Current clinical practice of cardiac resynchronization therapy in Turkey: Reflections from Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Survey-II.
Journal
Anatolian journal of cardiology
ISSN: 2149-2271
Titre abrégé: Anatol J Cardiol
Pays: Turkey
ID NLM: 101652981
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
entrez:
30
11
2020
pubmed:
1
12
2020
medline:
18
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to reduce mortality in selected patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). CRT Survey-II was a snapshot survey to assess current clinical practice with regard to CRT. Herein, we aimed to compare Turkish data with other countries of European Society of Cardiology (ESC). The survey was conducted between October 2015 and December 2016 in 42 ESC member countries. All consecutive patients who underwent a de novo CRT implantation or a CRT upgrade were eligible. A total of 288 centers included 11,088 patients. From Turkey, 16 centers recruited 424 patients representing 12.9% of all implantations. Compared to the entire cohort, Turkish patients were younger with a lower proportion of men and a higher proportion with ischemic etiology. Electrocardiography (ECG) showed sinus rhythm in 81.5%, a QRS duration of <130 ms in 10.1%, and ≥150 ms in 63.8% of patients. Left bundle branch block (LBBB) was more common. Median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 25%, lower than in the overall ESC cohort, but NYHA class was more often II. Most common indication for CRT implantation was HF with a wide QRS (70.8%). Almost 98.3% of devices implanted were CRT-D, in contrast to the overall cohort. Fluoroscopy time was longer, but duration of overall procedure was shorter. LV lead implantation was unsuccessful in 2.6% patients. Periprocedural complication rate was 6.3%. The most common complication was bleeding. Remote monitoring was less utilized. These are the first observational data reflecting the current CRT practice in Turkey and comparing it with other countries of Europe. Findings of this study may help detect gaps and provide insights for improvement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33253125
doi: 10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2020.02680
pmc: PMC7791302
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
382-396Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Jan 16;39(2):210-8
pubmed: 11788209
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jul 14;37(27):2129-2200
pubmed: 27206819
Circulation. 2007 Jan 16;115(2):204-12
pubmed: 17190867
Europace. 2015 Jan;17(1):137-41
pubmed: 25414481
Heart Rhythm. 2018 May;15(5):734-740
pubmed: 29277687
Europace. 2016 Feb;18(2):159-83
pubmed: 26585598
Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars. 2019 Apr;47(3):198-206
pubmed: 30982817
Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars. 2012 Jun;40(4):298-308
pubmed: 22951845
Heart Rhythm. 2019 Jan;16(1):83-90
pubmed: 30063996
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1994 Nov;17(11 Pt 2):1974-9
pubmed: 7845801
Eur Heart J. 2013 Aug;34(29):2281-329
pubmed: 23801822
Am J Physiol. 1990 Aug;259(2 Pt 2):H300-8
pubmed: 2386214
JACC Heart Fail. 2018 Apr;6(4):308-316
pubmed: 29598935
Eur J Heart Fail. 2018 Jun;20(6):1039-1051
pubmed: 29457358
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62(16):e147-239
pubmed: 23747642
N Engl J Med. 2005 Apr 14;352(15):1539-49
pubmed: 15753115