Why the study?
Does echocardiographic evaluation of mechanical dyssynchrony differ between heart failure patients with QRS > 120 ms and QRS ≤ 120 ms?
Does echocardiographic evaluation of mechanical dyssynchrony differ between heart failure patients with QRS > 120 ms and QRS ≤ 120 ms?
Echocardiographic evaluation of mechanical dyssynchrony may improve candidate selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy, as QRS duration alone is not a fully reliable indicator.
QRS duration should not solely determine CRT candidacy; leaves open whether mechanical dyssynchrony assessment refines selection.
The aim of this study is to observe the differences between mechanical and electrical dyssynchrony in patients with impaired systolic ventricular function and symptomatic heart failure and to highlight the importance of mechanical dyssynchrony besides electrical dyssynchrony in clinical guidelines and clinical practice. Fifty-eight patients with heart failure, who are with the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-IV and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) under 35%, were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups, according to the duration of QRS complex (> 120 ms and ≤ 120 ms respectively). Echocardiographic parameters of interventricular (interventricular mechanical delay - IMD) and intraventricular (septal-to-posterior wall motion delay - SPWMD) dyssynchrony were measured in both groups. Results indicate that the duration of the QRS complex (i.e. electrical dyssynchrony) is not a fully reliable indicator of ventricular dyssynchrony; therefore ecocardiographic evaluation of mechanical dyssynchrony should also be recommended for better selection of candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gyalai et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: