AIMS: LV reverse remodelling has been shown to be a favourable response after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in many clinical trials. This study investigated whether left ventricular (LV) reverse remodelling after CRT has any structural benefit, which include the improvement of LV mass or regional wall thickness. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty patients (66 +/- 11 years) receiving CRT were followed up for at least 3 months. Echocardiography with tissue Doppler imaging was performed serially before and at day 1 and 3 months after CRT. Although LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) was decreased at day 1 after CRT (141 +/- 74 vs. 129 +/- 71 cm(3), P < 0.001), further LV reverse remodelling was observed at 3 months (110 +/- 67 cm(3), P < 0.001 vs. day 1). LV ejection fraction increased at day 1 (26.5 +/- 9.3 vs. 28.5 +/- 9.1%, P < 0.005) and was further improved at 3 months (34.2 +/- 10.5%, P < 0.001 vs. day 1). However, reduction of LV mass (231 +/- 67 vs. 213 +/- 59 g, P < 0.001) and regional wall thickness was only observed at 3 months, but not at day 1. The improvement of LV mass correlated with the change in LVESV (r = 0.66, P < 0.001) and the baseline systolic asynchrony index (Ts-SD) (r = -0.52, P < 0.001). LV mass was only decreased significantly in responders of LV reverse remodelling (245 +/- 66 vs. 207 +/- 61 g, P < 0.001), but increased in non-responders (209 +/- 64 vs. 223 +/- 56 g, P = 0.02). Responders had significant decrease in thickness of all the four walls for -6 to -11% (all P < or =0.02), whereas non-responders had increased thickness in septal and lateral walls for +11% (both P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The acute reduction in LV volume after CRT is mediated by haemodynamic and geometric benefits without actual changes in LV mass. However, at 3-month follow-up, reduction in LV mass and regional wall thickness was demonstrated, which represents structural reverse remodelling. Such benefit was only observed in volumetric responders but was worsened in non-responders.
AIMS: LV reverse remodelling has been shown to be a favourable response after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in many clinical trials. This study investigated whether left ventricular (LV) reverse remodelling after CRT has any structural benefit, which include the improvement of LV mass or regional wall thickness. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty patients (66 +/- 11 years) receiving CRT were followed up for at least 3 months. Echocardiography with tissue Doppler imaging was performed serially before and at day 1 and 3 months after CRT. Although LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) was decreased at day 1 after CRT (141 +/- 74 vs. 129 +/- 71 cm(3), P < 0.001), further LV reverse remodelling was observed at 3 months (110 +/- 67 cm(3), P < 0.001 vs. day 1). LV ejection fraction increased at day 1 (26.5 +/- 9.3 vs. 28.5 +/- 9.1%, P < 0.005) and was further improved at 3 months (34.2 +/- 10.5%, P < 0.001 vs. day 1). However, reduction of LV mass (231 +/- 67 vs. 213 +/- 59 g, P < 0.001) and regional wall thickness was only observed at 3 months, but not at day 1. The improvement of LV mass correlated with the change in LVESV (r = 0.66, P < 0.001) and the baseline systolic asynchrony index (Ts-SD) (r = -0.52, P < 0.001). LV mass was only decreased significantly in responders of LV reverse remodelling (245 +/- 66 vs. 207 +/- 61 g, P < 0.001), but increased in non-responders (209 +/- 64 vs. 223 +/- 56 g, P = 0.02). Responders had significant decrease in thickness of all the four walls for -6 to -11% (all P < or =0.02), whereas non-responders had increased thickness in septal and lateral walls for +11% (both P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The acute reduction in LV volume after CRT is mediated by haemodynamic and geometric benefits without actual changes in LV mass. However, at 3-month follow-up, reduction in LV mass and regional wall thickness was demonstrated, which represents structural reverse remodelling. Such benefit was only observed in volumetric responders but was worsened in non-responders.
Authors: Helena Santa-Clara; Ana Abreu; Xavier Melo; Vanessa Santos; Pedro Cunha; Mário Oliveira; Rita Pinto; Miguel Mota Carmo; Bo Fernhall Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Zainab Samad; Allen E Atchley; Mark A Trimble; Jie-Lena Sun; Linda K Shaw; Robert Pagnanelli; Ji Chen; Ernest V Garcia; Ami E Iskandrian; Eric J Velazquez; Salvador Borges-Neto Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Christopher R West; Mark A Crawford; Malihe-Sadat Poormasjedi-Meibod; Katharine D Currie; Andre Fallavollita; Violet Yuen; John H McNeill; Andrei V Krassioukov Journal: J Physiol Date: 2014-02-17 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Lingyu Xu; Joseph Pagano; Kelvin Chow; Gavin Y Oudit; Mark J Haykowsky; Yoko Mikami; Andrew G Howarth; James A White; Jonathan G Howlett; Jason R B Dyck; Todd J Anderson; Justin A Ezekowitz; Richard B Thompson; D Ian Paterson Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2021-09-26