Key result
Baseline left atrial reservoir strain predicts LV systolic and diastolic reverse remodelling in CRT candidates.
Why the study?
The effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy on left atrial morphology and function, and the impact of left atrial reservoir strain on left ventricular systolic and diastolic remodelling, were not fully defined.
Does baseline left atrial reservoir strain (LARS) predict left ventricular systolic and diastolic reverse remodelling after cardiac resynchronization therapy in CRT candidates?
Cohort (n=221)
Yes
Does baseline left atrial reservoir strain (LARS) predict left ventricular systolic and diastolic reverse remodelling after cardiac resynchronization therapy in CRT candidates?
Effect estimate: r = -0.14 (systolic), r = -0.17 (diastolic)
p-value: p=0.049 (systolic), 0.002 (diastolic)
Baseline left atrial reservoir strain is an independent predictor of left ventricular systolic and diastolic reverse remodelling 6 months after cardiac resynchronization therapy.
AIMS: The left atrium (LA) has a pivotal role in cardiac performance and LA deformation is a well-known prognostic predictor in several clinical conditions including heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on both LA morphology and function and to assess the impact of LA reservoir strain (LARS) on left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic remodelling after CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-one CRT-candidates were prospectively included in the study in four tertiary centres and underwent echocardiography before CRT-implantation and at 6-month follow-up (FU). CRT-response was defined by a 15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume. LV systolic and diastolic remodelling were defined as the percent reduction in LV end-systolic and end-diastolic volume at FU. Indexed LA volume (LAVI) and LV-global longitudinal (GLS) strain were the main parameters correlated with LARS, with LV-GLS being the strongest determinant of LARS (r = -0.59, P < 0.0001). CRT induced a significant improvement in LAVI and LARS in responders (both P < 0.0001). LARS was an independent predictor of both LV systolic and diastolic remodelling at follow-up (r = -0.14, P = 0.049 and r = -0.17, P = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSION: CRT induces a significant improvement in LAVI and LARS in responders. In CRT candidates, the evaluation of LARS before CRT delivery is an independent predictor of LV systolic and diastolic remodelling at FU.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Galli et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (CRT candidates) (n=221). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was evaluated on Left ventricular systolic and diastolic remodelling (percent reduction in LV end-systolic and end-diastolic volume) (r = -0.14 (systolic), r = -0.17 (diastolic), p=0.049 (systolic), 0.002 (diastolic)). Baseline left atrial reservoir strain in CRT candidates was an independent predictor of left ventricular systolic (r = -0.14, P = 0.049) and diastolic (r = -0.17, P = 0.002) reverse remodelling.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: