Why the study?
Does combined assessment of mechanical dyssynchrony, myocardial deformation, and diastolic function predict response to CRT in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy?
Does combined assessment of mechanical dyssynchrony, myocardial deformation, and diastolic function predict response to CRT in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy?
Combined assessment of mechanical dyssynchrony, contractile function, and diastolic filling pattern can help identify patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy who will benefit most from CRT.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May aid CRT selection via combined dyssynchrony and strain metrics in nonischemic cardiomyopathy; hypothesis-generating, needs prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: 20-30% of patients do not benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) when the established selection criteria were applied. We hypothesized that a combined assessment of mechanical dyssynchrony, myocardial deformation, and diastolic function would identify patients who would benefit most from CRT. METHOD: In 36 CRT patients, clinical evaluation and echocardiography were performed before and after CRT. Patients were classified into three subgroups according to their amount of response: echocardiographic responders, clinical responders, and nonresponders. Radial dyssynchrony and left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal, radial, and circumferential peak strain was assessed by speckle-tracking image. Diastolic function was quantified by conventional echocardiography. RESULT: In addition to left bundle branch block, nonspecific intraventricular conduction disturbance with intraventricular dyssynchrony could also improve LV remodeling. Echocardiographic responders had better global longitudinal strain, global circumferential peak strain, and global radial strain at baseline which significantly increased at 12-month follow-up. An improvement in estimates of LV filling pressure and a decrease in mitral regurgitation and left atrial dimensions were observed only in echocardiographic responders to CRT. Patients with clinical but without echocardiographic response showed a significant improvement in atrioventricular (AV) synchrony and a nonsignificant improvement in other parameters. The nonresponder group did not improve the AV and intraventricular dyssynchrony. CRT could not improve restrictive filling pattern with normal filling time. Overall, those patients with AV and intraventricular dyssynchrony and those with best contractile function and short diastolic filling time of restrictive filling pattern at baseline demonstrated the greatest benefit from CRT. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical dyssynchrony, contractile function, and filling pattern are important determinants of the benefits in CRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: