Comparative Analysis of Procedural Outcomes and Complications Between De Novo and Upgraded Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

OBJECTIVES This study compared rates of procedural success and complications between de novo cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation versus upgrade, including characterization of technical challenges. BACKGROUND CRT upgrade is common, but data are limited on the incidence of procedural success and complications as compared to de novo implantation. METHODS All patients who underwent a transvenous CRT procedure at a single institution between 2013 and 2018 were reviewed for procedure outcome, 90-day complications, reasons for unsuccessful left ventricular lead delivery, and the presence of venous occlusive disease (VOD) that required a modified implantation technique. RESULTS Among 1,496 patients, 947 (63%) underwent de novo implantation and 549 (37%) underwent device upgrade. Patients who received a device upgrade were older (70 +/- 12 years vs. 68 +/- 13 years; p < 0.01), with a mate predominance (75% vs. 66%; p < 0.01) and greater prevalence of comorbidities. There was no difference in the rate of procedural success between de novo and upgrade CRT procedures (97% vs. 96%; p = 0.28) or 90-day complications (5.1% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.70). VOD was present in 23% of patients who received a device upgrade and was more common among patients with a dual-chamber versus a single-chamber device (26% vs. 9%; p < 0.001). Patients with and without VOD had a similar composite outcome of procedural failure or complication (8.0% vs. 7.8%; p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS Rates of procedural success and complications were no different between de novo CRT implantations and upgrades. VOD frequently increased procedural complexity in upgrades, but alternative management strategies resulted in similar outcomes. Routine venography before CRT upgrade may aid in procedural planning and execution of these strategies. (C) 2021 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.