BACKGROUND: Transmural scar occupying left ventricular (LV) pacing regions has been associated with reduced response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, spatial influences of lead tip delivery relative to scar at both pacing sites remain poorly explored. This study evaluated scar distribution relative to LV and right ventricular (RV) lead tip placement through coregistration of late gadolinium enhancement MRI and cardiac computed tomographic (CT) findings. Influences on CRT response were assessed by serial echocardiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty patients receiving CRT underwent preimplant late gadolinium enhancement MRI, postimplant cardiac CT, and serial echocardiography. Blinded segmental evaluations of mechanical delay, percentage scar burden, and lead tip location were performed. Response to CRT was defined as a reduction in LV end-systolic volume ≥15% at 6 months. The mean age and LV ejection fraction were 64±9 years and 25±7%, respectively. Mean scar volume was higher among CRT nonresponders for both the LV (23±23% versus 8±14% [P=0.01]) and RV pacing regions (40±32% versus 24±30% [P=0.04]). Significant pacing region scar was identified in 13% of LV pacing regions and 37% of RV pacing regions. Absence of scar in both regions was associated with an 81% response rate compared with 55%, 25%, and 0%, respectively, when the RV, LV, or both pacing regions contained scar. LV pacing region dyssynchrony was not predictive of response. CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial scar occupying the LV pacing region is associated with nonresponse to CRT. Scar occupying the RV pacing region is encountered at higher frequency and seems to provide a more intermediate influence on CRT response.
BACKGROUND: Transmural scar occupying left ventricular (LV) pacing regions has been associated with reduced response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, spatial influences of lead tip delivery relative to scar at both pacing sites remain poorly explored. This study evaluated scar distribution relative to LV and right ventricular (RV) lead tip placement through coregistration of late gadolinium enhancement MRI and cardiac computed tomographic (CT) findings. Influences on CRT response were assessed by serial echocardiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty patients receiving CRT underwent preimplant late gadolinium enhancement MRI, postimplant cardiac CT, and serial echocardiography. Blinded segmental evaluations of mechanical delay, percentage scar burden, and lead tip location were performed. Response to CRT was defined as a reduction in LV end-systolic volume ≥15% at 6 months. The mean age and LV ejection fraction were 64±9 years and 25±7%, respectively. Mean scar volume was higher among CRT nonresponders for both the LV (23±23% versus 8±14% [P=0.01]) and RV pacing regions (40±32% versus 24±30% [P=0.04]). Significant pacing region scar was identified in 13% of LV pacing regions and 37% of RV pacing regions. Absence of scar in both regions was associated with an 81% response rate compared with 55%, 25%, and 0%, respectively, when the RV, LV, or both pacing regions contained scar. LV pacing region dyssynchrony was not predictive of response. CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial scar occupying the LV pacing region is associated with nonresponse to CRT. Scar occupying the RV pacing region is encountered at higher frequency and seems to provide a more intermediate influence on CRT response.
Authors: Yiyi Zhang; Eliseo Guallar; Robert G Weiss; Michael Stillabower; Gary Gerstenblith; Gordon F Tomaselli; Katherine C Wu Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Xiaojuan Xia; Anne-Christine Ruwald; Martin H Ruwald; Nene Ugoeke; Barbara Szepietowska; Valentina Kutyifa; Mehmet K Aktas; Poul Erik B Thomsen; Wojciech Zareba; Arthur J Moss; Jean-Philippe Couderc Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Nadeev Wijesuriya; Mark K Elliott; Vishal Mehta; Baldeep S Sidhu; Marina Strocchi; Jonathan M Behar; Steven Niederer; Christopher A Rinaldi Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-06-06 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Jonathan D Suever; Gregory R Hartlage; R Patrick Magrath; Shahriar Iravanian; Michael S Lloyd; John N Oshinski Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2014-01-06 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Guilherme Ferreira Gazzoni; Matheus Bom Fraga; Andres Di Leoni Ferrari; Pablo da Costa Soliz; Anibal Pires Borges; Eduardo Bartholomay; Carlos Antonio Abunader Kalil; Vanessa Giaretta; Luis Eduardo Paim Rohde Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: John Stirrat; Sebastien Xavier Joncas; Michael Salerno; Maria Drangova; James White Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: W M van Everdingen; J C Schipper; J van 't Sant; K Ramdat Misier; M Meine; M J Cramer Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.380