Key result
CRT optimization using electrical dyssynchrony mapping significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction from 31.8% to 36.3% (P<.001) in patients with nonresponse to CRT.
Why the study?
Nonresponse to CRT occurs in 30% to 50% of patients, and there are no well-accepted clinical approaches for optimizing CRT in nonresponders.
Does CRT optimization using electrical dyssynchrony mapping improve LV function and size in patients with nonresponse or incomplete response to CRT?
Observational (n=39)
Does CRT optimization using electrical dyssynchrony mapping improve LV function and size in patients with nonresponse or incomplete response to CRT?
Absolute Event Rate: 36.3% vs 31.8%
p-value: p=<.001
CRT optimization using electrical dyssynchrony mapping significantly improves LV systolic function and mechanical dyssynchrony in patients who are nonresponders or incomplete responders to CRT.
May aid CRT optimization in nonresponders; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before adoption.
BACKGROUND: Nonresponse to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) occurs in ∼30%-50% of patients. There are no well-accepted clinical approaches for optimizing CRT in nonresponders. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the effect of CRT optimization using electrical dyssynchrony mapping on left ventricular (LV) function, size, and dyssynchrony in selected patients with nonresponse/incomplete response to CRT. METHODS: We studied 39 patients with underlying left bundle branch block or interventricular conduction delay who had an LV ejection fraction of ≤40% after receiving CRT and had significant electrical dyssynchrony. Electrical dyssynchrony was measured at multiple atrioventricular delays and interventricular delays. The QRS area between combinations of 9 anterior and 9 posterior electrograms (QRS area under the curve) was calculated, and cardiac resynchronization index (CRI) was defined as the percent change in QRS area under the curve compared to native conduction. Electrical dyssynchrony maps depicted CRI over the wide range of settings tested. Patients were programmed to an optimal device setting, and echocardiograms were recorded 5.9 ± 3.7 months postoptimization. RESULTS: CRI increased from 49.4% ± 24.0% to 90.8% ± 10.5%. CRT optimization significantly improved LV ejection fraction from 31.8% ± 4.7% to 36.3% ± 5.9% (P < .001) and LV end-systolic volume from 108.5 ± 37.6 to 98.0 ± 37.5 mL (P = .009). Speckle-tracking measures of LV strain significantly improved by 2.4% ± 4.5% (transverse; P = .002) and 1.0% ± 2.6% (longitudinal; P = .017). Aortic to pulmonic valve opening time, a measure of interventricular dyssynchrony, significantly (P = .040) decreased by 14.9 ± 39.4 ms. CONCLUSION: CRT optimization of electrical dyssynchrony using a novel electrical dyssynchrony mapping technology significantly improves LV systolic function, LV end-systolic volume, and mechanical dyssynchrony. This methodology offers a noninvasive, practical clinical approach to treating nonresponders and incomplete responders to CRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brown et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Nonresponse or incomplete response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=39). CRT optimization using electrical dyssynchrony mapping vs. Baseline (pre-optimization) was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction (p=<.001). CRT optimization using electrical dyssynchrony mapping significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction from 31.8% to 36.3% (P<.001) in patients with nonresponse to CRT.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: