Kenneth C Bilchick1, Sujith Kuruvilla2, Yasmin S Hamirani2, Raghav Ramachandran3, Samantha A Clarke3, Katherine M Parker3, George J Stukenborg4, Pamela Mason2, John D Ferguson2, J Randall Moorman2, Rohit Malhotra2, J Michael Mangrum2, Andrew E Darby2, John Dimarco2, Jeffrey W Holmes5, Michael Salerno6, Christopher M Kramer7, Frederick H Epstein8. 1. Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Division, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. Electronic address: bilchick@virginia.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Division, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 4. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 5. Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Division, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 6. Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Division, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia; Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 7. Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Division, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia; Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. 8. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia; Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), we sought to evaluate the relative influences of mechanical, electrical, and scar properties at the left ventricular lead position (LVLP) on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response and clinical events. BACKGROUND: CMR cine displacement encoding with stimulated echoes (DENSE) provides high-quality strain for overall dyssynchrony (circumferential uniformity ratio estimate [CURE] 0 to 1) and timing of onset of circumferential contraction at the LVLP. CMR DENSE, late gadolinium enhancement, and electrical timing together could improve upon other imaging modalities for evaluating the optimal LVLP. METHODS: Patients had complete CMR studies and echocardiography before CRT. CRT response was defined as a 15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume. Electrical activation was assessed as the time from QRS onset to LVLP electrogram (QLV). Patients were then followed for clinical events. RESULTS: In 75 patients, multivariable logistic modeling accurately identified the 40 patients (53%) with CRT response (area under the curve: 0.95 [p < 0.0001]) based on CURE (odds ratio [OR]: 2.59/0.1 decrease), delayed circumferential contraction onset at LVLP (OR: 6.55), absent LVLP scar (OR: 14.9), and QLV (OR: 1.31/10 ms increase). The 33% of patients with CURE <0.70, absence of LVLP scar, and delayed LVLP contraction onset had a 100% response rate, whereas those with CURE ≥0.70 had a 0% CRT response rate and a 12-fold increased risk of death; the remaining patients had a mixed response profile. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical, electrical, and scar properties at the LVLP together with CMR mechanical dyssynchrony are strongly associated with echocardiographic CRT response and clinical events after CRT. Modeling these findings holds promise for improving CRT outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: Using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), we sought to evaluate the relative influences of mechanical, electrical, and scar properties at the left ventricular lead position (LVLP) on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response and clinical events. BACKGROUND: CMR cine displacement encoding with stimulated echoes (DENSE) provides high-quality strain for overall dyssynchrony (circumferential uniformity ratio estimate [CURE] 0 to 1) and timing of onset of circumferential contraction at the LVLP. CMR DENSE, late gadolinium enhancement, and electrical timing together could improve upon other imaging modalities for evaluating the optimal LVLP. METHODS:Patients had complete CMR studies and echocardiography before CRT. CRT response was defined as a 15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume. Electrical activation was assessed as the time from QRS onset to LVLP electrogram (QLV). Patients were then followed for clinical events. RESULTS: In 75 patients, multivariable logistic modeling accurately identified the 40 patients (53%) with CRT response (area under the curve: 0.95 [p < 0.0001]) based on CURE (odds ratio [OR]: 2.59/0.1 decrease), delayed circumferential contraction onset at LVLP (OR: 6.55), absent LVLP scar (OR: 14.9), and QLV (OR: 1.31/10 ms increase). The 33% of patients with CURE <0.70, absence of LVLP scar, and delayed LVLP contraction onset had a 100% response rate, whereas those with CURE ≥0.70 had a 0% CRT response rate and a 12-fold increased risk of death; the remaining patients had a mixed response profile. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical, electrical, and scar properties at the LVLP together with CMR mechanical dyssynchrony are strongly associated with echocardiographic CRT response and clinical events after CRT. Modeling these findings holds promise for improving CRT outcomes.
Authors: Fakhar Z Khan; Mumohan S Virdee; Christopher R Palmer; Peter J Pugh; Denis O'Halloran; Maros Elsik; Philip A Read; David Begley; Simon P Fynn; David P Dutka Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Cynthia M Tracy; Andrew E Epstein; Dawood Darbar; John P Dimarco; Sandra B Dunbar; N A Mark Estes; T Bruce Ferguson; Stephen C Hammill; Pamela E Karasik; Mark S Link; Joseph E Marine; Mark H Schoenfeld; Amit J Shanker; Michael J Silka; Lynne Warner Stevenson; William G Stevenson; Paul D Varosy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-09-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Victor A Medina-Ravell; Ramarao S Lankipalli; Gan-Xin Yan; Charles Antzelevitch; Napoleon A Medina-Malpica; Otto A Medina-Malpica; Christopher Droogan; Peter R Kowey Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-02-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Christophe Leclercq; Owen Faris; Richard Tunin; Jennifer Johnson; Ritsuchi Kato; Frank Evans; Julio Spinelli; Henry Halperin; Elliot McVeigh; David A Kass Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Katherine M Parker; Ethan Bunting; Rohit Malhotra; Samantha A Clarke; Pamela Mason; Andrew E Darby; Christopher M Kramer; Michael Salerno; Jeffrey W Holmes; Kenneth C Bilchick Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Michael R Gold; Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green; Jagmeet P Singh; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Yinghong Yu; Timothy E Meyer; Milan Seth; Patrick J Tchou Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-08-29 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Kenneth Bilchick; Hema Kothari; Aditya Narayan; James Garmey; Abdullah Omar; Brian Capaldo; Coleen McNamara Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 10.787
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: Varun Sundaram; Jayakumar Sahadevan; Albert L Waldo; George J Stukenborg; Yogesh N V Reddy; Samuel J Asirvatham; Judith A Mackall; Anselma Intini; Brigid Wilson; Daniel I Simon; Kenneth C Bilchick Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Daniel A Auger; Kenneth C Bilchick; Jorge A Gonzalez; Sophia X Cui; Jeffrey W Holmes; Christopher M Kramer; Michael Salerno; Frederick H Epstein Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Gregory J Wehner; Jonathan D Suever; Samuel W Fielden; David K Powell; Sean M Hamlet; Moriel H Vandsburger; Christopher M Haggerty; Xiaodong Zhong; Brandon K Fornwalt Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Raghav Ramachandran; Xiao Chen; Christopher M Kramer; Frederick H Epstein; Kenneth C Bilchick Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Kai Lin; Leng Meng; Jeremy D Collins; Varun Chowdhary; Michael Markl; James C Carr Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 2.546