BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a successful strategy for heart failure (HF) patients. The pre-requisite for the response is the evidence of electrical dyssynchrony on the surface electrocardiogram usually as left bundle branch block (LBBB). Non-response to CRT is a significant problem in clinical practice. Patient selection, inadequate delivery and sub-optimal left ventricle lead position may be important causes. OBJECTIVES: In an effort to improve CRT response multimodality imaging (especially echocardiography, computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance) could play a decisive role and extensive literature has been published on the matter. However, we are so far from routinary use in clinical practice. Electrocardiography (with respect to left ventricle capture and QRS narrowing) may represent a simple and low cost approach for early prediction of potential non-responder, with immediate practical implications. CONCLUSION: This brief review covers the current recommendations for CRT in HF patients with particular attention to the potential benefits of multimodality imaging and electrocardiography in improving response rate.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a successful strategy for heart failure (HF) patients. The pre-requisite for the response is the evidence of electrical dyssynchrony on the surface electrocardiogram usually as left bundle branch block (LBBB). Non-response to CRT is a significant problem in clinical practice. Patient selection, inadequate delivery and sub-optimal left ventricle lead position may be important causes. OBJECTIVES: In an effort to improve CRT response multimodality imaging (especially echocardiography, computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance) could play a decisive role and extensive literature has been published on the matter. However, we are so far from routinary use in clinical practice. Electrocardiography (with respect to left ventricle capture and QRS narrowing) may represent a simple and low cost approach for early prediction of potential non-responder, with immediate practical implications. CONCLUSION: This brief review covers the current recommendations for CRT in HF patients with particular attention to the potential benefits of multimodality imaging and electrocardiography in improving response rate.
Authors: Nuria Ortigosa; Víctor Pérez-Roselló; Víctor Donoso; Joaquín Osca; Luis Martínez-Dolz; Carmen Fernández; Antonio Galbis Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Gianluca Pontone; Patrizia Carità; Mark G Rabbat; Marco Guglielmo; Andrea Baggiano; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Andrea I Guaricci Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: A Separham; L Pourafkari; B Kazemi; Y Haghizadeh; F Akbarzadeh; M Toufan; H Sate; N D Nader Journal: Herz Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 1.443
Authors: Josef Halamek; Pavel Leinveber; Ivo Viscor; Radovan Smisek; Filip Plesinger; Vlastimil Vondra; Jolana Lipoldova; Magdalena Matejkova; Pavel Jurak Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Szu-Yeu Hu; Enrico Santus; Alexander W Forsyth; Devvrat Malhotra; Josh Haimson; Neal A Chatterjee; Daniel B Kramer; Regina Barzilay; James A Tulsky; Charlotta Lindvall Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Luiz Eduardo Montenegro Camanho; Eduardo Benchimol Saad; Charles Slater; Luiz Antonio Oliveira Inacio Junior; Gustavo Vignoli; Lucas Carvalho Dias; Pedro Pimenta de Mello Spineti; Ricardo Mourilhe-Rocha Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 3.240