AIMS: Up to 30-45% of implanted patients are non-responders to CRT. We evaluated the role of a 'CRT team' using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and longitudinal myocardial strain to identify the target area defined as the most delayed and viable region for LV pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 100 heart failure patients candidates for CRT divided into two groups were enrolled. Group 1 consisted of 50 consecutive patients scheduled for CRT and prospectively included. Group 2 (control) consisted of 50 patients with a CRT device implanted according to standard clinical practice and matched for age, sex, and LVEF with group 1. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 6-month follow-up. In group 1, patients underwent two-dimensional speckle-tracking assessment of longitudinal myocardial strain and CMR imaging to identify the target area for LV lead pacing. A positive response to CRT was defined as a reduction of ≥15% of the LV end-systolic volume at 6-month follow-up. A total of 39 (78%) patients of group 1 were classified as responders to CRT whilst in group 2, only 28 (56%) were responders (P = 0.019). The 'CRT team' identified as target for LV pacing the lateral area in 30 (60%) patients, and the anterolateral or posterolateral areas in 12 (24%) patients. In 8 (16%) patients, the target was far from the lateral area, in the anterior or posterior areas. The patients with concordant position exhibited the highest positive response (93.1%) to CRT. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodality cardiac imaging as a guide for CRT implantation is useful to increase response rate.
AIMS: Up to 30-45% of implanted patients are non-responders to CRT. We evaluated the role of a 'CRT team' using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and longitudinal myocardial strain to identify the target area defined as the most delayed and viable region for LV pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 100 heart failurepatients candidates for CRT divided into two groups were enrolled. Group 1 consisted of 50 consecutive patients scheduled for CRT and prospectively included. Group 2 (control) consisted of 50 patients with a CRT device implanted according to standard clinical practice and matched for age, sex, and LVEF with group 1. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 6-month follow-up. In group 1, patients underwent two-dimensional speckle-tracking assessment of longitudinal myocardial strain and CMR imaging to identify the target area for LV lead pacing. A positive response to CRT was defined as a reduction of ≥15% of the LV end-systolic volume at 6-month follow-up. A total of 39 (78%) patients of group 1 were classified as responders to CRT whilst in group 2, only 28 (56%) were responders (P = 0.019). The 'CRT team' identified as target for LV pacing the lateral area in 30 (60%) patients, and the anterolateral or posterolateral areas in 12 (24%) patients. In 8 (16%) patients, the target was far from the lateral area, in the anterior or posterior areas. The patients with concordant position exhibited the highest positive response (93.1%) to CRT. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodality cardiac imaging as a guide for CRT implantation is useful to increase response rate.
Authors: George Bazoukis; Jeremy Man Ho Hui; Yan Hiu Athena Lee; Oscar Hou In Chou; Dimitrios Sfairopoulos; Konstantinos Vlachos; Athanasios Saplaouras; Konstantinos P Letsas; Michael Efremidis; Gary Tse; Vassilios S Vassiliou; Panagiotis Korantzopoulos Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2022-08-31 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Benjamin J Sieniewicz; Justin Gould; Bradley Porter; Baldeep S Sidhu; Jonathan M Behar; Simon Claridge; Steve Niederer; Christopher A Rinaldi Journal: Expert Rev Med Devices Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 3.166