Łukasz Januszkiewicz1, Eszter Vegh2, Rasmus Borgquist2, Abhishek Bose2, Ajay Sharma2, Mary Orencole2, Theofanie Mela2, Jagmeet P Singh2, Kimberly A Parks3. 1. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Ist Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. 2. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: KAParks@Partners.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prolongation of the baseline ECG PR interval is frequently encountered among cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients. There are conflicting data regarding the association of a prolonged PR interval with long-term clinical outcome in this patient group. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and response to CRT in patients with normal (<200 ms) vs prolonged (≥200 ms) baseline PR interval. METHODS: In this study, 283 patients (normal PR interval: n = 158; prolonged PR interval: n = 125) with documented baseline intrinsic PR interval were followed for 3 years after CRT implantation. The study population consisted of 24.7% women (mean age 66 ± 13 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 24% ± 7%). RESULTS: A Cox proportional hazard model identified baseline PR interval as a predictor of the composite end-point (all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, left ventricular assist device implantation, and heart transplantation) in univariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-2.17, P = .04) but not in multivariate analysis. It also predicted heart failure hospitalization in univariate (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.4, P = .02) and multivariate analysis (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.3, P = .03). A prolonged PR interval was associated with lower probability of reverse remodeling defined as ≥10% improvement in ejection fraction (64% vs 77%, P = .057), especially in patients with non-left bundle branch block ECG morphology (41% vs 68%, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Among patients with CRT, a prolonged baseline PR interval is an independent predictor of worse prognosis and lower probability of reverse remodeling, especially for patients with non-left bundle branch block morphology on ECG.
BACKGROUND: Prolongation of the baseline ECG PR interval is frequently encountered among cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients. There are conflicting data regarding the association of a prolonged PR interval with long-term clinical outcome in this patient group. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and response to CRT in patients with normal (<200 ms) vs prolonged (≥200 ms) baseline PR interval. METHODS: In this study, 283 patients (normal PR interval: n = 158; prolonged PR interval: n = 125) with documented baseline intrinsic PR interval were followed for 3 years after CRT implantation. The study population consisted of 24.7% women (mean age 66 ± 13 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 24% ± 7%). RESULTS: A Cox proportional hazard model identified baseline PR interval as a predictor of the composite end-point (all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, left ventricular assist device implantation, and heart transplantation) in univariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-2.17, P = .04) but not in multivariate analysis. It also predicted heart failure hospitalization in univariate (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.4, P = .02) and multivariate analysis (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.3, P = .03). A prolonged PR interval was associated with lower probability of reverse remodeling defined as ≥10% improvement in ejection fraction (64% vs 77%, P = .057), especially in patients with non-left bundle branch block ECG morphology (41% vs 68%, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Among patients with CRT, a prolonged baseline PR interval is an independent predictor of worse prognosis and lower probability of reverse remodeling, especially for patients with non-left bundle branch block morphology on ECG.
Authors: Daniel J Friedman; Haikun Bao; Erica S Spatz; Jeptha P Curtis; James P Daubert; Sana M Al-Khatib Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jens Cosedis Nielsen; Yenn-Jiang Lin; Marcio Jansen de Oliveira Figueiredo; Alireza Sepehri Shamloo; Alberto Alfie; Serge Boveda; Nikolaos Dagres; Dario Di Toro; Lee L Eckhardt; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Carina Hardy; Takanori Ikeda; Aparna Jaswal; Elizabeth Kaufman; Andrew Krahn; Kengo Kusano; Valentina Kutyifa; Han S Lim; Gregory Y H Lip; Santiago Nava-Townsend; Hui-Nam Pak; Gerardo Rodríguez Diez; William Sauer; Anil Saxena; Jesper Hastrup Svendsen; Diego Vanegas; Marmar Vaseghi; Arthur Wilde; T Jared Bunch; Alfred E Buxton; Gonzalo Calvimontes; Tze-Fan Chao; Lars Eckardt; Heidi Estner; Anne M Gillis; Rodrigo Isa; Josef Kautzner; Philippe Maury; Joshua D Moss; Gi-Byung Nam; Brian Olshansky; Luis Fernando Pava Molano; Mauricio Pimentel; Mukund Prabhu; Wendy S Tzou; Philipp Sommer; Janice Swampillai; Alejandro Vidal; Thomas Deneke; Gerhard Hindricks; Christophe Leclercq Journal: Europace Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Theodora Nikolaidou; Pierpaolo Pellicori; Jufen Zhang; Syed Kazmi; Kevin M Goode; John G Cleland; Andrew L Clark Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 5.460