Key result
Higher burden of transmural myocardial scar assessed by cardiac CT was associated with echocardiographic nonresponse to CRT (OR 3.02; 95% CI 1.03-8.91; P=0.045).
Why the study?
Does transmural myocardial scar burden and localization assessed by cardiac CT predict echocardiographic and clinical response to CRT in CRT recipients?
Cohort (n=140)
Does transmural myocardial scar burden and localization assessed by cardiac CT predict echocardiographic and clinical response to CRT in CRT recipients?
Odds Ratio: 3.02 (95% CI 1.03–8.91)
p-value: p=0.045
Preimplant cardiac CT assessment of myocardial scar burden and location predicts echocardiographic, but not clinical, nonresponse to CRT at 6 months.
CT scar assessment may flag echocardiographic CRT nonresponse; leaves open prospective validation and clinical impact.
OBJECTIVES: Before cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation, cardiac computed tomography (CT) can provide assessment of cardiac venous anatomy and visualize left ventricular (LV) myocardial scar. We hypothesized that localization and burden of transmural myocardial scar verified by cardiac CT are associated with echocardiographic and clinical response to CRT. METHODS: We prospectively included 140 CRT recipients undergoing preimplant cardiac CT. We assessed transmural scar, defined as hypoperfusion involving more than one-half of the myocardial wall in each LV segment using a 17-segment model. Echocardiographic nonresponse was defined as less than 5% absolute improvement in LV ejection fraction at 6 months' follow-up. Clinical nonresponse was defined as 1 or more of the following at 6 months' follow-up: death, heart failure hospitalization, or no improvement in New York Heart Association class and less than 10% increase in 6-minute walk-test distance. RESULTS: Higher burden of myocardial scar was associated with echocardiographic nonresponse (adjusted odds ratio, 3.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-8.91; P = 0.045). Scar concordant or adjacent to LV pacing site was associated with echocardiographic nonresponse (adjusted odds ratio, 8.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-44.27; P = 0.015). No association between scar and clinical nonresponse was demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: Higher scar burden and scar in proximity to the LV pacing site assessed by cardiac CT are associated with echocardiographic nonresponse to CRT. Burden and location of scar were not associated with clinical nonresponse. Further large-scale studies are needed to assess the potential association between myocardial scar detected by cardiac CT and clinical CRT outcome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fyenbo et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Heart failure requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=140). Transmural myocardial scar assessed by cardiac CT was evaluated on Echocardiographic nonresponse (less than 5% absolute improvement in LV ejection fraction at 6 months) (OR 3.02, 95% CI 1.03-8.91, p=0.045). Higher burden of transmural myocardial scar assessed by cardiac CT was associated with echocardiographic nonresponse to CRT (OR 3.02; 95% CI 1.03-8.91; P=0.045).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: