Appendix Table 1.

Randomized, Controlled Trials Evaluating the Efficacy of CRT-D versus ICD in Patients With Mild Heart Failure

Study, Year (Reference)	Treatment Comparison	Patients, n	NYHA class	LVEF, %	QRS Duration, ms	Deaths, n	Months	HR for Mortality (95% CI)	HR for Heart Failure Hospitalization (95% CI)
Al-Majed et al, 2011 (meta-analysis) (13)	CRT vs. usual care	4054*	I/II	≤40	NA	407		0.80 (0.67–0.96)	0.69 (0.59–0.80)
RAFT, 2010(12)	CRT-D vs. ICD	138	II	≤30	≥120	264	40	0.73 (0.61–0.88)	0.70 (0.55–0.85)
MADIT-CRT, 2009 (11)	CRT-D vs. ICD	1820	I/II	≤30	≥120	127	29	1.00 (0.69–1.44)	0.59 (0.47–0.74)
REVERSE, 2008 (10, 13)	CRT-on vs. -off	610	I/II	≤40	≥130	12	12	1.37 (0.37–4.99)	0.52 (0.26–1.01)
MIRACLE ICD II, 2004(13, 45)	CRT-D vs. ICD	186	II	≤35	≥130	4	6	1.19 (0.17–8.26)	NA

CRT-D = cardiac resynchronization therapy combined with an ICD; HR = hazard ratio; ICD = implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; MADIT-CRT = Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; MIRACLE ICD II = Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation ICD II; NA = not available; NYHA = New York Heart Association; RAFT = Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial; REVERSE = REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic left vEntricular dysfunction.

^*Number of patients in analysis of all-cause mortality. The analysis of heart failure hospitalization included 3863 patients.