Literature DB >> 15009855

QRS duration and shortening to predict clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with end-stage heart failure.

Sander G Molhoek1, Lieselot VAN Erven, Marianne Bootsma, Paul Steendijk, Ernst E Van Der Wall, Martin J Schalij.   

Abstract

Despite current selection criteria (NYHA Class III-IV, LVEF < 35%, QRS > 120 ms with LBBB), 30% of patients do not benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The use of QRS duration as selection criteria for CRT has not been evaluated systematically yet. Accordingly, the value of QRS duration at baseline (and reduction in QRS duration after CRT) to predict responders was studied. Patients were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months of CRT for NYHA Class, quality of life score, and 6-minute walk test. QRS duration was evaluated before, directly after implantation, and after 6 months of CRT. Sixty-one patients were included; 45 (74%) patients were classified as responders (improvement of NYHA Class, 6-minute walking distance and quality of life score) and 16 (26%) as nonresponders. QRS duration at baseline was similar between the two groups: 179 +/- 30 ms versus 171 +/- 32 ms, NS. Directly after implantation, QRS duration was reduced from 179 +/- 30 ms to 150 +/- 26 ms (P < 0.01) in responders; nonresponders did not exhibit this reduction (171 +/- 32 ms vs 160 +/- 26 ms, NS). After 6 months of CRT, QRS shortening was only observed in responders (from 179 +/- 30 ms to 159 +/- 25 ms, P < 0.01). ROC curve analysis showed that a reduction in QRS duration > 10 ms had a high sensitivity (73%) with low specificity (44%); conversely, a > 50 ms reduction in QRS duration was highly specific (88%) but not sensitive (18%) to predict response to CRT. No optimal cutoff value could be defined. QRS duration at baseline is not predictive for response to CRT; responders exhibit a significant reduction in QRS duration after CRT, but individual response varies highly, not allowing adequate selection of responders.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15009855     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2004.00433.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  34 in total

1.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy: the MGH experience.

Authors:  Jagmeet P Singh; Jeremy N Ruskin
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.468

Review 2.  "Dialing-in" cardiac resynchronization therapy: overcoming constraints of the coronary venous anatomy.

Authors:  Jagmeet P Singh; E Kevin Heist; Jeremy N Ruskin; J Warren Harthorne
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2007-01-25       Impact factor: 1.900

3.  Impact of left ventricular lead position on the efficacy of cardiac resynchronisation therapy: a two-dimensional strain echocardiography study.

Authors:  Michael Becker; Andreas Franke; Ole A Breithardt; Christina Ocklenburg; Theresa Kaminski; Rafael Kramann; Christian Knackstedt; Christoph Stellbrink; Peter Hanrath; Patrick Schauerte; Rainer Hoffmann
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2007-02-19       Impact factor: 5.994

4.  Manifest cardiac memory after biventricular pacing in a super-responder patient: Is memory the sign of a 'forgotten' electrical ventricular pattern?

Authors:  Andrea Di Cori; Giulio Zucchelli; Ezio Soldati; Maria Grazia Bongiorni
Journal:  J Cardiol Cases       Date:  2011-08-27

5.  Notched QRS complex in lateral leads as a novel predictor of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Wenzhi Pan; Yangang Su; Wenqin Zhu; Xianhong Shu; Junbo Ge
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 1.468

Review 6.  Transcatheter aortic valve implantation-induced left bundle branch block: causes and consequences.

Authors:  Thomas T Poels; Patrick Houthuizen; Leen A F M Van Garsse; Jos G Maessen; Peter de Jaegere; Frits W Prinzen
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 4.132

7.  Glycoproteins identified from heart failure and treatment models.

Authors:  Shuang Yang; Lijun Chen; Shisheng Sun; Punit Shah; Weiming Yang; Bai Zhang; Zhen Zhang; Daniel W Chan; David A Kass; Jennifer E van Eyk; Hui Zhang
Journal:  Proteomics       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 3.984

8.  Different Methods to Measure QRS Duration in CRT Patients: Impact on the Predictive Value of QRS Duration Parameters.

Authors:  Jan De Pooter; Milad El Haddad; Liesbeth Timmers; Frédéric Van Heuverswyn; Luc Jordaens; Mattias Duytschaever; Roland Stroobandt
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 1.468

9.  Agreement is poor among current criteria used to define response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Brandon K Fornwalt; William W Sprague; Patrick BeDell; Jonathan D Suever; Bart Gerritse; John D Merlino; Derek A Fyfe; Angel R León; John N Oshinski
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2010-04-26       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 10.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy: role of patient selection.

Authors:  Alan J Bank; Aaron S Kelly; Kevin V Burns; Stuart W Adler
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.931

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.