This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tang, W.H. W. Articles by Francis, G. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tang, W.H. W. Articles by Francis, G. S. Related Collections Congestive Pacemaker

(Circulation. 2007;115:161-162.)
© 2007 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in New York Heart Association Class IV Heart Failure

It Is All About Selection

W.H. Wilson Tang, MD; Gary S. Francis, MD

From the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Correspondence to Gary S. Francis, MD, 9500 Euclid Ave, Desk F15, Cleveland, OH 44195. E-mail francig@ccf.org

Key Words: Editorials • heart failure • pacemakers • prognosis

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

In recent years, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has emerged as an important therapeutic strategy in patients with advanced heart failure. It has become common practice to use CRT in combination with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (so-called CRT-D) in patients with impaired left ventricular systolic function and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III symptoms.¹ Evidence is also mounting regarding the potential benefit of CRT in delaying disease progression in patients with symptomatic heart failure.^2,3 However, the role of CRT and CRT-D is less clear in patients with very advanced heart failure, especially in those with NYHA class IV symptoms (those with symptoms at rest and worsening with exertion). In fact, <5% of all heart failure subjects enrolled in large multicenter mortality device trials fulfilled this category.⁴ Although there has been increasing debate over this issue,^5–7 patients in the intensive care unit requiring inotropic and mechanical support are still not considered suitable candidates for CRT or CRT-D "salvage" therapy.⁸ Some patients with very advanced, refractory heart failure are ambulatory, however; in these patients, neither cardiac transplantation nor permanent mechanical support devices are appropriate or imminent. Many of these patients are still considered as approaching "stage D heart failure," in which they can be best characterized by experiencing end-stage disease refractory to optimal medical therapy. Even now, we have few data in such patients because they have been systematically excluded or avoided in most CRT trials, perhaps because of a presumed shortened lifespan.

Article p 204

With this in mind, the Comparison of Medical, . . . [Full Text of this Article]