• Bruce L Wilkoff, Gerasimos Filippatos, Christophe Leclercq, Michael R Gold, Ahmad S Hersi, Kengo Kusano, Wilfried Mullens, G Michael Felker, Charan Kantipudi, Mikhael F El-Chami, Vidal Essebag, Bertrand Pierre, Francois Philippon, Francisco Perez-Gil, Eugene S Chung, Juan Sotomonte, Stanley Tung, Balbir Singh, Babak Bozorgnia, Satish Goel, Hans Holger Ebert, Niraj Varma, Kara J Quan, Fiorella Salerno, Bart Gerritse, Janelle van Wel, Daniel E Schaber, Dedra H Fagan, David Birnie, and AdaptResponse investigators.
• Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. Electronic address: wilkofb@ccf.org.
• Lancet. 2023 Sep 30; 402 (10408): 114711571147-1157.

BackgroundContinuous automatic optimisation of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), stimulating only the left ventricle to fuse with intrinsic right bundle conduction (synchronised left ventricular stimulation), might offer better outcomes than conventional CRT in patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block, and normal atrioventricular conduction. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of adaptive CRT versus conventional CRT in patients with heart failure with intact atrioventricular conduction and left bundle branch block.MethodsThis global, prospective, randomised controlled trial was done in 227 hospitals in 27 countries across Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with class 2-4 heart failure, an ejection fraction of 35% or less, left bundle branch block with QRS duration of 140 ms or more (male patients) or 130 ms or more (female patients), and a baseline PR interval 200 ms or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via block permutation to adaptive CRT (an algorithm providing synchronised left ventricular stimulation) or conventional biventricular CRT using a device programmer. All patients received device programming but were masked until procedures were completed. Site staff were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or intervention for heart failure decompensation and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were collected and reported in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02205359, and is closed to accrual.FindingsBetween Aug 5, 2014, and Jan 31, 2019, of 3797 patients enrolled, 3617 (95·3%) were randomly assigned (1810 to adaptive CRT and 1807 to conventional CRT). The futility boundary was crossed at the third interim analysis on June 23, 2022, when the decision was made to stop the trial early. 1568 (43·4%) of 3617 patients were female and 2049 (56·6%) were male. Median follow-up was 59·0 months (IQR 45-72). A primary outcome event occurred in 430 of 1810 patients (Kaplan-Meier occurrence rate 23·5% [95% CI 21·3-25·5] at 60 months) in the adaptive CRT group and in 470 of 1807 patients (25·7% [23·5-27·8] at 60 months) in the conventional CRT group (hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·78-1·01; p=0·077). System-related adverse events were reported in 452 (25·0%) of 1810 patients in the adaptive CRT group and 440 (24·3%) of 1807 patients in the conventional CRT group.InterpretationCompared with conventional CRT, adaptive CRT did not significantly reduce the incidence of all-cause death or intervention for heart failure decompensation in the included population of patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block, and intact AV conduction. Death and heart failure decompensation rates were low with both CRT therapies, suggesting a greater response to CRT occurred in this population than in patients in previous trials.FundingMedtronic.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

19 keywords...

hide…