What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cohort. Population: chronic heart failure (n=170). Intervention: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Primary outcome: CRT response (absolute reduction in left ventricular end-systolic diameter >15% and an improvement in LVEF >10%).

January 21, 2016The Egyptian Heart JournalOpen Access

Predictors of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in chronic heart failure patients

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

A novel 9-point score based on pre-implantation predictors identified CRT response in 97.5% of patients with a score >6 compared to 40.7% in those with a score <6 (p < 0.001).

Why the study?

What are the independent predictors of echocardiographic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure (NYHA III-IV, LVEF ⩽ 35%)?

Population

170 consecutive heart failure patients in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV and LVEF ⩽…

Design

Cohort

Authors

MLMohamed Loutfi MNMostafa Nawar SESalah Eltahan

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

May help identify likely CRT responders in HFrEF; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=170)

Structured PICO

What are the independent predictors of echocardiographic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure (NYHA III-IV, LVEF ⩽ 35%)?

Population

170 consecutive heart failure (HF) patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III or IV and LVEF ⩽ 35%, mean age 68.8, 71.1% men.

Intervention

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-P or CRT-D) with routine device and clinical follow-up, and CRT optimization performed at baseline and at 3-month intervals.

Outcome

CRT response (defined as having an absolute reduction in left ventricular end-systolic diameter >15% and an improvement in LVEF >10%)surrogate

A novel 9-point scoring system based on clinical and echocardiographic parameters can strongly predict structural and functional response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with HFrEF.

Limitations

This score needs to be validated on another population of patients.
This score needs to be validated on another population of patients

Cite This Study

Loutfi et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in chronic heart failure (n=170). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was evaluated on CRT response (absolute reduction in left ventricular end-systolic diameter >15% and an improvement in LVEF >10%). A novel 9-point score based on pre-implantation predictors identified CRT response in 97.5% of patients with a score >6 compared to 40.7% in those with a score <6 (p < 0.001).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1ca18bf1b3da30e489872b https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehj.2016.01.001

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

January 21, 2016The Egyptian Heart JournalOpen Access

Predictors of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in chronic heart failure patients

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

A novel 9-point score based on pre-implantation predictors identified CRT response in 97.5% of patients with a score >6 compared to 40.7% in those with a score <6 (p < 0.001).

Why the study?

What are the independent predictors of echocardiographic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure (NYHA III-IV, LVEF ⩽ 35%)?

Population

170 consecutive heart failure patients in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV and LVEF ⩽…

Design

Cohort

Authors

MLMohamed Loutfi MNMostafa Nawar SESalah Eltahan

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

May help identify likely CRT responders in HFrEF; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=170)

Structured PICO

What are the independent predictors of echocardiographic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure (NYHA III-IV, LVEF ⩽ 35%)?

Population

170 consecutive heart failure (HF) patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III or IV and LVEF ⩽ 35%, mean age 68.8, 71.1% men.

Intervention

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-P or CRT-D) with routine device and clinical follow-up, and CRT optimization performed at baseline and at 3-month intervals.

Outcome

CRT response (defined as having an absolute reduction in left ventricular end-systolic diameter >15% and an improvement in LVEF >10%)surrogate

A novel 9-point scoring system based on clinical and echocardiographic parameters can strongly predict structural and functional response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with HFrEF.

Limitations

This score needs to be validated on another population of patients.
This score needs to be validated on another population of patients

Cite This Study

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1ca18bf1b3da30e489872b https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehj.2016.01.001

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark