What cardiac device is recommended for monitoring heart failure, specifically an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device?

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 18, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

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

Cardiac Devices for Heart Failure Monitoring

For heart failure monitoring, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices (CRT-D or CRT-P) are the recommended cardiac devices, with CRT-D (combined resynchronization and defibrillator) preferred for most patients meeting criteria, as these devices not only monitor but actively treat heart failure through biventricular pacing while providing defibrillation capability. 1

Device Selection Based on Clinical Criteria

CRT-D (Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with Defibrillator)

CRT-D is the primary recommendation for patients meeting all of the following criteria: 1

  • LVEF ≤35% 1
  • NYHA class II-IV symptoms on guideline-directed medical therapy 1
  • QRS duration ≥120 ms (strongest evidence for ≥150 ms with LBBB pattern) 1
  • Sinus rhythm 1
  • Life expectancy >1 year with good functional status 1

The 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guidelines provide Class 1 (strongest) recommendation for CRT-D in patients with LVEF ≤35%, sinus rhythm, LBBB with QRS ≥150 ms, and NYHA class II-IV symptoms, as this combination reduces total mortality, hospitalizations, and improves symptoms and quality of life. 1

CRT-P (Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with Pacemaker Only)

CRT-P should be considered instead of CRT-D when: 1

  • Life expectancy <1 year due to non-cardiac comorbidities 2
  • Patient preference after informed discussion 2
  • High risk of non-sudden death (frequent hospitalizations, advanced frailty, severe renal dysfunction, systemic malignancy) 1
  • NYHA class III-IV patients where ICD benefit is unlikely to provide meaningful survival benefit 1

The European Society of Cardiology gives this a Class IIa recommendation, recognizing that while CRT improves symptoms and quality of life, the defibrillator component may not benefit patients with limited life expectancy from non-cardiac causes. 1

Special Monitoring Indications

Atrial Fibrillation Patients

For patients with atrial fibrillation, CRT-D/CRT-P can be useful when: 1

  • LVEF ≤35% 1
  • Atrioventricular nodal ablation or rate control allows near 100% ventricular pacing 1
  • QRS ≥130 ms 1
  • NYHA class III-IV symptoms 1

This receives a Class IIa recommendation, as achieving consistent biventricular pacing is critical for CRT benefit. 1

Anticipated Frequent Ventricular Pacing

CRT should be considered for patients requiring >40% ventricular pacing: 1

  • New or replacement device implantation 1
  • LVEF ≤35% 1
  • On guideline-directed medical therapy 1

This prevents the detrimental effects of chronic right ventricular pacing in patients with existing left ventricular dysfunction. 1

Critical Pitfalls to Avoid

Do not implant a standard ICD without CRT capability in patients meeting CRT criteria - this misses the opportunity for reverse remodeling and heart failure symptom improvement. 2 The American College of Cardiology gives this a Class I recommendation with Level B evidence. 2

Do not implant CRT devices in patients with QRS <120 ms - there is no evidence of benefit and may cause harm (Class III recommendation). 1, 2 The exception is patients requiring frequent ventricular pacing. 1

Do not use echocardiography alone to determine CRT candidacy - patients should not be denied CRT based solely on echocardiographic parameters, as echo is poor at determining "need" or "response" to CRT. 1

Evidence Quality Considerations

The RAFT trial (2010) demonstrated that CRT-D reduced the primary endpoint of death or heart failure hospitalization by 25% compared to ICD alone in patients with NYHA class II-III heart failure. 3 The MADIT-CRT trial extended these benefits to less symptomatic patients (NYHA class I-II) with LVEF ≤30% and QRS ≥130 ms. 1, 4

The COMPANION trial showed CRT-P/CRT-D reduced all-cause death or hospitalization, with CRT-D showing additional mortality benefit over CRT-P alone. 1 However, the choice between CRT-P and CRT-D should be individualized based on sudden death risk versus non-sudden death risk. 1

All CRT patients require regular device checks (at least annually) and optimization of device settings, as heart failure is a progressive disease requiring ongoing adjustment of both medical therapy and device programming. 1

References

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Guideline

ICD Selection for Congestive Heart Failure

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Research

Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for mild-to-moderate heart failure.

The New England journal of medicine, 2010

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.