Key result
CRT is associated with improved LVEF in patients with cardiomyopathy and LBBB.
Why the study?
The association between LBBB and CRT response remains unclear and practical criteria for selecting CRT candidates are needed.
Does the temporal relation between cardiomyopathy and LBBB determine response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure patients?
null
null
null
Does the temporal relation between cardiomyopathy and LBBB determine response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure patients?
The temporal relationship between LBBB and cardiomyopathy may determine the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy, with LBBB-induced cardiomyopathy showing better response.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support LBBB timing as CRT response predictor in cardiomyopathy; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Background: Left bundle branch block (LBBB)-induced cardiomyopathy has been proposed, but the association between LBBB and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response remains unclear and practical criteria for selecting CRT candidates are needed. Methods: One hundred and seventeen consecutive heart failure patients were reviewed, 24 of whom received CRT. Only two patients had a clear temporal relation between cardiomyopathy and LBBB. Results: Compared with the patient with “cardiomyopathy-induced LBBB,” the patient with “LBBB-induced cardiomyopathy” had higher left ventricular (LV) wall thickness, higher LV wall thickening rate, higher peak circumferential strain, and longer peak circumferential strain delay. The LV deformation patterns in the two patients were obviously distinct on cardiovascular magnetic resonance tissue tracking. During follow-up, the patient with LBBB-induced cardiomyopathy had a good response to CRT (LV ejection fraction 23 before CRT vs. 30% at 6 months vs. 29 at 12 months vs. 32% at 18 months; LV end-diastolic diameter 77 mm before CRT vs. 66 mm at 6 months vs. 62 mm at 12 months vs. 63 mm at 18 months), and the other patient had no response to CRT (LV ejection fraction 29 before CRT vs. 29% at 6 months vs. 26 at 12 months vs. 22% at 24 months; LV end-diastolic diameter 85 mm before CRT vs. 88 mm at 6 months vs. 85 mm at 12 months vs. 84 mm at 24 months). Conclusion: The temporal relation between cardiomyopathy and LBBB could be a determinant for CRT response. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance tissue tracking may be a useful tool to identify the chronological order and a principal consideration for selecting candidates for CRT. Larger prospective clinical trials are needed to study the prevalence of, time course of, and risk factors for LBBB-induced cardiomyopathy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chang et al. (2019) conducted a null in Cardiomyopathy. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy vs. null was evaluated on null (null, 95% CI null, p=null). Cardiac resynchronization therapy was responsive in patients with cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block, improving heart function parameters significantly.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: