Why the study?
Do baseline diastolic echocardiographic parameters predict clinical and structural outcomes in heart failure patients 6 months after CRT implant?
Do baseline diastolic echocardiographic parameters predict clinical and structural outcomes in heart failure patients 6 months after CRT implant?
Baseline diastolic echocardiographic parameters, specifically E/A ratio and LA area, can help predict clinical and structural response to CRT at 6 months.
May aid pre-CRT risk stratification in HF; leaves open whether diastolic parameters should refine selection criteria.
INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can improve clinical and cardiac structural status in heart failure patients. The role of baseline diastolic echocardiographic parameters to characterize the likelihood of positive outcomes is not well known. We explored relationships between diastolic parameters and outcomes 6 months after CRT implant in the Predictors of Response to CRT (PROSPECT) Trial. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that diastolic echocardiographic parameters were associated with clinical and structural outcomes in CRT patients. METHODS: For 426 patients in PROSPECT, a prospective observational trial of CRT, baseline E/A ratio, left atrial (LA) area, isovolumic relaxation time, left ventricular inflow deceleration time, E' velocity, and E/E' ratio were evaluated and related to 6-month clinical composite score (CCS) and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction using Spearman rank-order correlations. Parameters associated with outcomes were analyzed further by discrete categorization. RESULTS: As continuous variables, only E/A ratio and LA area correlated with CCSs (P = 0.017, P = 0.045, respectively) and relative change in LVESV at 6 months (P < 0.0001, P = 0.001, respectively). As discrete variables, E/A ratio and LA area also correlated with CCSs and LVESV. CONCLUSION: Diastolic echo parameters E/A ratio and LA area were associated with clinical and structural outcomes in CRT patients at 6 months.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sullivan et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: