PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 1, 2011Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance62 citationsOpen Access

Right ventricular dysfunction is a predictor of non-response and clinical outcome following cardiac resynchronization therapy

FAFrancisco AlpenduradaKGKaushik GuhaRSRakesh Sharma

Structured PICO

Does right ventricular dysfunction predict non-response and adverse clinical outcomes in patients with advanced heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?

P
Population
60 consecutive patients with advanced heart failure (NYHA class III/IV, QRS width ≥120 ms, LVEF ≤35%), mean age 65.3, 76.7% male, UK-based. Key inclusion: CMR study within 3 months before CRT implantation.
I
Intervention
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation (93% CRT-D) with baseline cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) assessment of right ventricular function.
O
Outcome
Composite of death from any cause or unplanned hospitalization for a major cardiovascular eventcomposite

Right ventricular dysfunction, assessed by CMR prior to CRT implantation, is a strong independent predictor of both non-response to therapy and long-term adverse clinical outcomes in patients with advanced heart failure.

Limitations

  • Small sample size
  • Underpowered to detect more adverse events related to scar location

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment in advanced heart failure (HF). However, an important subset does not derive a significant benefit. Despite an established predictive role in HF, the significance of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction in predicting clinical benefit from CRT remains unclear. We investigated the role of RV function, assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), in predicting response to and major adverse clinical events in HF patients undergoing CRT. METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients were evaluated with CMR prior to CRT implantation in a tertiary cardiac centre. The primary end-point was a composite of death from any cause or unplanned hospitalization for a major cardiovascular event. The secondary end-point was response to therapy, defined as improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 5% on echocardiography at one year. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (30%) met the primary end-point over a median follow-up period of 26 months, and 27 out of 56 patients (48%) were considered responders to CRT. On time-to-event analysis, only atrial fibrillation (HR 2.6, 95% CI 1.02-6.84, p = 0.047) and RV dysfunction, either by a reduced right ventricular ejection fraction-RVEF (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.99, p = 0.006) or tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion-TAPSE (HR 0.88, 95% CI, 0.80-0.96, p = 0.006), were significant predictors of adverse events. On logistic regression analysis, preserved RVEF (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, p = 0.01) and myocardial scar burden (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.96, p = 0.004) were the sole independent predictors of response to CRT. Patients with marked RV dysfunction (RVEF < 30%) had a particularly low response rate (18.2%) to CRT. CONCLUSIONS: Right ventricular function is an important predictor of both response to CRT and long-term clinical outcome. Routine assessment of the right ventricle should be considered in the evaluation of patients for CRT.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Alpendurada et al. (2011) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9541efd33c5efb307cfd91https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429x-13-68
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper