Adam Grimaldi1, Eiran Z Gorodeski2, John Rickard3. 1. Cardiology Fellowship, Cleveland Clinic Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. Heart Failure, Cleveland Clinic Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Electrophysiology, Cleveland Clinic Heart and Vascular Institute, 9500 Euclid Avenue, J2-2, Cleveland, OH, USA. Rickarj2@ccf.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review focuses on the current advancements in optimizing patient response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). RECENT FINDINGS: It has been well known that not every patient will derive benefit from CRT, and of those that do, there are varying levels of response. Optimizing CRT begins well before device implant and involves appropriate patient selection and an understanding of the underlying substrate. After implant, there are different CRT device programming options that can be enabled to help overcome barriers as to why a patient may not respond. Given the multifaceted components of optimizing CRT and the complex patient population, multi-subspecialty clinics have been developed bringing together specialists in heart failure, electrophysiology, and imaging. Data as to whether this results in better response rates and outcomes shows promise.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review focuses on the current advancements in optimizing patient response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). RECENT FINDINGS: It has been well known that not every patient will derive benefit from CRT, and of those that do, there are varying levels of response. Optimizing CRT begins well before device implant and involves appropriate patient selection and an understanding of the underlying substrate. After implant, there are different CRT device programming options that can be enabled to help overcome barriers as to why a patient may not respond. Given the multifaceted components of optimizing CRT and the complex patient population, multi-subspecialty clinics have been developed bringing together specialists in heart failure, electrophysiology, and imaging. Data as to whether this results in better response rates and outcomes shows promise.
Authors: John Rickard; Dharam J Kumbhani; Zoran Popovic; David Verhaert; Mahesh Manne; Daniel Sraow; Bryan Baranowski; David O Martin; Bruce D Lindsay; Richard A Grimm; Bruce L Wilkoff; Patrick Tchou Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Giuseppe Boriani; Cord Paul Müller; Karl Heinz Seidl; Rainer Grove; Jürgen Vogt; Wilfried Danschel; Andreas Schuchert; Pierre Djiane; Mauro Biffi; Thorsten Becker; Christophe Bailleul; Hans Joachim Trappe Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Frederik H Verbrugge; Matthias Dupont; Maximo Rivero-Ayerza; Philippe de Vusser; Hugo Van Herendael; Jan Vercammen; Linda Jacobs; David Verhaert; Pieter Vandervoort; W H Wilson Tang; Wilfried Mullens Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: William T Abraham; Philip B Adamson; Robert C Bourge; Mark F Aaron; Maria Rosa Costanzo; Lynne W Stevenson; Warren Strickland; Suresh Neelagaru; Nirav Raval; Steven Krueger; Stanislav Weiner; David Shavelle; Bradley Jeffries; Jay S Yadav Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-02-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Anita Wokhlu; Robert F Rea; Samuel J Asirvatham; Tracy Webster; Kelly Brooke; David O Hodge; Heather J Wiste; Yingxue Dong; David L Hayes; Yong-Mei Cha Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2009-07-10 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Wilfried Mullens; Richard A Grimm; Tanya Verga; Thomas Dresing; Randall C Starling; Bruce L Wilkoff; W H Wilson Tang Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-03-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: John Rickard; Gregory Jackson; David D Spragg; Edmond M Cronin; Bryan Baranowski; W H Wilson Tang; Bruce L Wilkoff; Niraj Varma Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 6.343
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