Key result
Optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy using acoustic cardiography was not worse than echocardiography, with both methods similarly improving maximum oxygen absorption at 3 months.
Why the study?
Optimization of the resynchronization system determines response to CRT, and this study aimed to test whether acoustic cardiography is not worse than standard echocardiographic optimization.
Does acoustic cardiography optimization improve maximum oxygen absorption compared to echocardiographic optimization in heart failure patients with CRT?
RCT (n=54)
Does acoustic cardiography optimization improve maximum oxygen absorption compared to echocardiographic optimization in heart failure patients with CRT?
Acoustic cardiography is an effective alternative to echocardiography for optimizing cardiac resynchronization therapy, yielding similar improvements in maximum oxygen absorption.
Acoustic cardiography may offer a simpler CRT optimization option; leaves open confirmation versus echocardiography in randomized trials.
Background: Optimization of the resynchronization system is one of the few elements determining a patient’s response to the implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The aim of this study was to compare two optimization methods of the implanted resynchronization system—acoustic cardiography performed by means of cardiac acoustic sensors and echocardiographic cardiography—and to demonstrate that acoustic cardiography is not worse than the previously used echocardiographic method. Subjects and Methods: This study involved 54 patients (43 males and 11 females) with heart failure who underwent CRT in accordance with the 2010 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. The patients were divided into two groups: one optimized via echocardiography (29 patients) and the other optimized via acoustic cardiography (25 patients). Optimization occurred within 6 months of device implantation. Results: Both cardiac acoustic and echocardiographic methods improved maximum oxygen absorption 3 months after optimization, and there was no significant difference between these two methods. Conclusions: Both methods, audicor and echocardiography, improved CRT. The cardiac acoustic method is not worse than the previously used echocardiographic method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Niewiadomska et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Heart failure with cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=54). Acoustic cardiography vs. Echocardiography was evaluated on Maximum oxygen absorption. Optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy using acoustic cardiography was not worse than echocardiography, with both methods similarly improving maximum oxygen absorption at 3 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: