Complications of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Comparison of Safety Outcomes from Real-world Studies and Clinical Trials

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an important intervention in heart failure. Whether real-world complication rates mirror those reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is unknown. We sought to compare rates of procedural complications between major RCTs of CRT with “real-world” complication rates reported in registries and administrative claims database studies. We conducted a PubMed search to identify all relevant publications on CRT and classified them into RCTs and registry studies. Pooled procedural complication rates were analyzed. Differences between groups were compared using the chi-squared test. We identified a total of 6 RCTs, 2 administrative claims database studies, and 4 CRT registry studies. RCTs included a total of 4,442 patients and “real-world” studies included a total of 72,554 patients. The overall rates of procedural complications with CRT were significantly higher in RCTs compared to the real world (8.1% vs. 6.9%, P = .002). Lead-related complications were higher in the real-world studies compared to RCTs (11.3% vs. 6.5%, P = .0001). This could represent a follow-up bias with patients in registries being followed up for longer durations that would compound lead complication rates. Interestingly, RCTs had a higher incidence of pocket hematomas (2.1% vs. 0.4%, P = .001). In conclusion, real-world procedural complication rates of CRT appear to be significantly lower than those reported in RCTs.