Why the study?
Does the variation in haemodynamic SonR sensor signal during static exercise identify left ventricular functional recovery in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Does the variation in haemodynamic SonR sensor signal during static exercise identify left ventricular functional recovery in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Variation in the haemodynamic SonR sensor signal during static exercise, rather than absolute amplitude, can identify left ventricular functional recovery in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy.
SonR variation during isometric exercise may track LV recovery post-CRT; leaves open utility for routine monitoring.
AIMS: The haemodynamic SonR sensor is able to measure myocardial contractility. The isometric effort is useful in quantifying left ventricular (LV) performance. We investigated the amplitude changes in SonR signal over time and during static exercise according to the recovery of the left ventricle. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty five patients [18 male, 70 ± 8 years, LV ejection fraction (LVEF) 29 ± 5%, in sinus rhythm] underwent biventricular SonR implantable cardioverter defibrillator implant. After procedure and at 6 months, each patient underwent detection of SonR signal and continuous measurement of blood pressure, at rest and during isometric effort. During evaluation at baseline device was programmed in VVI at 40 bpm while in DDD at 60 bpm at follow-up. At 6 months, LV reverse remodelling was investigated. Cardiac resynchronization therapy patients were considered responders when an absolute improvement in LV ejection fraction ≥ 5% occurred. At 6 months, 14 (56%) patients were responders and 11 (44%) non-responders (mean LVEF 40 ± 10% vs. 27 ± 6%, respectively). In responders, SonR value did not significantly change at follow-up compared to baseline (P = 0.894). At follow-up, SonR value was not significantly different between two groups (P = 0.651). SonR signal significantly increased during isometric effort in responders (P = 0.002) while it slightly decreased in non-responders at follow-up (P = 0.572). No differences were observed in response to isometric effort between two groups at baseline (P = 0.182, P = 0.069, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The absolute SonR amplitude provides limited information on the status of LV performance. The variation in SonR signal during static exercise is more likely to identify responders at follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sacchi et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: