Cardiac resynchronization therapy indications: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(/* ACC / AHA Guidelines - Recommendations for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Severe Systolic Heart Failure (DO NOT EDIT){{cite journal |author=Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, Estes NA, Freedman RA, Gettes LS, Gillinov AM...)
Line 26: Line 26:


}}
}}
==Unanswered Questions==
Unanswered questions regarding the indications for CRT include:
#The identification of patients who would definitely benefit from CRT (i.e. reducing the number of non-responders). Different imaging modalities and dyssynchrony parameters may accurately reveal mechanical dyssynchrony and therefore predict a CRT responder, especially in patients with a narrow [[QRS complex]].
#Further confirmatory evidence regarding the benefit of atrioventricular ablation versus pharmacological rate control in optimizing the clinical benefits is needed. In addition to atrioventricular and Ventricular-Ventricular optimization, other device based changes need to be explored so as to optimize the benefits of CRT.
==References==
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}

Revision as of 01:08, 8 April 2012

Cardiac resynchronization therapy Microchapters

Home

Overview

Indications

Landmark Trials

Contraindications

Pathophysiologic Basis for CRT

Treatment

Preoperative Evaluation

Procedure

Recovery

Outcomes and Prognosis

Complications

Cardiac resynchronization therapy indications On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Cardiac resynchronization therapy indications

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Cardiac resynchronization therapy indications

CDC on Cardiac resynchronization therapy indications

Cardiac resynchronization therapy indications in the news

Blogs on Cardiac resynchronization therapy indications

Directions to Hospitals Administering Cardiac resynchronization therapy

Risk calculators and risk factors for Cardiac resynchronization therapy indications

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-In-Chief:: Bhaskar Purushottam, M.D. [2] Synonyms and Keywords: CRT

Overview

Indications

ACC / AHA Guidelines - Recommendations for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Severe Systolic Heart Failure (DO NOT EDIT)[1]

Class I

1) For patients who have LVEF less than or equal to 35%, a QRS duration greater than or equal to 0.12 seconds, and sinus rhythm, CRT with or without an ICD is indicated for the treatment of NYHA functional Class III or ambulatory Class IV heart failure symptoms with optimal recommended medical therapy. (Level of Evidence: A)

Class IIa

1) For patients who have LVEF less than or equal to 35%, a QRS duration greater than or equal to 0.12 seconds, and AF, CRT with or without an ICD is reasonable for the treatment of NYHA functional Class III or ambulatory Class IV heart failure symptoms on optimal recommended medical therapy. (Level of Evidence: B)

2) For patients with LVEF less than or equal to 35% with NYHA functional Class III or ambulatory Class IV symptoms who are receiving optimal recommended medical therapy and who have frequent dependence on ventricular pacing, CRT is reasonable. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIb

1) For patients with LVEF less than or equal to 35% with NYHA functional Class I or II symptoms who are receiving optimal recommended medical therapy and who are undergoing implantation of a permanent pacemaker and/or ICD with anticipated frequent ventricular pacing, CRT may be considered. (Level of Evidence: C)


Unanswered Questions

Unanswered questions regarding the indications for CRT include:

  1. The identification of patients who would definitely benefit from CRT (i.e. reducing the number of non-responders). Different imaging modalities and dyssynchrony parameters may accurately reveal mechanical dyssynchrony and therefore predict a CRT responder, especially in patients with a narrow QRS complex.
  2. Further confirmatory evidence regarding the benefit of atrioventricular ablation versus pharmacological rate control in optimizing the clinical benefits is needed. In addition to atrioventricular and Ventricular-Ventricular optimization, other device based changes need to be explored so as to optimize the benefits of CRT.

References

  1. Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, Estes NA, Freedman RA, Gettes LS, Gillinov AM, Gregoratos G, Hammill SC, Hayes DL, Hlatky MA, Newby LK, Page RL, Schoenfeld MH, Silka MJ, Stevenson LW, Sweeney MO, Smith SC, Jacobs AK, Adams CD, Anderson JL, Buller CE, Creager MA, Ettinger SM, Faxon DP, Halperin JL, Hiratzka LF, Hunt SA, Krumholz HM, Kushner FG, Lytle BW, Nishimura RA, Ornato JP, Page RL, Riegel B, Tarkington LG, Yancy CW (2008). "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. 117 (21): e350–408. doi:10.1161/CIRCUALTIONAHA.108.189742. PMID 18483207. Retrieved 2011-01-15. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Template:WH Template:WS