Is a Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Device (CRTD) effective in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib)?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: December 4, 2025 • View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

CRTD in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

CRT can be beneficial in patients with atrial fibrillation who meet standard heart failure criteria (LVEF ≤35%, QRS ≥120ms, symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy), but only when a strategy ensures near-complete (≥90-95%) biventricular pacing—most reliably achieved through AV junction ablation. 1

Evidence Quality and Limitations

The evidence base for CRT in AFib is notably weak compared to sinus rhythm patients:

  • Only 262 patients with AFib were randomized in the original CRT trials 1
  • The RAFT trial showed only a trend toward fewer heart failure hospitalizations in AFib patients, with no significant difference in the primary outcome of death or HF hospitalization between ICD alone versus CRT-D 1
  • Despite limited trial data, up to 26% of patients in real-world registries (EuroCRT Survey II) have AFib 1

Current Guideline Recommendations

Guidelines provide a Class IIa indication for CRT in AFib patients who meet standard criteria, with the critical caveat that biventricular capture must be ensured 1:

  • LVEF ≤35% 1
  • Symptomatic heart failure on optimal medical therapy 1
  • QRS duration ≥120ms 1
  • Strategy in place to ensure near 100% biventricular pacing 1

The Critical Importance of Biventricular Pacing Percentage

AFib with rapid ventricular conduction is the leading cause of inadequate biventricular pacing 1:

  • Target biventricular pacing percentage is >90-95% 1
  • Observational data show mortality is inversely associated with biventricular pacing percentage, with optimal cutoff at 98.7% 2
  • Patients with biventricular pacing >99.6% experienced 24% reduction in mortality, while those <94.8% had 19% increase in mortality 2

Important caveat: Device-reported biventricular pacing percentages can vastly overestimate true resynchronization because they don't account for fusion and pseudofusion beats 2

Strategy for Ensuring Adequate Biventricular Pacing

Initial Conservative Approach

Start with medical optimization and device programming 1:

  • Optimize rate control with beta-blockers (first-line in HF patients) 3
  • Avoid non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (diltiazem, verapamil) due to negative inotropic effects 3
  • Program device features to maximize biventricular capture 1
  • Consider pulmonary vein isolation if indicated for paroxysmal AFib 1

AV Junction Ablation: When and Why

AV junction ablation should be performed if pharmacologic rate control fails to achieve ≥90-95% biventricular pacing 1:

  • A meta-analysis of 4 clinical trials showed AV junction ablation with CRT reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.42) and cardiovascular mortality (risk ratio 0.44) compared to CRT without ablation 1
  • The randomized APAF trial demonstrated CRT with AV junction ablation reduced the composite endpoint of HF death, hospitalization, or worsening by 63% 1
  • The CERTIFY trial provides unequivocal proof that AV junction ablation improves outcomes in CRT patients with AFib 2
  • Patients after AV junction ablation have mortality similar to those in sinus rhythm 2

Timing of AV junction ablation: Can be performed at CRT implantation or a few weeks later after ensuring lead and device function 1

Clinical Outcomes in AFib Patients

Benefits When Adequate Pacing Achieved

Patients with AFib who achieve adequate biventricular pacing show similar improvements to sinus rhythm patients 1, 4:

  • Quality of life improvement 4
  • Six-minute walk distance 4
  • Left ventricular reverse remodeling 4
  • NYHA functional class improvement 1

Mortality Considerations

Despite functional improvements, AFib remains an independent risk factor for mortality from refractory heart failure 4:

  • One study showed 13.5% mortality from refractory HF at 12 months in AFib patients versus 4.1% in sinus rhythm patients (p<0.001) 4
  • Permanent AFib was an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio 5.4) 4
  • However, with AV junction ablation ensuring complete biventricular pacing, this mortality gap can be eliminated 1, 2

Subclinical AFib: An Underrecognized Problem

Device-detected subclinical AFib is associated with worse outcomes 5:

  • 70% HF hospitalization rate in subclinical AFib versus 49% in clinical AFib and 38% in no AFib (p=0.03) 5
  • Subclinical AFib causes loss of biventricular pacing (81% vs 94% in no AFib, p=0.001) 5
  • Increased inappropriate ICD therapies (13% vs 7.7% in no AFib, p=0.04) 5
  • Regular device interrogation is essential to detect and treat subclinical AFib 5

Practical Algorithm for AFib Patients Considering CRT

  1. Confirm standard CRT indications: LVEF ≤35%, QRS ≥120ms (preferably ≥150ms with LBBB), symptomatic on optimal medical therapy 1

  2. Assess AFib burden and ventricular rate control:

    • If paroxysmal AFib with good rate control: Implant CRT, optimize medical therapy, monitor biventricular pacing percentage 1
    • If permanent AFib with uncontrolled rate: Plan for AV junction ablation either at implant or shortly after 1

  3. Post-implant monitoring:

    • Check biventricular pacing percentage at every follow-up (target ≥90-95%) 1
    • If <90-95% despite medical optimization: Proceed with AV junction ablation 1
    • Monitor for subclinical AFib episodes that may reduce pacing percentage 5

  4. Consider premature ventricular beats: These may also require treatment to maintain adequate biventricular pacing 1

Critical Pitfalls to Avoid

  • Accepting inadequate biventricular pacing percentage: Don't settle for <90-95% biventricular pacing—this negates CRT benefit 1, 2
  • Relying solely on device-reported pacing percentages: These can overestimate true resynchronization due to fusion beats 2
  • Delaying AV junction ablation: If rate control fails, don't wait—ablation significantly improves outcomes 1, 2
  • Using negative inotropic agents for rate control: Avoid diltiazem and verapamil in patients with reduced LVEF 3
  • Ignoring subclinical AFib: Regular device interrogation is essential to detect episodes that compromise pacing 5
  • Assuming AFib is a contraindication: With proper management (especially AV junction ablation), AFib patients can achieve outcomes similar to sinus rhythm patients 1, 2

References

1
Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

2
Research

Cardiac Resynchronization in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

Journal of atrial fibrillation, 2015

3
Guideline

Management of Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Related Questions

What are the criteria for considering a patient for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT)?
How can Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) improve heart failure?
What is meant by Tenderness to Palpation (TTP) of the medial aspect of the knee joint?
What does it mean to be trauma-informed or to use a trauma lens?
What is the appropriate initial evaluation and management for a patient presenting with morning hemoptysis, dry cough, and weight loss?
Do you continue Duoneb (ipratropium and albuterol) with Yupelri (revefenacin) in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)?
Is Privigen (Immune Globulin) 500 mg IV every 28 days medically indicated for the treatment of nonfamilial hypogammaglobulinemia in a patient with a history of Stage III Nodular Lymphocyte Predominant Hodgkin Lymphoma and normal IgG levels?
What tests are used to diagnose asthma, including both objective and subjective assessments?

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.

Ask Question