BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess clinical and classic echocardiographic data in patients with different cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) outcomes. METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients (aged 66.3 ± 8.7 years, 57 men) with chronic heart failure (CHF) in New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes III-IV despite optimized pharmacotherapy, with left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) > 55 mm, left ventricular ejection fraction £ 35% and wide QRS complex (≥ 120 ms), including individuals with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) and single- and dual-chamber pacing, were assessed firstly before, and secondly three months after, biventricular heart stimulator implantation (excluding three patients who died during the follow-up). Patients developing ≥ 10% reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) were classified as responders to CRT. RESULTS: The group of responders (n = 34, 59.7%) and the group of non-responders (n = 23, 40.3%) did not differ regarding baseline echocardiographic parameters or in terms of clinical data of age, gender, concomitant diseases, smoking or pharmacological treatment. The differences involved higher rates of ischemic CHF background, prevalence of hypertension and permanent AF, and a higher concentration of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) among the non-responders. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, NT-proBNP, body mass index (BMI) and the presence of permanent AF correlated negatively with the magnitude of LVESV reduction following CRT introduction. CONCLUSIONS: Classic echocardiographic data did not predict left ventricle reverse remodeling. Higher rates of ischemic CHF aetiology, hypertension, permanent AF and higher NT-proBNP concentration were found in the group without at least 10% LVESV reduction at the three month follow-up. NT-proBNP, BMI and the presence of permanent AF had negative effects on the magnitude of LVESV.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess clinical and classic echocardiographic data in patients with different cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) outcomes. METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients (aged 66.3 ± 8.7 years, 57 men) with chronic heart failure (CHF) in New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes III-IV despite optimized pharmacotherapy, with left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) > 55 mm, left ventricular ejection fraction £ 35% and wide QRS complex (≥ 120 ms), including individuals with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) and single- and dual-chamber pacing, were assessed firstly before, and secondly three months after, biventricular heart stimulator implantation (excluding three patients who died during the follow-up). Patients developing ≥ 10% reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) were classified as responders to CRT. RESULTS: The group of responders (n = 34, 59.7%) and the group of non-responders (n = 23, 40.3%) did not differ regarding baseline echocardiographic parameters or in terms of clinical data of age, gender, concomitant diseases, smoking or pharmacological treatment. The differences involved higher rates of ischemic CHF background, prevalence of hypertension and permanent AF, and a higher concentration of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) among the non-responders. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, NT-proBNP, body mass index (BMI) and the presence of permanent AF correlated negatively with the magnitude of LVESV reduction following CRT introduction. CONCLUSIONS: Classic echocardiographic data did not predict left ventricle reverse remodeling. Higher rates of ischemic CHF aetiology, hypertension, permanent AF and higher NT-proBNP concentration were found in the group without at least 10% LVESV reduction at the three month follow-up. NT-proBNP, BMI and the presence of permanent AF had negative effects on the magnitude of LVESV.