AIMS: Ischaemic heart disease negatively impacts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), yet the impact of infarct scar burden on clinical outcomes and its interaction with mechanical dyssynchrony have not been well described. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 620 NYHA classes III-IV heart failure patients with ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 35% and QRS duration ≥120 ms referred for CRT. Included were 190 ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) CRT recipients with scar burden quantified by rest-redistribution Tl(201) myocardial perfusion imaging using a 17-segment (0 = normal to 4 = absence of uptake) summed rest score (SRS). Non-ICM (NICM) CRT recipients (n = 380) and 50 patients referred for CRT with unsuccessful LV lead implant comprised the comparison groups. Echocardiographic dyssynchrony analysis was performed in a subgroup of 150 patients. Follow-up left ventricular EF (LVEF) and volumes were examined at 7 ± 3 months in 143 patients. The outcome of death, cardiac transplant, or mechanical circulatory support was assessed in all. Over 2.1 ± 1.6 years, ICM patients had significantly worse survival and less LVEF improvement than NICM patients (P < 0.01). Ischaemic cardiomyopathy patients with low scar burden (SRS < 27) had favourable survival and LVEF improvement, similar to NICM patients. A high scar burden (SRS ≥ 27) was associated with reduced survival and lack of LV functional improvement (P ≤ 0.01), similar to those with unsuccessful LV lead implant, whereas baseline dyssynchrony was not predictive of outcome in these patients. CONCLUSION: Extensive scar burden in ICM patients unfavourably affected clinical and LV functional outcomes after CRT, regardless of baseline dyssynchrony measures. Patients with ICM and lower scar burden had significantly better outcomes, similar to NICM patients.
AIMS: Ischaemic heart disease negatively impacts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), yet the impact of infarct scar burden on clinical outcomes and its interaction with mechanical dyssynchrony have not been well described. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 620 NYHA classes III-IV heart failurepatients with ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 35% and QRS duration ≥120 ms referred for CRT. Included were 190 ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) CRT recipients with scar burden quantified by rest-redistribution Tl(201) myocardial perfusion imaging using a 17-segment (0 = normal to 4 = absence of uptake) summed rest score (SRS). Non-ICM (NICM) CRT recipients (n = 380) and 50 patients referred for CRT with unsuccessful LV lead implant comprised the comparison groups. Echocardiographic dyssynchrony analysis was performed in a subgroup of 150 patients. Follow-up left ventricular EF (LVEF) and volumes were examined at 7 ± 3 months in 143 patients. The outcome of death, cardiac transplant, or mechanical circulatory support was assessed in all. Over 2.1 ± 1.6 years, ICM patients had significantly worse survival and less LVEF improvement than NICM patients (P < 0.01). Ischaemic cardiomyopathypatients with low scar burden (SRS < 27) had favourable survival and LVEF improvement, similar to NICM patients. A high scar burden (SRS ≥ 27) was associated with reduced survival and lack of LV functional improvement (P ≤ 0.01), similar to those with unsuccessful LV lead implant, whereas baseline dyssynchrony was not predictive of outcome in these patients. CONCLUSION: Extensive scar burden in ICM patients unfavourably affected clinical and LV functional outcomes after CRT, regardless of baseline dyssynchrony measures. Patients with ICM and lower scar burden had significantly better outcomes, similar to NICM patients.
Authors: Sylvain Reuter; Stephane Garrigue; S Serge Barold; Pierre Jais; Meleze Hocini; Michel Haissaguerre; Jacques Clementy Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: William T Abraham; Westby G Fisher; Andrew L Smith; David B Delurgio; Angel R Leon; Evan Loh; Dusan Z Kocovic; Milton Packer; Alfredo L Clavell; David L Hayes; Myrvin Ellestad; Robin J Trupp; Jackie Underwood; Faith Pickering; Cindy Truex; Peggy McAtee; John Messenger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Roberto M Lang; Michelle Bierig; Richard B Devereux; Frank A Flachskampf; Elyse Foster; Patricia A Pellikka; Michael H Picard; Mary J Roman; James Seward; Jack S Shanewise; Scott D Solomon; Kirk T Spencer; Martin St John Sutton; William J Stewart Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Cheuk-Man Yu; Elaine Chau; John E Sanderson; Katherine Fan; Man-Oi Tang; Wing-Hong Fung; Hong Lin; Shun-Ling Kong; Yui-Ming Lam; Michael R S Hill; Chu-Pak Lau Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sander G Molhoek; Jeroen J Bax; Lieselot van Erven; Marianne Bootsma; Eric Boersma; Paul Steendijk; Ernst E van der Wall; Martin J Schalij Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Roberto Sciagrà; Marzia Giaccardi; Maria Cristina Porciani; Andrea Colella; Antonio Michelucci; Paolo Pieragnoli; Gianfranco Gensini; Alberto Pupi; Luigi Padeletti Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Alida E Borger van der Burg; Jeroen J Bax; Eric Boersma; Ernest K J Pauwels; Ernst E van der Wall; Martin J Schalij Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-10-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michel Lalonde; David Birnie; Terrence D Ruddy; Robert A deKemp; Rob S B Beanlands; Richard Wassenaar; R Glenn Wells Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Daniel R Ludwig; Mati Friehling; Erik B Schelbert; David Schwartzman Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-11-09 Impact factor: 9.236