Key result
Left ventricle mechanical dyssynchrony (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.15-2.03) and scar burden (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.56-0.95) were independent predictors of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Why the study?
Approximately 30% of heart failure patients do not respond to CRT, prompting investigation into whether LV mechanical dyssynchrony and scar burden predict CRT response.
Do left ventricle mechanical dyssynchrony and scar burden predict response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and LBBB?
Cohort (n=56)
Do left ventricle mechanical dyssynchrony and scar burden predict response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and LBBB?
Odds Ratio: 1.5275 (95% CI 1.1472–2.034)
p-value: p=0.0037
Left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony and scar burden assessed by nuclear imaging are independent predictors of echocardiographic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.
LV mechanical dyssynchrony and scar burden were associated with CRT response; leaves open whether scintigraphy refines selection in prospective studies.
Introduction: The cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves outcome in patients with heart failure (HF). However approximately 30% of patients are non-responsive to CRT. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of the left ventricle (LV) mechanical dyssynchrony (MD) and scar burden assessment as predictors of CRT response. Methods: We included in the study 56 sinus rhythm patients (male 35 [62.5 %], mean age 57.0 ± 11.5 years) with ischemic or nonischemic HF, and left bundle branch block with QRS duration ≥ 150 ms who underwent CRT-D implantation. Echocardiography, full physical examination, myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) with 99m Tc-methoxy-isobutyl-isonitrile and gated blood pool single-photon emission computed tomography (gBPS) were performed at baseline and at 6-month follow-up. Patients were grouped based on the response to CRT assessed by echocardiography. Results: Forty-five patients (80.3 %) were responder (RESP) and 11 (19.7 %) were non-responder (non-RESP) to CRT. RESP patients had higher LV anterior wall standard deviation (LV AW_SD) (p=0.0001) and lower summed rest score (SRS) (p=0.018) than non-RESP subjects. In multivariate logistic regression, LV AW_SD (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.5275; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1472-2.0340; p=0.0037), SRS (OR 0.7299; 95% CI 0.5627-0.9469; p=0.0178) and HF non-ischemic etiology (OR 20.1425; 95% CI 1.2719-318.9961; p=0.0331) were independent predictors of CRT response. Conclusion: Ventricle dyssynchrony and scar burden assessed by cardiac gBPS and MPI are associated with response to CRT. Further investigations of their predictive significance are warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Atabekov et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=56). Left ventricle mechanical dyssynchrony and scar burden was evaluated on Response to CRT assessed by echocardiography (OR 1.5275, 95% CI 1.1472-2.0340, p=0.0037). Left ventricle mechanical dyssynchrony (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.15-2.03) and scar burden (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.56-0.95) were independent predictors of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: