Key result
Global wasted work ≥200 mm Hg% linked to ~4-fold higher odds of CRT response.
Why the study?
The impact of left ventricular myocardial global wasted work (GWW) on response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and outcomes in heart failure patients has been seldom studied.
Does preprocedural global wasted work (GWW) predict response to CRT and all-cause death in patients with HFrEF?
Cohort (n=249)
Does preprocedural global wasted work (GWW) predict response to CRT and all-cause death in patients with HFrEF?
Low preoperative global wasted work (<200 mm Hg%) is associated with a lack of response to CRT and an increased risk of all-cause death in patients with HFrEF.
Background The relationship between myocardial work assessment using pressure-strain loops by echocardiography before cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and response to CRT has been recently revealed. Among myocardial work parameters, the impact of left ventricular myocardial global wasted work (GWW) on response to CRT and outcome following CRT has been seldom studied. Hence, the authors evaluated the relationship between preprocedural GWW and outcome in a large prospective cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction receiving CRT. Methods The study included 249 patients with HF. Myocardial work indices including GWW were calculated using speckle-tracking strain two-dimensional echocardiography using pressure-strain loops. End points of the study were (1) response to CRT, defined as left ventricular reverse remodeling and/or absence of hospitalization for HF, and (2) all-cause death during follow-up. Results Median follow-up duration was 48 months (interquartile range, 43–54 months). Median preoperative GWW was 281 mm Hg% (interquartile range, 184–388 mm Hg%). Preoperative GWW was associated with CRT response (area under the curve, 0.74; P < .0001), and a 200 mm Hg% threshold discriminated CRT nonresponders from responders with 85% specificity and 50% sensitivity, even after adjustment for known predictors of CRT response (adjusted odds ratio, 4.03; 95% CI, 1.91–8.68; P < .001). After adjustment for established predictors of outcome in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction receiving CRT, GWW < 200 mm Hg% remained associated with a relative increased risk for all-cause death compared with GWW ≥ 200 mm Hg% (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1–3.9; P = .0245). Adding GWW to a baseline model including known predictors of outcome in CRT resulted in an improvement of this model (χ 2 to improve 4.85, P = .028). The relationship between GWW and CRT response and outcome was stronger in terms of size effect and statistical significance than for other myocardial work indices. Conclusions Low preoperative GWW (<200 mm Hg%) is associated with absence of CRT response in CRT candidates and with a relative increased risk for all-cause death. GWW appears to be a promising parameter to improve selection for CRT of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riolet et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (n=249). Preoperative global wasted work (GWW) ≥ 200 mm Hg% vs. GWW < 200 mm Hg% was evaluated on Response to CRT (left ventricular reverse remodeling and/or absence of hospitalization for HF) (OR 4.03, 95% CI 1.91-8.68, p=<0.001). Preoperative global wasted work ≥200 mm Hg% was associated with response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (adjusted OR 4.03; 95% CI 1.91-8.68; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: