PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 26, 2018ESC Heart Failure32 citationsOpen Access

Strain Imaging to Predict Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Systematic Comparison of Strain Parameters Using Multiple Imaging Techniques

View Full Paper
AZAlwin ZweerinkAmsterdam University Medical CentersWEWouter M. van EverdingenRadboud University NijmegenRNRobin NijveldtCardiac Imaging

Key Result

End-systolic septal strain consistently predicted reverse remodeling after cardiac resynchronization therapy across all imaging techniques (CMR-TAG R2 0.60, CMR-FT R2 0.50, STE-circ R2 0.43).

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=27)

Structured PICO

Does strain imaging predict reverse remodeling response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients undergoing implantation?

P
Population
27 patients prospectively enrolled before cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation
I
Intervention
Strain analysis using cardiovascular magnetic resonance tagging (CMR-TAG), CMR feature tracking (CMR-FT), and speckle tracking echocardiography (STE)
C
Comparator
Comparison among different strain parameters (dyssynchrony, discoordination, end-systolic septal strain) and imaging techniques
O
Outcome
CRT response measured by echocardiographic change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) at 12 monthssurrogate

End-systolic septal strain is a consistent predictor of reverse remodeling after CRT across multiple imaging modalities, providing predictive value beyond current guideline criteria.

Abstract

Abstract Aims Various strain parameters and multiple imaging techniques are presently available including cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) tagging (CMR-TAG), CMR feature tracking (CMR-FT), and speckle tracking echocardiography (STE). This study aims to compare predictive performance of different strain parameters and evaluate results per imaging technique to predict cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response. Methods and results Twenty-seven patients were prospectively enrolled and underwent CMR and echocardiographic examination before CRT implantation. Strain analysis was performed in circumferential (CMR-TAG, CMR-FT, and STE-circ) and longitudinal (STE-long) orientations. Regional strain values, parameters of dyssynchrony, and discoordination were calculated. After 12 months, CRT response was measured by the echocardiographic change in left ventricular (LV) end-systolic volume (LVESV). Twenty-six patients completed follow-up; mean LVESV change was −29 ± 27% with 17 (65%) patients showing ≥15% LVESV reduction. Measures of dyssynchrony (SD-TTPLV) and discoordination (ISFLV) were strongly related to CRT response when using CMR-TAG (R2 0.61 and R2 0.57, respectively), but showed poor correlations for CMR-FT and STE (all R2 ≤ 0.32). In contrast, the end-systolic septal strain (ESSsep) parameter showed a consistent high correlation with LVESV change for all techniques (CMR-TAG R2 0.60; CMR-FT R2 0.50; STE-circ R2 0.43; and STE-long R2 0.43). After adjustment for QRS duration and QRS morphology, ESSsep remained an independent predictor of response per technique. Conclusions End-systolic septal strain was the only parameter with a consistent good relation to reverse remodelling after CRT, irrespective of assessment technique. In clinical practice, this measure can be obtained by any available strain imaging technique and provides predictive value on top of current guideline criteria.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Zweerink et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) (n=27). Strain imaging parameters (CMR-TAG, CMR-FT, STE) vs. Comparison between different strain parameters and imaging techniques was evaluated on CRT response measured by echocardiographic change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV). End-systolic septal strain consistently predicted reverse remodeling after cardiac resynchronization therapy across all imaging techniques (CMR-TAG R2 0.60, CMR-FT R2 0.50, STE-circ R2 0.43).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0c05a43b45b6e80888520fhttps://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12335
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper