BACKGROUND: QRS duration (QRSd) is known to be affected by body weight and length. We tested the hypothesis that adjusting the QRSd by body mass index (BMI) may provide individualization for patient selection and improve prediction of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response. METHODS: A total of 125 CRT recipients was analyzed to assess functional (≥1 grade reduction in NYHA class) and echocardiographic (≥15% reduction in LVESV) response to CRT at 6 months of implantation. Baseline QRSd was adjusted by BMI to create a QRS index (QRSd/BMI) and tested for prediction of CRT response in comparison to QRSd. RESULTS: Overall, 81 patients (65%) responded to CRT volumetrically. The mean QRS index was higher in CRT responders compared to nonresponders (6.2 ± 1.1 vs 5.2 ± 0.8 ms.m(2) /kg, P < 0.001). There was a positive linear correlation between the QRS index and the change in LVESV (r = 0.487, P < 0.001). Patients with a high QRS index (≥5.5 ms.m(2) /kg, derived from the ROC analysis, AUC = 0.787) compared to those with a prolonged QRSd (≥150 ms, AUC = 0.729) had a greater functional (72% vs 28%, P < 0.001) and echocardiographic (80% vs 44%, P < 0.001) improvement at 6 months. QRS index predicted CRT response at regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Indexing the QRSd by BMI improves patient selection for CRT by eliminating the influence of body weight and length on QRSd. QRS index is a novel indicator that provides promising results for prediction of CRT response.
BACKGROUND: QRS duration (QRSd) is known to be affected by body weight and length. We tested the hypothesis that adjusting the QRSd by body mass index (BMI) may provide individualization for patient selection and improve prediction of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response. METHODS: A total of 125 CRT recipients was analyzed to assess functional (≥1 grade reduction in NYHA class) and echocardiographic (≥15% reduction in LVESV) response to CRT at 6 months of implantation. Baseline QRSd was adjusted by BMI to create a QRS index (QRSd/BMI) and tested for prediction of CRT response in comparison to QRSd. RESULTS: Overall, 81 patients (65%) responded to CRT volumetrically. The mean QRS index was higher in CRT responders compared to nonresponders (6.2 ± 1.1 vs 5.2 ± 0.8 ms.m(2) /kg, P < 0.001). There was a positive linear correlation between the QRS index and the change in LVESV (r = 0.487, P < 0.001). Patients with a high QRS index (≥5.5 ms.m(2) /kg, derived from the ROC analysis, AUC = 0.787) compared to those with a prolonged QRSd (≥150 ms, AUC = 0.729) had a greater functional (72% vs 28%, P < 0.001) and echocardiographic (80% vs 44%, P < 0.001) improvement at 6 months. QRS index predicted CRT response at regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Indexing the QRSd by BMI improves patient selection for CRT by eliminating the influence of body weight and length on QRSd. QRS index is a novel indicator that provides promising results for prediction of CRT response.
Authors: Michele Brignole; Angelo Auricchio; Gonzalo Baron-Esquivias; Pierre Bordachar; Giuseppe Boriani; Ole-A Breithardt; John Cleland; Jean-Claude Deharo; Victoria Delgado; Perry M Elliott; Bulent Gorenek; Carsten W Israel; Christophe Leclercq; Cecilia Linde; Lluís Mont; Luigi Padeletti; Richard Sutton; Panos E Vardas Journal: Europace Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Roberto M Lang; Luigi P Badano; Victor Mor-Avi; Jonathan Afilalo; Anderson Armstrong; Laura Ernande; Frank A Flachskampf; Elyse Foster; Steven A Goldstein; Tatiana Kuznetsova; Patrizio Lancellotti; Denisa Muraru; Michael H Picard; Ernst R Rietzschel; Lawrence Rudski; Kirk T Spencer; Wendy Tsang; Jens-Uwe Voigt Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: A Auricchio; C Stellbrink; M Block; S Sack; J Vogt; P Bakker; H Klein; A Kramer; J Ding; R Salo; B Tockman; T Pochet; J Spinelli Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-06-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: S Cazeau; C Leclercq; T Lavergne; S Walker; C Varma; C Linde; S Garrigue; L Kappenberger; G A Haywood; M Santini; C Bailleul; J C Daubert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-03-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ravi Dhingra; Byung Ho Nam; Emelia J Benjamin; Thomas J Wang; Martin G Larson; Ralph B D'Agostino; Daniel Levy; Ramachandran S Vasan Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-03-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ying-Xue Dong; Brian D Powell; Samuel J Asirvatham; Paul A Friedman; Robert F Rea; Tracy L Webster; Kelly L Brooke; David O Hodge; Heather J Wiste; Yan-Zong Yang; David L Hayes; Yong-Mei Cha Journal: Europace Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: John G Cleland; William T Abraham; Cecilia Linde; Michael R Gold; James B Young; J Claude Daubert; Lou Sherfesee; George A Wells; Anthony S L Tang Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Janice Y Chyou; Wan Ting Tay; Inder S Anand; Tiew-Hwa Katherine Teng; Jonathan J L Yap; Michael R MacDonald; Vijay Chopra; Seet Yoong Loh; Wataru Shimizu; Imran Zainal Abidin; Arthur Mark Richards; Javed Butler; Carolyn S P Lam Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-03-13 Impact factor: 5.501