Effect of closed loop stimulation versus accelerometer on outcomes with cardiac resynchronization therapy: the CLASS trial
Abstract
Purpose: Chronotropic incompetence (CI) in patients with heart failure is common and associated with impaired exercise intolerance and adverse outcomes. This study sought to determine the effects of closed loop stimulation (CLS) rate-adaptive pacing on functional capacity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and CI implanted with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices.
Methods: A randomized, blinded, cross-over designed trial enrolled patients with HFrEF and CI implanted with a Biotronik CRT-D to complete a quality of life questionnaire, 6-min walk distance (6MWD), and cardiopulmonary exercise testing after two programmed periods: 1-week period of CLS and 1-week period of standard accelerometer (DDDR).
Results: Nine patients (6 males, mean age 71.4 years, 7 with New York Heart Association Class III, mean ejection fraction 39 ± 8%) were enrolled. Quality of life trended higher in CLS as compared to DDDR (550.8 ± 123.9 vs 489.3 ± 164.9, p = 0.06). There were no differences between CLS and DDDR in 6MWD (293.1 ± 90.2 m vs 315.1 ± 95.5 m, p = 0.52), peak heart rate (HR) 110.7 ± 14.7 bpm vs 109.7 bpm ± 14.1, p = 0.67), or peak VO2 (12.3 ± 4.9 ml/kg/min vs 12.9 ± 5.9, p = 0.47). As tests were submaximal as indicated by low respiratory exchange ratios (0.98 ± 0.11 vs 1.0 ± 0.8, p = 0.35), VE/VCO2 slope also showed no difference between CLS and DDDR (35.8 ± 5.6 vs 35.4 ± 5.7, p = 0.65). Five patients (56%) preferred CLS programming (p = 1.0).…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Comparative effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Adverse effects of cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors on renal and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials
- Benefits and harms of drug treatment for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of statins as a class and of specific statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review, meta‐analysis, and network meta‐analysis of randomized trials with 94,283 participants
- Screen time increases overweight and obesity risk among adolescents: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
- Exposure to WHO AWaRe antibiotics and isolation of multi-drug resistant bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.