Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Predicting outcome after cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator implantation: the CRT-D Futility score
  1. Baptiste Maille1,2,
  2. Alexandre Bodin3,
  3. Arnaud Bisson3,
  4. Julien Herbert3,
  5. Bertrand Pierre3,
  6. Nicolas Clementy3,
  7. Victor Klein1,
  8. Frédéric Franceschi1,2,
  9. Jean-Claude Deharo1,2,
  10. Laurent Fauchier4,5
  1. 1Cardiology, Assistance Publique Hopitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France
  2. 2C2VN, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
  3. 3Cardiologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Trousseau, Tours, France
  4. 4Cardiology, Trousseau University Hospital, Tours, France
  5. 5François Rabelais University, Tours, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Baptiste Maille, Cardiology, Assistance Publique Hopitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France; baptiste.maille{at}


Background Risk-benefit for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) defibrillator (CRT-D) over CRT pacemaker remains a matter of debate. We aimed to identify patients with a poor outcome within 1 year of CRT-D implantation, and to develop a CRT-D Futility score.

Methods Based on an administrative hospital-discharge database, all consecutive patients treated with prophylactic CRT-D implantation in France (2010–2019) were included. A prediction model was derived and validated for 1-year all-cause death after CRT-D implantation (considered as futility) by using split-sample validation.

Results Among 23 029 patients (mean age 68±10 years; 4873 (21.2%) women), 7016 deaths were recorded (yearly incidence rate 7.2%), of which 1604 (22.8%) occurred within 1 year of CRT-D implantation. In the derivation cohort (n=11 514), the final logistic regression model included—as main predictors of futility—older age, diabetes, mitral regurgitation, aortic stenosis, history of hospitalisation with heart failure, history of pulmonary oedema, atrial fibrillation, renal disease, liver disease, undernutrition and anaemia. Area under the curve for the CRT-D Futility score was 0.716 (95% CI: 0.698 to 0.734) in the derivation cohort and 0.692 (0.673 to 0.710) in the validation cohort. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test had a p-value of 0.57 suggesting accurate calibration. The CRT-D Futility score outperformed the Goldenberg and EAARN scores for identifying futility. Based on the CRT-D Futility score, 15.9% of these patients were categorised at high risk (predicted futility of 16.6%).

Conclusions The CRT-D Futility score, established from a large nationwide cohort of patients treated with CRT-D, may be a relevant tool for optimising healthcare decision-making.

  • Defibrillators, Implantable

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

View Full Text


  • Contributors BM: Conceptualisation; investigation; methodology; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. ABi, ABo: Formal analysis; writing—review and editing. JH: Data curation. BP, FF: Writing—review and editing. VK: Data curation. J-CD: Conceptualisation; investigation; methodology; writing—review and editing. LF: Conceptualisation; investigation; methodology; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing, overall content as guarantor.

  • Funding Sophie Rushton-Smith, PhD (MedLink Healthcare Communications, London), provided editorial assistance in the preparation of the manuscript (limited to editing for style, referencing, and figure and table editing) and was funded by the authors.

  • Competing interests LF reports being a consultant or speaker for Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic and Novartis.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Linked Articles