Key result
Assessing electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony optimizes CRT selection in HF patients with prolonged QRS.
Why the study?
Despite guideline-directed CRT, a significant proportion of heart failure patients with prolonged QRS duration fail to achieve an adequate therapeutic response.
This review highlights the importance of evaluating both electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony to improve patient selection and response rates for cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure.
May enhance CRT response via dyssynchrony assessment in wide-QRS HF; leaves open prospective validation.
Heart failure (HF) represents a critical stage of cardiac disease, associated with high morbidity and mortality. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become a pivotal treatment for HF patients with prolonged QRS duration. This therapy employs a biventricular pacing system to correct cardiac electromechanical dyssynchrony, thereby improving cardiac function, symptoms, and prognosis. Numerous clinical trials have consistently highlighted the benefits of CRT in this subgroup, leading to its unanimous recommendation in clinical practice guidelines. However, a significant proportion of patients do not achieve an adequate therapeutic response, despite adherence to these guidelines. As CRT treats patients by correcting cardiac electromechanical dyssynchrony, assessing electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony is crucial in candidate selection. This review explores the evidence, recent clinical practice guidelines, and insight into electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony to optimize CRT candidate selection in HF patients with prolonged QRS duration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2024) conducted a review in Heart failure with prolonged QRS duration. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was evaluated. Assessing electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony is crucial for optimizing cardiac resynchronization therapy candidate selection in heart failure patients with prolonged QRS duration.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: