Key result
ECG-based VV optimization yields ~36% more echocardiographic responders than tissue Doppler imaging.
Why the study?
Echocardiographic optimization of the VV interval may improve CRT response but is time-consuming and not routinely performed, necessitating comparison with electrocardiographic optimization.
Does electrocardiographic optimization of the VV interval improve echocardiographic response compared to echocardiographic optimization in patients with severe heart failure and LBBB undergoing CRT?
RCT (n=156)
randomly assigned
Does electrocardiographic optimization of the VV interval improve echocardiographic response compared to echocardiographic optimization in patients with severe heart failure and LBBB undergoing CRT?
ECG-based optimization of the VV interval using QRS width is a simpler and more effective method for achieving left ventricular reverse remodeling in CRT patients compared to time-consuming echocardiographic TDI optimization.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
TDI VV optimization showed no clear CRT benefit over QRS criteria; leaves open whether routine echocardiographic tuning improves outcomes in broader populations.
INTRODUCTION: Echocardiographic optimization of the VV interval may improve CRT response, but it is time-consuming and not routinely performed. The aim of this study was to compare the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) when the interventricular pacing (VV) interval was optimized by tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) to CRT response when it was optimized following QRS width criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study included 156 consecutive CRT patients with severe heart failure and left bundle-branch block configuration. Atrioventricular interval was selected according to a pulsed Doppler assessment, and VV optimization was randomly assigned to echocardiography (ECHO group, n = 78) or electrocardiography (ECG group, n = 78). Optimal VV was defined for the ECHO group as producing the best LV intraventricular synchrony according to TDI displacement curves and for the ECG group as resulting in the narrowest QRS measured from the earliest deflection. At 6-month follow-up, percentage of echocardiographic responders (defined as neither death nor heart transplantation and a LV end-systolic volume reduction >10%) was higher in the ECG optimized group (50.0% vs 67.9%; P = 0.023), whereas clinical response (defined as neither death nor heart transplantation and >10% improvement in the 6-minute walking test) was similar in both groups (71.8% vs 73.1%; P = 0.858). CONCLUSIONS: VV optimization based on QRS width obtained a higher percentage of responders in terms of LV reverse remodeling compared to the TDI method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tamborero et al. (2011) conducted an RCT in severe heart failure and left bundle-branch block (n=156). Electrocardiographic (ECG) optimization of the VV interval vs. Echocardiographic (ECHO) optimization of the VV interval was evaluated on Echocardiographic responders (neither death nor heart transplantation and a LV end-systolic volume reduction >10%) (p=0.023). Electrocardiographic optimization of the VV interval based on QRS width yielded more echocardiographic responders than tissue Doppler imaging.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: