a reduction in LVESV from 122.7 to 89.0 mL (difference, 37.0 mL [95% CI, 28.2-45.8]) and reduction in LVEDV from 171.0 to 143.2 mL (difference, 31.9 mL [95% CI, 22.1-41.6]) (both P < .001) (Table 2). During the 6-month follow-up, there were no deaths.

Tertiary End Points

CRT was associated with a reduction in left atrial volume from 60.3 mL to 47.9 mL at 6 months (P < .001) (Table 2). Overall, NYHA functional status was improved for 41% of patients at 6 months, with improvements seen in 19% of the class II patients and 69% of the class III patients. Accordingly, at 6-month follow-up, 24 patients (83%) had no or mild heart failure symptoms.

Post Hoc Subgroup Analyses

Improvements in LVEF across a number of relevant subgroups, including those with age younger or older than 65 years, NYHA class II or III at baseline, QRS duration below or above 150 ms, and LVEF below or above 25% are shown in Figure 2.

Post Hoc End Points

Adverse events included 1 patient in the study developing a procedure-related pneumothorax and another developing a pocket infection. During the 6-month follow-up, 1 patient had a heart failure event requiring hospitalization (Table 3).

Discussion

In this preliminary study of 26 patients with CHIC, CRT was associated with improvement in LVEF after 6 months. Findings are limited by the small sample size, short follow-up, and absence of a control group.

Advances in cancer treatment have significantly improved the survival rates in a variety of hematological and solid-organ malignancies. Concomitant with this improvement in survival, a major adverse event that can accompany the antineoplastic effect is an increase in the incidence of heart failure in patients surviving cancer.3-5 Anthracyclines remain the mainstay of therapy for many lymphomas, soft-tissue sarcomas, and breast cancers, which comprised the majority of patients in this study. The downside to the antineoplastic effect of anthracyclines is the inherent cardiotoxicity that significantly affects clinical outcomes leading to heart failure in a substantial proportion of these patients. CHIC, secondary to anthracyclines, has now become a well-recognized entity. While most patients demonstrate cardiac dysfunction within the first year of receiving treatment,3 some patients may have a much more delayed presentation especially if there are no obvious symptoms and they are not receiving regular cardiac surveillance.

Historically, reports have suggested progressive heart failure and mortality rates as high as 50% within 2 years of diagnosis. More contemporary studies suggest similar long-term outcomes when CHIC is compared with other nonischemic causes of heart failure.2,10-12 Also, a substantial number of patients will develop cardiomyopathy and heart failure with evidence to suggest that CHIC is a progressive condition with relatively poor clinical outcomes if not identified early.5

While anthracyclines are most commonly associated with the development of cardiomyopathy, many other therapies, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immunotherapies, are also linked to left ventricular dysfunction, and the natural history of these cardiotoxicities and response to therapy may differ.13,14 In this study, most of the patients were exposed to anthracyclines, providing a better understanding of CRT effects in this specific cohort.

CRT is a guideline-based therapy that corrects mechanical dyssynchrony through electrical resynchronization, thereby improving the contractility of the heart. In appropriately selected patients, CRT is associated with not only an improvement in hemodynamic stress, cardiac perfusion, and metabolism, but also molecular changes that accompany the reverse remodeling process.15 These physiological effects in turn have been shown to be associated with improved functional capacity and quality of life, reduced heart failure hospitalization, and improved long-term survival.9,16-20

A retrospective analysis of 4 patients with CHIC provided the first proof of concept of the clinical benefit from CRT in this cohort, which led to the design of this prospective, multicenter study.6 An uncontrolled, prospective, cohort study design was selected because CHIC with a wide QRS is a progressive condition and portends a poor prognosis, and CRT is currently indicated in patients with low LVEF and wide QRS. Therefore, the ethics of deferring therapy in the control group would have been questionable.

In this study, there was only 1 heart failure event reported and no deaths occurred; therefore, the small sample precludes any definitive conclusions regarding clinical outcomes. Prior research has, however, suggested that normalization of LVEF in Adriamycin-induced cardiomyopathy is associated with a significant improvement in clinical outcomes, and hence, CRT may have an important role in improving LVEF and outcomes.21

When echocardiography outcomes in this study are compared with CRT patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB in the previously published MADIT-CRT, a similar degree of LVEF improvement (10.6% in MADIT-CHIC vs 12.6% in MADIT-CRT) and LV volume reduction (LVESV percentage change, −30% in MADIT-CHIC and −37% in MADIT-CRT) was observed.9,17 Echocardiography outcomes were assessed at 6 months in MADIT-CHIC and at 12 months in MADIT-CRT. Linde et al19 previously suggested that the degree of LV reverse remodeling increases up to 2 years following CRT after which it plateaus. Furthermore, favorable reverse remodeling has been associated with improved clinical outcomes.9

Even though the evolving discipline of cardio-oncology provides a multidisciplinary approach to this growing population of patients, it is still limited by the lack of data on therapeutic strategies incorporating device treatment, such as CRT, to manage this vulnerable population and mitigate overall risk. There is now some evidence that the early initiation of cardioprotective medications, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and β-blockers, may prevent and/or reverse cardiac dysfunction.3,22 However, most patients with cardiomyopathy and accompanying conduction tissue disease leading to left ventricular dyssynchrony and heart failure do not respond to pharmacological therapy alone. The concomitant presence of a conduction defect (ie, LBBB) and the resulting mechanical dyssynchrony worsens the mechanoenergetic efficiency within the failing heart beyond the direct myopathic effect of the chemotherapy. The primary benefit of CRT in this cohort of patients could be due to the direct reversal of mechanical dyssynchrony and the associated improved remodeling of the heart. To our knowledge, the MADIT-CHIC study is the first prospective, multicenter clinical study evaluating the role of CRT in patients with CHIC.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, this study had a small number of patients enrolled and did not have long-term outcome data. Second, the lack of a control group precludes comparing CRT vs medical therapy and does not allow estimation of the potential effect size independent of spontaneous improvement or random variation in LVEF. Third, diagnosis of CHIC was ascertained by center investigators, and it is plausible that the cause of the cardiomyopathy may not have been directly related to chemotherapy in some patients. Fourth, the measurement tool used for the study, 2-dimensional echocardiography, has a greater measurement error than 3-dimensional echocardiography, which further limits the interpretability of the data.

Conclusions

In this preliminary study of patients with CHIC, CRT was associated with improvement in LVEF after 6 months. The findings are limited by the small sample size, short follow-up, and absence of a control group.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Jagmeet P. Singh, MD, DPhil, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114 (jsingh@mgh.harvard.edu).

Accepted for Publication: September 21, 2019.

Author Contributions: Drs Singh and Kutyifa had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Singh, Solomon, Beck, Brown, Zareba, Goldenberg.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Singh, Solomon, Fradley, Barac, Kremer, Beck, Brown, McNitt, Schleede, Zareba, Kutyifa.

Drafting of the manuscript: Singh, Fradley, McNitt, Schleede, Kutyifa.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Singh, Solomon, Fradley, Barac, Kremer, Beck, Brown, McNitt, Zareba, Goldenberg, Kutyifa.

Statistical analysis: Singh, Fradley, Beck, McNitt, Schleede, Kutyifa.

Obtained funding: Singh, Brown, Goldenberg.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Kremer, Brown, Zareba, Goldenberg, Kutyifa.

Supervision: Singh, Solomon, Brown, Zareba, Goldenberg, Kutyifa.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Singh reported receiving personal fees from Abbott Inc, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Medtronic, EBR Inc, Impulse Dynamics, Toray Inc, Microport Inc, Respicardia Inc, and BackBeat Inc outside the submitted work. Dr Solomon reported receiving grants from the University of Rochester during the conduct of the study and grants from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lone Star Heart, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, and Theracos and personal fees from Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardior, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Merck, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Theracos, Quantum Genetics, Cardurion, AoBiome, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, and Tenaya outside the submitted work. Dr Fradley reported receiving personal fees from Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr Barac reported receiving personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and grants from Genentech, and serving on a data and safety monitoring board for ACI Clinical outside the submitted work. Dr Beck reported receiving grants from Boston Scientific during the conduct of the study and personal fees from the American Academy of Neurology and grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc, Auspex Pharmaceuticals, and Abeona Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr Brown reported receiving grants from Boston Scientific during the conduct of the study. Dr Zareba reported receiving grants from Boston Scientific and ZOLL during the conduct of the study. Dr Goldenberg reported receiving grants from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, ZOLL, and Biosense Webster outside the submitted work. Dr Kutyifa reported receiving grants from Boston Scientific during the conduct of the study and grants from Boston Scientific, ZOLL, and Biotronik and personal fees from ZOLL and Biotronik outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: The study was supported by an unrestricted investigator-initiated research grant provided by Boston Scientific, under which the University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, served as the study sponsor.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Group Information: The following centers, investigators, and coordinators participated in the MADIT-CHIC study: Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee (Jay Montgomery and Mary Gordon); Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York (Marie-Noelle Langan and Stephanie Harcum); MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC (Ana Barac and Nebu Alexander); Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (Jagmeet P. Singh and Didjana Celkupa); University of South Florida, Tampa (Michael Fradley and Nhi Tran); University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York (Eugene Storozynsky and Laura Wing); NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, New York (Gregg Rosner, Daniel O’Connor, and Paul Gonzales); MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (Kaveh Karimzad and Evguenia Gachimova); University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio (Guilherme Oliveira and Nadine Norton); Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (Anju Nohria and Mary Anello); Washington University, St Louis, Missouri (Ronald Krone, Mitchell Faddis, and Janice Amsler); and University of California Los Angeles Health, Los Angeles (Eric Yang and Julie Sorg).

The following persons participated in the study: data and safety monitoring board: Robert Goldstein (chair), David Oakes, and Mark Haigney; Echocardiography Core Laboratory: Scott David Solomon; biostatistics: Christopher Beck (chair), Scott McNitt, and Susan Schleede; coordination and data center: Mary W. Brown (chair), Kristina Kremer, and Audrey Impellizzeri. Executive Committee: Arthur J. Moss (until February 14, 2018), Jagmeet P. Singh, Valentina Kutyifa (from February 14, 2018), Mary W. Brown, Christopher Beck, Scott David Solomon, and Wojciech Zareba.

Meeting Presentation: This study was presented orally as a late-breaking clinical trial at the Heart Rhythm Society Scientific Sessions; May 10, 2019; San Francisco, California.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.

Additional Contributions: We acknowledge the contributions of Arthur J. Moss, MD, in the design and conduct of the MADIT-CHIC study. Dr Moss served as the principal investigator of MADIT-CHIC until his death on February 14, 2018.

References
1.
Armstrong  GT, Liu  Q, Yasui  Y,  et al.  Late mortality among 5-year survivors of childhood cancer: a summary from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.  J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(14):2328-2338. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.21.1425PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Swain  SM, Whaley  FS, Ewer  MS.  Congestive heart failure in patients treated with doxorubicin: a retrospective analysis of three trials.  Cancer. 2003;97(11):2869-2879. doi:10.1002/cncr.11407PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Cardinale  D, Colombo  A, Bacchiani  G,  et al.  Early detection of anthracycline cardiotoxicity and improvement with heart failure therapy.  Circulation. 2015;131(22):1981-1988. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.013777PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Baech  J, Hansen  SM, Lund  PE,  et al.  Cumulative anthracycline exposure and risk of cardiotoxicity: a Danish nationwide cohort study of 2440 lymphoma patients treated with or without anthracyclines.  Br J Haematol. 2018;183(5):717-726. doi:10.1111/bjh.15603PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Armenian  SH, Lacchetti  C, Barac  A,  et al.  Prevention and monitoring of cardiac dysfunction in survivors of adult cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline.  J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(8):893-911. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.70.5400PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Ajijola  OA, Nandigam  KV, Chabner  BA,  et al.  Usefulness of cardiac resynchronization therapy in the management of doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy.  Am J Cardiol. 2008;101(9):1371-1372. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.12.037PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Epstein  AE, DiMarco  JP, Ellenbogen  KA,  et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; Heart Rhythm Society.  2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update incorporated into the ACCF/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(3):e6-e75. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Lang  RM, Bierig  M, Devereux  RB,  et al; Chamber Quantification Writing Group; American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee; European Association of Echocardiography.  Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology.  J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005;18(12):1440-1463. doi:10.1016/j.echo.2005.10.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Solomon  SD, Foster  E, Bourgoun  M,  et al; MADIT-CRT Investigators.  Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy on reverse remodeling and relation to outcome: multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial: cardiac resynchronization therapy.  Circulation. 2010;122(10):985-992. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.955039PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Goorin  AM, Borow  KM, Goldman  A,  et al.  Congestive heart failure due to adriamycin cardiotoxicity: its natural history in children.  Cancer. 1981;47(12):2810-2816. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19810615)47:12<2810::AID-CNCR2820471210>3.0.CO;2-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Felker  GM, Thompson  RE, Hare  JM,  et al.  Underlying causes and long-term survival in patients with initially unexplained cardiomyopathy.  N Engl J Med. 2000;342(15):1077-1084. doi:10.1056/NEJM200004133421502PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Fornaro  A, Olivotto  I, Rigacci  L,  et al.  Comparison of long-term outcome in anthracycline-related versus idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy: a single centre experience.  Eur J Heart Fail. 2018;20(5):898-906. doi:10.1002/ejhf.1049PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Slamon  D, Eiermann  W, Robert  N,  et al; Breast Cancer International Research Group.  Adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2011;365(14):1273-1283. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0910383PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Hall  PS, Harshman  LC, Srinivas  S, Witteles  RM.  The frequency and severity of cardiovascular toxicity from targeted therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients.  JACC Heart Fail. 2013;1(1):72-78. doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2012.09.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Spragg  DD, Kass  DA.  Pathobiology of left ventricular dyssynchrony and resynchronization.  Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2006;49(1):26-41. doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2006.05.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Bristow  MR, Saxon  LA, Boehmer  J,  et al; Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) Investigators.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2004;350(21):2140-2150. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa032423PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Moss  AJ, Hall  WJ, Cannom  DS,  et al; MADIT-CRT Trial Investigators.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events.  N Engl J Med. 2009;361(14):1329-1338. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0906431PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Goldenberg  I, Kutyifa  V, Klein  HU,  et al.  Survival with cardiac-resynchronization therapy in mild heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2014;370(18):1694-1701. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1401426PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Linde  C, Gold  MR, Abraham  WT,  et al; REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic left vEntricular dysfunction Study Group.  Long-term impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy in mild heart failure: 5-year results from the REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic left vEntricular dysfunction (REVERSE) Study.  Eur Heart J. 2013;34(33):2592-2599. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht160PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Tang  AS, Wells  GA, Talajic  M,  et al; Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial Investigators.  Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for mild-to-moderate heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2010;363(25):2385-2395. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1009540PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Cardinale  D, Colombo  A, Lamantia  G,  et al.  Anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy: clinical relevance and response to pharmacologic therapy.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(3):213-220. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.03.095PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Gulati  G, Heck  SL, Ree  AH,  et al.  Prevention of cardiac dysfunction during adjuvant breast cancer therapy (PRADA): a 2 × 2 factorial, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial of candesartan and metoprolol.  Eur Heart J. 2016;37(21):1671-1680. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw022PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×