Key result
Baseline LV dyssynchrony ≥65 ms is linked to ~44-point lower 1-year event rate after CRT.
Why the study?
Not all patients with end-stage heart failure respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy, necessitating preimplantation identification of responders using left ventricular dyssynchrony assessment.
Does LV dyssynchrony predict response and prognosis after cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with end-stage heart failure, and how do different conduction system pacing strategies compare in restoring ventricular synchrony in silico?
Cohort (n=85)
Does LV dyssynchrony predict response and prognosis after cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with end-stage heart failure, and how do different conduction system pacing strategies compare in restoring ventricular synchrony in silico?
Absolute Event Rate: 6% vs 50%
Absolute Risk Reduction: 44%
p-value: p=<0.001
Pre-implantation LV dyssynchrony is a strong predictor of clinical response and prognosis in CRT patients, while computational models demonstrate that pacing modality efficacy highly depends on the metrics used for evaluation, with different strategies yielding distinct electromechanical synchronization patterns.
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“Tissue Doppler echocardiography identifies patients who respond to resynchronization therapy more accurately than QRS width. In a recent study, a 65-msec delay measured by this method predicted with 80% accuracy patients who experienced improvement in quality of life and with 92% accuracy patients who experienced more than a 15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume.”
“We do need to improve patient selection, and we need proof that whatever new selection techniques we decide are best truly lower the number of nonresponders. There are technical limitations, and we need to overcome those.”
“it's very difficult to tell up front who is going to benefit and who is not”
Baseline dyssynchrony ≥65 ms was associated with fewer post-CRT events; leaves open whether measurement should guide selection.
OBJECTIVES This study was designed to predict the response and prognosis after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with end-stage heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND Cardiac resynchronization therapy improves HF symptoms, exercise capacity, and left ventricular (LV) function. Because not all patients respond, preimplantation identification of responders is needed. In the present study, response to CRT was predicted by the presence of LV dyssynchrony assessed by tissue Doppler imaging. Moreover, the prognostic value of LV dyssynchrony in patients undergoing CRT was assessed. METHODS Eighty-five patients with end-stage HF, QRS duration >120 ms, and left bundle-branch block were evaluated by tissue Doppler imaging before CRT. At baseline and six months follow-up, New York Heart Association functional class, quality of life and 6-min walking distance, LV volumes, and LV ejection fraction were determined. Events (death, hospitalization for decompensated HF) were obtained during one-year follow-up. RESULTS Responders (74%) and nonresponders (26%) had comparable baseline characteristics, except for a larger dyssynchrony in responders (87 +/- 49 ms vs. 35 +/- 20 ms, p < 0.01). Receiver-operator characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that an optimal cutoff value of 65 ms for LV dyssynchrony yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 80% to predict clinical improvement and of 92% to predict LV reverse remodeling. Patients with dyssynchrony >/=65 ms had an excellent prognosis (6% event rate) after CRT as compared with a 50% event rate in patients with dyssynchrony <65 ms (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Patients with LV dyssynchrony >/=65 ms respond to CRT and have an excellent prognosis after CRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bax et al. (2004) conducted a cohort in End-stage heart failure (n=85). Left ventricular dyssynchrony ≥65 ms prior to CRT vs. Left ventricular dyssynchrony <65 ms prior to CRT was evaluated on Events (death, hospitalization for decompensated HF) during one-year follow-up (p=<0.001). Patients with baseline left ventricular dyssynchrony ≥65 ms had a significantly lower event rate of 6% after cardiac resynchronization therapy compared to 50% in patients with dyssynchrony <65 ms (p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: