Time to Left Ventricular Reverse Remodeling after Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Better Late than Never

INTRODUCTION: Left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR), defined as reduction of end-diastolic and end-systolic dimensions and improvement of ejection fraction, is associated with the prognostic implications of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The time course of LVRR remains poorly characterized. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that it occurs ≤6 months after CRT. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the long-term echocardiographic and clinical evolution of patients with LVRR occurring >6 months after CRT and to identify predictors of a delayed LVRR response. METHODS: A total of 127 consecutive patients after successful CRT implantation were divided into three groups according to LVRR response: Group A, 19 patients (15%) with LVRR after >6 months (late LVRR); Group B, 58 patients (46%) with LVRR before 6 months (early LVRR); and Group C, 50 patients (39%) without LVRR during follow-up (no LVRR). RESULTS: The late LVRR group was older, more often had ischemic etiology and fewer patients were in NYHA class ≤II. Overall, group A presented LVRR between group B and C. This was also the case with the percentage of clinical response (68.4% vs. 94.8% vs. 38.3%, respectively, p<0.001), and hospital readmissions due to decompensated heart failure (31.6% vs. 12.1% vs. 57.1%, respectively, p<0.001). Ischemic etiology (OR 0.044; p=0.013) and NYHA functional class

Influence of Remote Monitoring on Long-Term Cardiovascular Outcomes after Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation

AIMS: Device-based remote monitoring (RM) has been linked to improved clinical outcomes at short to medium-term follow-up. Whether this benefit extends to long-term follow-up is unknown. We sought to assess the effect of device-based RM on long-term clinical outcomes in recipients of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention. RM was initiated with patient consent according to availability of RM hardware at implantation. Patients with concomitant cardiac resynchronization therapy were excluded. Data on hospitalizations, mortality and cause of death were systematically assessed using a nationwide healthcare platform. A Cox proportional hazards model was employed to estimate the effect of RM on mortality and a composite endpoint of cardiovascular mortality and hospital admission due to heart failure (HF). RESULTS: 312 patients were included with a median follow-up of 37.7months (range 1 to 146). 121 patients (38.2%) were under RM since the first outpatient visit post-ICD and 191 were in conventional follow-up. No differences were found regarding age, left ventricular ejection fraction, heart failure etiology or NYHA class at implantation. Patients under RM had higher long-term survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, CI 0.27-0.93, p=0.029) and lower incidence of the composite outcome (HR 0.47, CI 0.27-0.82, p=0.008). After multivariate survival analysis, overall survival was independently associated with younger age, higher LVEF, NYHA class lower than 3 and RM. CONCLUSION: RM was independently associated with increased long-term survival and a lower incidence of a composite endpoint of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular mortality.