Introduction Approximately one-third of patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation fail to show echocardiographic improvement and are categorized as non-responders, despite of probable beneficial clinical response. Purpose We aimed to evaluate the long-term outcome of CRT patients by their echocardiographic response outsorting those with unchanged parameters. Methods Altogether 1019 patients undergoing CRT implantation between 2000-2020 in our center were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were grouped by their echocardiographic response defined as LVEF change upto12 months: super-responders ≥20% (n=113), responders 6-19% (n=448), non-progressors 0-5% (n=244), and progressors <0% (n=214). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implantation. Results During the median follow-up time of 4.7 years 547 (54%) patients died, 35 (31%) super-responders, 223 (50%) responders, 133 (55%) non-progressors, and 156 (73%) progressors. The mean change in LVEF occurred as follows: super-responders 24.5% ± 4.1%, responders 11.5% ± 3.8%, non-progressors 2.8% ± 1.8%, and progressors -6.6% ± 4.5% (p<0.001). Univariate Cox regression analysis revealed that non-progressors had a similar outcome to responders (HR 1.17; 95%CI 0.94-1.45; p=0.15) and a superior outcome to progressors (HR 0.60; 95%CI 0.48-0.76; p<0.001), which was also confirmed by multivariate analysis: non-progressors vs. responders (HR 1.25; 95%CI 0.98-1.58; p=0.07) and non-progressors vs. progressors (HR 0.62; 95%CI 0.47-0.80; p<0.001). Conclusion In our current analysis, non-progressors had a superior outcome to progressors suggesting that CRT moderates the remodeling process. These findings indicate their selection and the re-classification of CRT response by echocardiographic changes.Survival by responseMean change in LVEF by response
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Behon et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: