Baseline mechanical dyssynchrony predicted a higher rate of 6-month clinical improvement after cardiac resynchronization therapy compared to no dyssynchrony (70% vs 42%, P<0.04).
Cohort (n=60)
Absolute Event Rate: 70% vs 42%
p-value: p=<0.04
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is recommended for patients with NYHA class III-IV refractory heart failure (HF), ejection fraction 120 ms. We attempted to identify responders to CRT from echocardiographic (echo) indices of mechanical dyssynchrony in patients with QRS or =1 echo criterion of mechanical dyssynchrony (DES+ group) and 33 had no evidence of dyssynchrony (DES- group). At 12 months, 8 patients (4 per group) had died, 7 from HF. As regards the primary endpoint at 6 months, 33 patients (55%) had improved, 10 (16%) were unchanged, and 17 (29%) had deteriorated. Clinical improvement was observed in 19 of 27 DES+ (70%), versus 14 of 33 DES- (42%) patients (P<0.04). Baseline QRS duration did not predict response to CRT. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of HF patients with QRS<150 ms, the presence of mechanical dyssynchrony at baseline D-echo examination, but not the QRS width, predicted 6-month clinical response to CRT.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
European Journal of Heart Failure
Institut Pasteur
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico
Policlinico San Matteo Fondazione
Add This Paper to Your Research Feed
Any time a new paper drops it will be there.
Cazeau et al. (Sat,) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=60). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with baseline mechanical dyssynchrony (DES+) vs. CRT without baseline mechanical dyssynchrony (DES-) was evaluated on Combined endpoint of death from any cause, HF-related hospitalisations, and NYHA class at 6 months (clinical improvement) (p=<0.04). Baseline mechanical dyssynchrony predicted a higher rate of 6-month clinical improvement after cardiac resynchronization therapy compared to no dyssynchrony (70% vs 42%, P<0.04).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: