| Literature DB >> 19117517 |
Marie Moonen1, Mario Senechal, Bernard Cosyns, Pierre Melon, Eric Nellessen, Luc Pierard, Patrizio Lancellotti.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) provides benefit for congestive heart failure, but still 30% of patients failed to respond to such therapy. This lack of response may be due to the presence of significant amount of scar or fibrotic tissue at myocardial level. This study sought to investigate the potential impact of myocardial contractile reserve as assessed during exercise echocardiography on acute response following CRT implantation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 19117517 PMCID: PMC2615753 DOI: 10.1186/1476-7120-6-65
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound ISSN: 1476-7120 Impact factor: 2.062
Responders versus non responders
| Age, years | 71 ± 8 | 69 ± 9 | NS |
| Male, n (%) | 15 (60) | 17 (65) | NS |
| Ischemic cardiomyopathy, n (%) | 15 (60) | 19 (73) | NS |
| QRS duration, ms | 154 ± 24 | 169 ± 25 | NS |
| Diuretic, n (%) | 19 (76) | 23 (88) | NS |
| β-Blockers, n (%) | 22 (88) | 22 (85) | NS |
| ACEi, n (%) | 19 (76) | 22 (85) | NS |
| AR Blockers, n (%) | 3 (12) | 2 (8) | NS |
| Spironolactone, n (%) | 9 (36) | 14 (54) | NS |
| LV-RV dyssynchrony, ms | 54 ± 16 | 50 ± 17 | NS |
| LV dispersion, ms | 109 ± 44 | 61 ± 35 | <0.0001 |
| Mitral effective regurgitant orifice, mm2 | 22 ± 11 | 15 ± 9 | 0.018 |
| LV end-diastolic volume, ml | 175 ± 34 | 193 ± 42 | NS |
| LV end-systolic volume, ml | 128 ± 26 | 139 ± 35 | NS |
| LV ejection fraction, % | 27.1 ± 5.0 | 27.7 ± 5.3 | NS |
| LV ejection fraction at exer., % | 35 ± 5.7 | 31 ± 5.3 | 0.03 |
| LV ejection fraction diff., % | 8.4 ± 2.4 | 4.2 ± 2.6 | <0.0001 |
| Wall motion score index | 2.2 ± 0.27 | 2.28 ± 0.35 | NS |
| Wall motion score index at exer | 1.86 ± 0.34 | 2.15 ± 0.34 | 0.0033 |
| Wall motion score index diff | -0.3 ± 0.26 | -0.13 ± 0.21 | 0.013 |
| Strain target LV lead wall, % | 15 ± 2.8 | 10.2 ± 6.3 | 0.0007 |
| Strain target LV lead wall at exer, % | 19.3 ± 2.4 | 10.7 ± 8.5 | <0.0001 |
| Strain target LV lead wall diff., % | 4.2 ± 1.6 | 0.44 ± 3.5 | <0.0001 |
Ischemic cardiomyopathy, ACEi: angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and AR: angiotensin receptors, LV: left ventricle, RV: right ventricle. Diff: difference exercise-rest.
Figure 1Relationship between contractile reserve (improvement in LV ejection fraction during exercise) at inclusion and the percentage of changes forward stroke volume under CRT.
Area under the curves, sensitivity, specificity and optimal cutoff values of predictors for acute CRT response.
| LV dyssynchrony | > 65 ms | 0.80 | 88% | 65.4% |
| Effective regurgitant orifice | > 15 mm2 | 0.69 | 76% | 57.7% |
| Changes in LV ejection fraction at exercise | ≥ 6.7% | 0.89 | 84% | 76.7% |
| Changes in wall motion score index at exercise | ≥ 0.23 | 0.76 | 80% | 69% |
Figure 2Receiver operating characteristic curves analysis on various parameters to predict response after CRT. Red: Changes in EF (ejection fraction), Blue: LV dyssynchrony, Green: mitral effective regurgitant orifice (ERO).
Figure 3Number of responders to CRT for 4 different patient categories based on the presence or absence of global contractile reserve (CR+/CR-) in combination with the presence or absence of contractile reserve in the region of the pacing lead (LEAD+/LEAD-).
Figure 4Example of a patient without contractile reserve in the region of the lead pacing. There is no increase in 2D speckle tracking strain at exercise in the posterolateral wall (POST).