P1162
Atrial fibrillation and Cardiac resynchronization therapy - is this combination truly bad?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) significantly reduces mortality and hospitalizations in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (EF). Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a very common comorbidity in these patients, however, CRT benefit in AF patients has been controversial.

To compare the prognostic impact of CRT in patients (pts) with and without AF.

Prospective, single-center study that included pts undergoing CRT implantsince 2015. Clinical and echocardiographicevaluation were made before CRT implant and between 6-12 months post-implant. Pts with EF elevation ≥10% or LV end-systolic volume (ESV) reduction ≥15% were classified as responders. Patients with EF elevation ≥ 20% or ESV reduction ≥30% were classified as super-responders. All the parameters were compared between patients with and without AF.Prognostic impact of CRT was evaluated by comparing total mortality using the Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier methods.

From 2015-2019, 566 CRTs were implanted (26.1% female, 72 ± 10.2 years old, follow-up duration 18.9 ± 15.8 months). From these patients, 166 patients (31%) had AF (73.5% males, mean age 72.2 ± 10.2 years, 37.3% ischemic, LVEF < 30% in 65.5%). The cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities were similar in both populations (with and without AF), except for chronic kidney disease which was more frequent in AF pts(28% vs 17%, p = 0.012). 

The prevalence of complications and surgical revision were similar in both groups.

The CRT response rate was similar in both groups (50% in AF group vs 59.6%, p = NS) as was the super-response rate (22.4% in FA pts vs 31.5%, p = NS).

The 4-year survival rate of patients with AF was similar to non-AF (83.7% vs 84.3%). 

Despite the controversy about the efficacy of CRT in AF pts, in our population the long-term survival and CRT response rates were comparable between patients with and without AF.

Abstract Figure.