Literature DB >> 20647479

Dyssynchrony indices to predict response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a comprehensive prospective single-center study.

Chinami Miyazaki1, Margaret M Redfield, Brian D Powell, Grace M Lin, Regina M Herges, David O Hodge, Lyle J Olson, David L Hayes, Raul E Espinosa, Robert F Rea, Charles J Bruce, Susan M Nelson, Fletcher A Miller, Jae K Oh.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Whether mechanical dyssynchrony indices predict reverse remodeling (RR) or clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) remains controversial. This prospective study evaluated whether echocardiographic dyssynchrony indices predict RR or clinical response after CRT. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Of 184 patients with heart failure with anticipated CRT who were prospectively enrolled, 131 with wide QRS and left ventricular ejection fraction <35% had 6-month follow-up after CRT implantation. Fourteen dyssynchrony indices (feasibility) by M-mode (94%), tissue velocity (96%), tissue Doppler strain (92%), 2D speckle strain (65% to 86%), 3D echocardiography (79%), and timing intervals (98%) were evaluated. RR (end-systolic volume reduction ≥15%) occurred in 55% and more frequently in patients without (71%) than in patients with (42%) ischemic cardiomyopathy (P=0.002). Overall, only M-mode, tissue Doppler strain, and total isovolumic time had a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) greater than the line of no information, but none of these were strongly predictive of RR (AUC, 0.63 to 0.71). In nonischemic cardiomyopathy, no dyssynchrony index predicted RR. In ischemic cardiomyopathy, M-mode (AUC, 0.67), tissue Doppler strain (AUC, 0.79), and isovolumic time (AUC, 0.76) -derived indices predicted RR (P<0.05 for all), although the incremental value was modest. No indices predicted clinical response assessed by Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, 6-minute walk distance, and peak oxygen consumption.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings are consistent with the Predictors of Response to CRT study and do not support use of these dyssynchrony indices to guide use of CRT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20647479     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.108.848085

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Heart Fail        ISSN: 1941-3289            Impact factor:   8.790


  16 in total

1.  Quantitative analysis of left ventricular dyssynchrony using cardiac computed tomography versus three-dimensional echocardiography.

Authors:  Sebastian J Buss; Felix Schulz; David Wolf; Waldemar Hosch; Christian Galuschky; Georg Schummers; Evangelos Giannitsis; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Christian Zugck; Ruediger Becker; Stefan E Hardt; Hugo A Katus; Grigorios Korosoglou
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-01-22       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Baseline asynchrony, assessed circumferentially using temporal uniformity of strain, besides coincidence between site of latest mechanical activation and presumed left ventricular lead position, predicts favourable prognosis after resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Chiara Cavallino; Elisa Rondano; Andrea Magnani; Lucia Leva; Eugenio Inglese; Gabriele Dell'era; Eraldo Occhetta; Miriam Bortnik; Paolo N Marino
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2011-06-19       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 3.  Longitudinal and circumferential strain in patients with regional LV dysfunction.

Authors:  Manish Bansal; Partho P Sengupta
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 4.  New developments in paediatric cardiac functional ultrasound imaging.

Authors:  Chris L de Korte; Maartje M Nillesen; Anne E C M Saris; Richard G P Lopata; Johan M Thijssen; Livia Kapusta
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 1.314

5.  Response and outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with renal dysfunction.

Authors:  Rita Ilhão Moreira; Pedro Silva Cunha; Pedro Rio; Manuel Nogueira da Silva; Luísa Moura Branco; Ana Galrinho; Joana Feliciano; Rui Soares; Rui Cruz Ferreira; Mário Martins Oliveira
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 1.900

6.  Anodal stimulation: an underrecognized cause of nonresponders to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Khalin F Dendy; Brian D Powell; Yong-Mei Cha; Raul E Espinosa; Paul A Friedman; Robert F Rea; David L Hayes; Margaret M Redfield; Samuel J Asirvatham
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2011-05-01

Review 7.  A practical approach to imaging dyssynchrony for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Olusegun A Oyenuga; Toshinari Onishi; John Gorcsan
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.214

Review 8.  Ventricular resynchronization is the principle mechanism of benefit with cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  John Gorcsan; Cheuk-Man Yu; John E Sanderson
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.214

Review 9.  The relationship between cardiac resynchronization therapy and diastolic function.

Authors:  Gregory F Egnaczyk; Eugene S Chung
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2014-03

Review 10.  A computational approach to understanding the cardiac electromechanical activation sequence in the normal and failing heart, with translation to the clinical practice of CRT.

Authors:  Jason Constantino; Yuxuan Hu; Natalia A Trayanova
Journal:  Prog Biophys Mol Biol       Date:  2012-08-01       Impact factor: 3.667

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.