Clinical outcomes of automatic algorithms in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Leonardo Mees Knijnik, Emory University; Bo Wang, Emory University; Rhanderson Cardoso, Brigham and Women's Hospital; Colby Daniel Shanafelt, Emory University; Michael S Lloyd, Emory University
• Language: English
• Date: 2023-09-13
• Publisher: Elsevier
• Publication Version: Final Published Version
• Copyright Statement: © 2023 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc.
• License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International
• Final Published Version (URL): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hroo.2023.09.001
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: Heart Rhythm O2
• Volume: 4
• Issue: 10
• Start Page: 618
• End Page: 624
• Grant/Funding Information: The authors have no funding sources to disclose.
• Keywords: Algorithm; Pacing; Heart failure; Optimization; Cardiac resynchronization therapy
• Research Categories: Health Sciences, General

Abstract

Background Algorithms to automatically adjust atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) intervals in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices are common, but their clinical efficacy is unknown. Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate automatic CRT algorithms in patients with heart failure for the reduction of mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, and clinical improvement. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with CRT using automatic algorithms that change AV and VV intervals dynamically without manual input, on a beat-to-beat basis. We performed a subgroup analysis including intracardiac electrogram-based (EGM) algorithms and contractility-based algorithms. Results Nine RCTs with 8531 participants were included, of whom 4275 (50.1%) were randomized to automatic algorithm. Seven of the 9 trials used EGM-based algorithms, and 2 used contractility sensors. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (10.3% vs 11.3%; odds ratio [OR] 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71–1.03; P = .13; I2 = 0%) or heart failure hospitalizations (15.0% vs 16.1%; OR 0.924; 95% CI 0.81–1.04; P = .194; I2 = 0%) between the automatic algorithm group and the control group. Study-defined clinical improvement was also not significantly different between groups (66.6% vs 63.3%; risk ratio 1.01; 95% CI 0.95–1.06; P = .82; I2 = 50%). In the contractility-based subgroup, there was a trend toward greater clinical improvement with the use of the automatic algorithm (75% vs 68.3%; OR 1.45; 95% CI 0.97–2.18; P = .07; I2 = 40%), which did not reach statistical significance. The overall risk of bias was low. Conclusion Automatic algorithms that change AV or VV intervals did not improve mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, or cardiovascular symptoms in patients with heart failure and CRT.