Aims: The purpose of this EP Wire is to compare indications, techniques, implant strategy, and follow-up regarding cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in several countries across Europe.
Methods and results: Forty-one centres, members of the EHRA-EP Research Network, responded to this survey and completed the questions. Thirty-two per cent of the responding centres always use CRT in heart failure (HF) patients with New York Heart Association functional class II and QRS width >120 ms, and 55% of the responding centres demand additional criteria when indicating CRT, most often QRS width >150 ms (49%) and echocardiographic criteria of asynchrony (34%). Only 10% of centres indicate CRT in all HF patients with QRS >120 ms and right bundle branch block, and 51% demand additional criteria, most frequently echocardiographic asynchrony parameters. The vast majority of centres also indicate CRT in patients with atrial fibrillation and standard criteria for CRT. In 24% of the centres, biventricular pacemaker (CRT-P) is implanted in all situations, unless there is an indication for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death, while 10% always choose to implant a biventricular defibrillator (CRT-D). There are no clear evidence-based recommendations concerning the implant procedure and follow-up in patients treated with CRT; therefore, the chosen strategies vary widely from one centre to another.
Conclusion: This EP Wire survey shows a wide variation not only as far as CRT indications are concerned, but especially in techniques, implant strategy, and follow-up across the European countries.