The determinants of clinical outcome and clinical response to CRT are not the same

John G F Cleland, Stefano Ghio

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of treatment is to alter outcomes favourably. From a clinical perspective, these outcomes may include symptoms, quality of life, disability, morbidity and mortality. However, a good outcome does not mean that the intervention was effective and a seemingly poor outcome could have been worse without intervention. Patients may have a good outcome either because their disease was due to run a benign course, or because they responded to the intended treatment or because they responded to some other ancillary treatment. Clearly, there is a link between response and outcome but it is loose and uncertain. The clinical substrate being treated is often a stronger determinant of outcome than the response to the intervention. The concepts of outcome and response can both be useful when deciding whether or not to implant a device but they are not the same and their determinants will differ. Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and those with inter-ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony have a better prognosis than those who do not have these features, but this is true whether or not they receive cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). Many characteristics predict outcome in patients considered for CRT but none consistently predict response. On the other hand, guidelines recommend CRT in populations that have not yet been adequately studied, such as those with atrial fibrillation. Clinicians should follow the criteria for patient selection in the landmark trials when selecting patients for CRT, should extrapolate with caution from these and should be extremely cautious in the interpretation of observational data.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)755-766
Number of pages12
JournalHeart Failure Reviews
Volume17
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2012

Fingerprint

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Atrial Fibrillation
Patient Selection
Therapeutics
Quality of Life
Guidelines
Morbidity
Equipment and Supplies
Mortality
Population

Keywords

  • Cardiac resynchronization therapy
  • Heart failure
  • Outcome
  • Response

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

The determinants of clinical outcome and clinical response to CRT are not the same. / Cleland, John G F; Ghio, Stefano.

In: Heart Failure Reviews, Vol. 17, No. 6, 11.2012, p. 755-766.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3e087f06d68e4e87b9a5d8fc9b1539df,
title = "The determinants of clinical outcome and clinical response to CRT are not the same",
abstract = "The purpose of treatment is to alter outcomes favourably. From a clinical perspective, these outcomes may include symptoms, quality of life, disability, morbidity and mortality. However, a good outcome does not mean that the intervention was effective and a seemingly poor outcome could have been worse without intervention. Patients may have a good outcome either because their disease was due to run a benign course, or because they responded to the intended treatment or because they responded to some other ancillary treatment. Clearly, there is a link between response and outcome but it is loose and uncertain. The clinical substrate being treated is often a stronger determinant of outcome than the response to the intervention. The concepts of outcome and response can both be useful when deciding whether or not to implant a device but they are not the same and their determinants will differ. Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and those with inter-ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony have a better prognosis than those who do not have these features, but this is true whether or not they receive cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). Many characteristics predict outcome in patients considered for CRT but none consistently predict response. On the other hand, guidelines recommend CRT in populations that have not yet been adequately studied, such as those with atrial fibrillation. Clinicians should follow the criteria for patient selection in the landmark trials when selecting patients for CRT, should extrapolate with caution from these and should be extremely cautious in the interpretation of observational data.",
keywords = "Cardiac resynchronization therapy, Heart failure, Outcome, Response",
author = "Cleland, {John G F} and Stefano Ghio",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1007/s10741-011-9268-9",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "755--766",
journal = "Heart Failure Reviews",
issn = "1382-4147",
publisher = "Springer New York LLC",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The determinants of clinical outcome and clinical response to CRT are not the same

AU - Cleland, John G F

AU - Ghio, Stefano

PY - 2012/11

Y1 - 2012/11

N2 - The purpose of treatment is to alter outcomes favourably. From a clinical perspective, these outcomes may include symptoms, quality of life, disability, morbidity and mortality. However, a good outcome does not mean that the intervention was effective and a seemingly poor outcome could have been worse without intervention. Patients may have a good outcome either because their disease was due to run a benign course, or because they responded to the intended treatment or because they responded to some other ancillary treatment. Clearly, there is a link between response and outcome but it is loose and uncertain. The clinical substrate being treated is often a stronger determinant of outcome than the response to the intervention. The concepts of outcome and response can both be useful when deciding whether or not to implant a device but they are not the same and their determinants will differ. Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and those with inter-ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony have a better prognosis than those who do not have these features, but this is true whether or not they receive cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). Many characteristics predict outcome in patients considered for CRT but none consistently predict response. On the other hand, guidelines recommend CRT in populations that have not yet been adequately studied, such as those with atrial fibrillation. Clinicians should follow the criteria for patient selection in the landmark trials when selecting patients for CRT, should extrapolate with caution from these and should be extremely cautious in the interpretation of observational data.

AB - The purpose of treatment is to alter outcomes favourably. From a clinical perspective, these outcomes may include symptoms, quality of life, disability, morbidity and mortality. However, a good outcome does not mean that the intervention was effective and a seemingly poor outcome could have been worse without intervention. Patients may have a good outcome either because their disease was due to run a benign course, or because they responded to the intended treatment or because they responded to some other ancillary treatment. Clearly, there is a link between response and outcome but it is loose and uncertain. The clinical substrate being treated is often a stronger determinant of outcome than the response to the intervention. The concepts of outcome and response can both be useful when deciding whether or not to implant a device but they are not the same and their determinants will differ. Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and those with inter-ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony have a better prognosis than those who do not have these features, but this is true whether or not they receive cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). Many characteristics predict outcome in patients considered for CRT but none consistently predict response. On the other hand, guidelines recommend CRT in populations that have not yet been adequately studied, such as those with atrial fibrillation. Clinicians should follow the criteria for patient selection in the landmark trials when selecting patients for CRT, should extrapolate with caution from these and should be extremely cautious in the interpretation of observational data.

KW - Cardiac resynchronization therapy

KW - Heart failure

KW - Outcome

KW - Response

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84868209235&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84868209235&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10741-011-9268-9

DO - 10.1007/s10741-011-9268-9

M3 - Article

C2 - 22081054

AN - SCOPUS:84868209235

VL - 17

SP - 755

EP - 766

JO - Heart Failure Reviews

JF - Heart Failure Reviews

SN - 1382-4147

IS - 6

ER -