Resynchronization–Defibrillation Sustains Long-Term Survival Benefit in Heart Failure

News
Article

An analysis of the RAFT trial showed patients with heart failure treated with CRT-D experienced continued survival benefits during a median of nearly 14 years of follow-up.

John L. Sapp, MD | Image Credit: JACC Journals

John L. Sapp, MD

Credit: JACC Journals

A new long-term follow-up trial provided insight into the benefit of a cardiac-resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D), compared with a standard implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), on survival outcomes among patients with heart failure.1

Results from the analysis of the Resynchronization–Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT) showed the survival benefit among the CRT-D-treated population with reduced ejection fraction, a widened QRS complex, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III heart failure was sustained across nearly 14 years of follow-up.

“This long-term follow-up trial showed a benefit with respect to mortality among patients who received a CRT-D as compared with those who received a standard ICD, and this benefit appears to have been sustained over time,” wrote the RAFT Long-Term study team, led by John L. Sapp, MD, QEII Health Sciences Centre, Dalhousie University.

CRT has shown a reduction in both mortality and heart failure outcomes among patients with symptomatic heart failure, a reduced ejection fraction, and a wide QRS complex despite optimal medical therapy, establishing it as standard care in appropriate patients.2 Implantation of a CRT device is a lifelong intervention, suggesting clinical decision-making is dependent on findings from long-term outcome studies of CRT.

Across the double-blind, randomized controlled RAFT trial, with a mean follow-up of 40 months for nearly 1800 patients, CRT was shown to significantly reduce the risk of death or hospitalization for heart failure than an implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.87; P <.001).3 Secondary outcome events, including death from any cause, death from any cardiovascular cause, and hospitalization for heart failure, were significantly lower with CRT.

To gather evidence on the long-term effect of CRT on mortality, Sapp and colleagues assessed survival outcomes for patients enrolling at the 8 highest-enrolling participating study sites.1 Eligible participants with NYHA class II or III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤30%, and an intrinsic QRS duration of ≥120 msec, were randomly assigned to receive either an ICD alone or a CRT defibrillator (CRT-D).

These patients were observed at follow-up visits 1 month after device implantation and every 6 months until all patients had ≥18 months of follow-up. Each follow-up visit consisted of a clinical assessment and device interrogation. The primary study outcome was death from any cause, with key secondary outcomes including a composite of death from any cause, heart transplantation, or implantation of a ventricular assist device.

The RAFT trial enrolled 1798 patients at 34 centers – for the long-term survival trial, 1050 patients from eight centers were included for analysis. The first patient was enrolled in January 2003 and follow-up continued until death or December 31, 2021. Among the entire study population, the median duration of follow-up consisted of 7.8 years and those who survived experienced a median follow-up of 13.9 years.

Upon analysis, investigators found death occurred in 405 of 530 patients (76.4%) assigned to the ICD group and in 370 of 520 patients (71.2%) assigned to the CRT-D group. Based on these data, the team indicated the time until death appeared longer in the CRT-D group than in the ICD group (acceleration factor, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.92; P = .002).

Meanwhile, a secondary outcome event happened in 392 patients (75.4%) in the CRT-D group and 412 patients (77.7%) in the ICD group. Again, the time until the composite endpoint was noted as longer in the CRT-D than in the ICD group (acceleration factor, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.98).

Sapp and colleagues indicated the findings from RAFT are complementary to observations from other randomized controlled trials, including the MADIT-CRT trial and the CARE-HF trial. Each trial reported a reduction in mortality and long-term persistence of the original benefit of CRT implantation.

“The present trial extends these observations over a longer follow-up time and supports the durability of the improvement in survival among patients with heart failure, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, and prolonged QRS duration who received a CRT-D device,” investigators wrote.

References

  1. NEJM
  2. Tang ASL, Wells GA, Talajic M, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for mild- to-moderate heart failure. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2385-95
  3. Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2022;145(18):e895-e1032
Related Videos
Payal Kohli, MD | Credit: Cherry Creek Heart
Video 2 - "Stricter LDL-C Targets: Explaining Goalpost Changes to Patients"
Video 1 - "Overview of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Management"
Thumbnail featuring Jay Luther, MD, Hersh Shroff, MD, MPA, and Chris Kahler, PhD
Thumbnail featuring Jay Luther, MD, Hersh Shroff, MD, MPA, and Chris Kahler, PhD
Video 4 - "Suspecting Hypercortisolism in Patients With Resistant Diabetes"
Video 3 - "Barriers to Accessing New Anti-Diabetes Medications"
Daniel Gaudet, MD, PhD | Credit: American College of Cardiology
© 2024 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.