Why the study?
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy improve long-term left ventricular ejection fraction and strain parameters in patients receiving a CRT-defibrillator?
Does cardiac resynchronization therapy improve long-term left ventricular ejection fraction and strain parameters in patients receiving a CRT-defibrillator?
Long-term follow-up of CRT-D patients demonstrates sustained improvements in ejection fraction and strain parameters in approximately 50% of patients, which correlates with lower readmission rates.
Sustained EF and strain gains seen after CRT-D; extends short-term observations yet leaves open causal outcome benefits.
Left ventricular (LV) response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has typically been studied over 3- to 12-month periods. Longer-term data are unclear and response of strain parameters has not been reported. The authors evaluated long-term response with standard and strain echocardiography in 57 patients (52±15 years; 40 male; 30 white; 15 with ischemic etiology) who received a CRT-defibrillator between January 2004 and December 2005. Median ejection fraction (EF) at baseline was 22% (17%-25%). Global longitudinal, radial, and circumferential strain were -6.5% (-5.0% to -8.4%), 10.4% (6.9%-15.1%), and -7.6% (-5.5% to -10.8%), respectively. After a median of 42 months, EF increased by 5% (-1% to 15%; P<.001), with improvements in circumferential (-3.2% [-5.2% to 1.5%]; P=.001), longitudinal (-0.5% [-3.4% to 1.2%]; P=.035), and radial (1.4% [-1.1% to 9.2%]; P=.035) strain. Changes in volumes were nonsignificant. EF improvement ≥5% was observed in 29 patients (50.9%). Relative improvement ≥15% in longitudinal, radial, and circumferential strain was observed in 26 (45.6%), 29 (50.9%), and 37 (64.9%) patients, respectively. Improvement in longitudinal strain and EF was strongly associated with lower rates of heart failure-related and all-cause readmissions. A wide range of long-term LV responses to CRT was observed, with approximately 50% of patients showing favorable responses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kalogeropoulos et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: