QRS Duration, Bundle-Branch Block Morphology, and Outcomes Among Older Patients With Heart Failure Receiving Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy | Cardiology | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Birnie  DH, Tang  AS.  The problem of non-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.  Curr Opin Cardiol. 2006;21(1):20-26.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Dupont  M, Rickard  J, Baranowski  B,  et al.  Differential response to cardiac resynchronization therapy and clinical outcomes according to QRS morphology and QRS duration.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(7):592-598.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Hammill  SC, Stevenson  LW, Kadish  AH,  et al.  Review of the registry’s first year, data collected, and future plans.  Heart Rhythm. 2007;4(9):1260-1263.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Messenger  JC, Ho  KK, Young  CH,  et al; NCDR Science and Quality Oversight Committee Data Quality Workgroup.  The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Data Quality Brief: the NCDR Data Quality Program in 2012.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(16):1484-1488.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Hammill  BG, Hernandez  AF, Peterson  ED, Fonarow  GC, Schulman  KA, Curtis  LH.  Linking inpatient clinical registry data to Medicare claims data using indirect identifiers.  Am Heart J. 2009;157(6):995-1000.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Epstein  AE, DiMarco  JP, Ellenbogen  KA,  et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices); American Association for Thoracic Surgery; Society of Thoracic Surgeons.  ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices): developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.  Circulation. 2008;117(21):e350-e408.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Harrell  FE.  Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2001:53-85.
8.
Iuliano  S, Fisher  SG, Karasik  PE, Fletcher  RD, Singh  SN; Department of Veterans Affairs Survival Trial of Antiarrhythmic Therapy in Congestive Heart Failure.  QRS duration and mortality in patients with congestive heart failure.  Am Heart J. 2002;143(6):1085-1091.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Baldasseroni  S, Opasich  C, Gorini  M,  et al; Italian Network on Congestive Heart Failure Investigators.  Left bundle-branch block is associated with increased 1-year sudden and total mortality rate in 5517 outpatients with congestive heart failure: a report from the Italian network on congestive heart failure.  Am Heart J. 2002;143(3):398-405.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
McAlister  FAEJ, Ezekowitz  J, Hooton  N,  et al.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a systematic review.  JAMA. 2007;297(22):2502-2514.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Abraham  WT, Fisher  WG, Smith  AL,  et al; MIRACLE Study Group. Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation.  Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2002;346(24):1845-1853.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Cleland  JG, Daubert  JC, Erdmann  E,  et al; Cardiac Resynchronization–Heart Failure (CARE-HF) Study Investigators.  The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure.  N Engl J Med. 2005;352(15):1539-1549.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
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.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Sipahi  I, Carrigan  TP, Rowland  DY, Stambler  BS, Fang  JC.  Impact of QRS duration on clinical event reduction with cardiac resynchronization therapy: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.  Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(16):1454-1462.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
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.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Linde  C, Abraham  WT, Gold  MR, St John Sutton  M, Ghio  S, Daubert  C; REVERSE (REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic left vEntricular dysfunction) 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(23):1834-1843.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Wokhlu  A, Rea  RF, Asirvatham  SJ,  et al.  Upgrade and de novo cardiac resynchronization therapy: impact of paced or intrinsic QRS morphology on outcomes and survival.  Heart Rhythm. 2009;6(10):1439-1447.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Rickard  J, Kumbhani  DJ, Gorodeski  EZ,  et al.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy in non–left bundle branch block morphologies.  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2010;33(5):590-595.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Adelstein  EC, Saba  S.  Usefulness of baseline electrocardiographic QRS complex pattern to predict response to cardiac resynchronization.  Am J Cardiol. 2009;103(2):238-242.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Bilchick  KC, Kamath  S, DiMarco  JP, Stukenborg  GJ.  Bundle-branch block morphology and other predictors of outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy in Medicare patients.  Circulation. 2010;122(20):2022-2030.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Tracy  CM, Epstein  AE, Darbar  D,  et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; Heart Rhythm Society.  2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update of the 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 [published correction appears in Circulation. 2013;127(3):e357-e359].  Circulation. 2012;126(14):1784-1800.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
August 14, 2013

QRS Duration, Bundle-Branch Block Morphology, and Outcomes Among Older Patients With Heart Failure Receiving Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Author Affiliations
  • 1Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colorado
  • 2University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora
  • 3Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver
  • 4Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina
  • 5Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham
  • 6Department of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
  • 7Department of Medicine, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, University of California, Los Angeles
  • 8Division of Cardiovascular Disease, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • 9VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, California
JAMA. 2013;310(6):617-626. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.8641
Abstract

Importance  The benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in clinical trials were greater among patients with left bundle-branch block (LBBB) or longer QRS duration.

Objective  To measure associations between QRS duration and morphology and outcomes among patients receiving a CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) in clinical practice.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry’s ICD Registry between 2006 and 2009 who underwent CRT-D implantation. Patients were stratified according to whether they were admitted for CRT-D implantation or for another reason, then categorized as having either LBBB or no LBBB and QRS duration of either 150 ms or greater or 120 to 149 ms.

Main Outcomes and Measures  All-cause mortality; all-cause, cardiovascular, and heart failure readmission; and complications. Patients underwent follow-up for up to 3 years, with follow-up through December 2011.

Results  Among 24 169 patients admitted for CRT-D implantation, 1-year and 3-year mortality rates were 9.2% and 25.9%, respectively. All-cause readmission rates were 10.2% at 30 days and 43.3% at 1 year. Both the unadjusted rate and adjusted risk of 3-year mortality were lowest among patients with LBBB and QRS duration of 150 ms or greater (20.9%), compared with LBBB and QRS duration of 120 to 149 ms (26.5%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.30 [99% CI, 1.18-1.42]), no LBBB and QRS duration of 150 ms or greater (30.7%; HR, 1.34 [99% CI, 1.20-1.49]), and no LBBB and QRS duration of 120 to 149 ms (32.3%; HR, 1.52 [99% CI, 1.38-1.67]). The unadjusted rate and adjusted risk of 1-year all-cause readmission were also lowest among patients with LBBB and QRS duration of 150 ms or greater (38.6%), compared with LBBB and QRS duration of 120 to 149 ms (44.8%; adjusted HR, 1.18 [99% CI, 1.10-1.26]), no LBBB and QRS duration of 150 ms or greater (45.7%; HR, 1.16 [99% CI, 1.08-1.26]), and no LBBB and QRS duration of 120 to 149 ms (49.6%; HR, 1.31 [99% CI, 1.23-1.40]). There were no observed associations with complications.

Conclusions and Relevance  Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries undergoing CRT-D implantation in clinical practice, LBBB and QRS duration of 150 ms or greater, compared with LBBB and QRS duration less than 150 ms or no LBBB regardless of QRS duration, was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality and of all-cause, cardiovascular, and heart failure readmissions.

×