Key result
LV-only pacing with optimal fusion linked to ~2.5-fold higher CRT super-response vs BiV pacing.
Why the study?
Prediction of cardiac resynchronization therapy response, particularly a super-response, is of great clinical importance.
Does left ventricle-only pacing with optimal fusion improve the rate of super-responders in patients with heart failure undergoing CRT compared to biventricular pacing?
Observational (n=622)
No
Does left ventricle-only pacing with optimal fusion improve the rate of super-responders in patients with heart failure undergoing CRT compared to biventricular pacing?
Hazard Ratio: 2.503 (95% CI 1.379–4.544)
Absolute Event Rate: 41.91% vs 9.81%
Absolute Risk Reduction: 32.1%
p-value: p=0.0001
Left ventricle-only pacing with optimal fusion significantly increased the rate of super-responders compared to traditional biventricular pacing in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy.
LV-only fusion pacing was associated with more CRT super-responders; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Prediction of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response, particularly a super-response, is of great importance. STUDY QUESTION: The aim of our study was to assess the predictors for super-responders in CRT. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective, observational study, which finally included 622 patients with heart failure treated with CRT between January 2008 and May 2020 who had a minimal follow-up of 6 months after CRT. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: A total of 192 super-responders, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 45%, and/or minimum 15% increase in LVEF and an improvement of the New York Heart Association functional class by at least 2 degrees at the last follow-up, and the rest of 430 patients who did not fulfill the super-responder criteria. RESULTS: The highest rate of super-responders (41.91%, n = 171) was at patients with left ventricle-only pacing with optimal fusion (OPT) compared with patients with biventricular (BiV) pacing (9.81%, n = 21, P < 0.000). In the OPT group, univariable analysis showed that nonischemic cardiomyopathy, a smaller degree of mitral regurgitation, and better left ventricle function at enrollment were predictors for super-response compared with the BiV group where a narrower QRS after implantation, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and a better baseline LVEF were predictors for super-responders. In the multivariable analysis, both narrower QRS after implantation and nonischemic cardiomyopathy were independent predictors for super-response in the BiV group compared with OPT where nonischemic cardiomyopathy remained the only independent predictor for super-response. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, OPT CRT programing was an additional predictor of super-response to CRT besides nonischemic cardiomyopathy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vătăşescu et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Heart Failure (n=622). Left ventricle-only pacing with optimal fusion (OPT) vs. Conventional biventricular (BiV) pacing was evaluated on Super-responder status (defined as LVEF ≥45%, and/or minimum 15% increase in LVEF and NYHA class improvement by ≥2 degrees) (HR 2.503, 95% CI 1.379-4.544, p=0.0001). Left ventricle-only pacing with optimal fusion independently predicted super-response to CRT compared to conventional biventricular pacing, with an adjusted HR of 2.503 (95% CI 1.379-4.544, P=0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: