Heart failure & cardiomyopathiesRandomised controlled trial
Adaptive versus conventional cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with heart failure (AdaptResponse): a global, prospective, randomised controlled trial
- Randomised controlled trial
- global
- prospective
- multicentre (227 hospitals, 27 countries)
- stopped early for futility at third interim analysis
Patients masked until procedures completed; site staff not masked
Authors' conclusion
Compared with conventional CRT, adaptive CRT did not significantly reduce the incidence of all-cause death or intervention for heart failure decompensation in the included population of patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block, and intact AV conduction.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with NYHA class 2–4 HF, EF ≤35%, left bundle branch block (QRS ≥140 ms men, ≥130 ms women) and PR interval ≤200 msrandomised
- Participants
- 3,617 adults
- Comparison
- Adaptive cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) vs conventional CRT
- Adaptive CRTn = 1,810
- Conventional CRTn = 1,807reference
- Primary endpoint
- Composite of:
- All-cause death
- Intervention for HF decompensation
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
60 months
Hazard ratio
0.89
95% CI 0.78–1.01
P = 0.077
Events by treatment group
Adaptive CRT vs Conventional CRT
HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.78–1.01); P = 0.077
Safety
System-related adverse events · intention-to-treat
Original publication
Adaptive versus conventional cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with heart failure (AdaptResponse): a global, prospective, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. Published 24 August 2023. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00912-1
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it