Why the study?
QRS area offers superior association with CRT response compared to standard criteria, but its assessment was not fully automated and required expert evaluation.
Does a fully automated method for assessing QRS area correlate with manual assessment and predict response to CRT in patients with heart failure?
Population
864 pre-implantation ECG recordings (695 left-bundle-branch block, 589 men)
Comparison
Fully automated assessment of VCG QRS area vs manual expert determination
Follow-up
5-year
Key result
A fully automated method for assessing QRS area from ECG signals demonstrated similar prognostic stratification for cardiac resynchronization therapy response as manual assessment (HR 2.09 vs 2.03).
Authors
Loading...
May support automated QRS area for CRT stratification; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Cohort (n=864)
Does a fully automated method for assessing QRS area correlate with manual assessment and predict response to CRT in patients with heart failure?
Hazard Ratio: 2.09
A fully automated method for assessing QRS area from ECG signals is highly correlated with expert manual assessment and equally effective at predicting CRT response, eliminating the need for manual measurement.
Plešinger et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Heart failure and conduction abnormalities (patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy) (n=864). Fully automated assessment of vector-cardiographic QRS area vs. Manually determined QRS area was evaluated on Ability to stratify the population for response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (HR 2.09). A fully automated method for assessing QRS area from ECG signals demonstrated similar prognostic stratification for cardiac resynchronization therapy response as manual assessment (HR 2.09 vs 2.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: