Why the study?
The value of heart rate recovery index (HRRI) from exercise testing as a predictor of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was not established.
Does the heart rate recovery index (HRRI) during an exercise test predict responsiveness to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients receiving a CRT device?
Cohort (n=109)
Does the heart rate recovery index (HRRI) during an exercise test predict responsiveness to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients receiving a CRT device?
The heart rate recovery index (HRRI) calculated during a routine effort test is a strong predictor of responsiveness to cardiac resynchronization therapy.
This study assessed the value of heart rate recovery index (HRRI), a new parameter of an exercise test, as the predictor of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods: Consecutive patients receiving a CRT device were followed up after implantation and every 6 months. An effort test (ET) was quantified by minimum heart rate/maximum heart rate, as well as acceleration and deceleration times. HRRI was calculated as the ratio between acceleration and deceleration time (AT/DT) and compared to outcome. We used logistic regression to assess the predictive value of HRRI for responders and non-responders to CRT. The area under the curve (AUC) was computed to distinguish between positive and negative outcomes. Results: A total of 109 patients (74 men, mean age 63.3 ± 9.8 years) were analyzed; permanent long-term fusion CRT pacing was possible in 65 patients. Patients were assigned to two groups: responders and non-responders (98/11 patients). During a mean follow-up of 36 months, 545 ETs were performed. HRRI was significantly higher in responders versus non-responders (3.16 ± 2 vs. 1.4 ± 0.5, p < 0.001). The optimal cutoff value for HRRI as a predictor of CRT response was 1.51 (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve = 0.844). Responders had significant left-ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling (LV end-diastolic volume = 240 ± 90 mL vs. 217 ± 89 mL, p < 0.001) and higher LV ejection fraction (26 ± 5.8% vs. 35 ± 8.7%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: HRRI computation during routine ET is useful for the evaluation of responsiveness to CRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cozlac et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Patients receiving a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device (n=109). Heart rate recovery index (HRRI) was evaluated on Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) (AUC 0.844, p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: