Niraj Varma1, Jason Lappe2, Jiayan He3, Mark Niebauer2, Mahesh Manne2, Patrick Tchou2. 1. Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: varman@ccf.org. 2. Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors sought to assess the impact of body and heart size on sex-specific cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response rate, according to QRS duration (QRSd) as a continuum. BACKGROUND: Effects of CRT differ between sexes for any given QRSd. METHODS: New York Heart Association functional class III/IV patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and "true" left bundle branch block (LBBB) were evaluated. Left ventricular mass (LVM) and end-diastolic volume were measured echocardiographically. Positive response was defined by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement post-CRT. RESULTS: Among 130 patients (LVEF 19 ± 7.1%; QRSd 165 ± 20 ms; 55% female), CRT improved LVEF to 32 ± 14% (p < 0.001) during a median 2 years follow-up. Positive responses occurred in 103 of 130 (79%) (78% when QRSd <150 ms vs. 80% when QRSd ≥150 ms; p = 0.8). Body surface area (BSA), QRSd, and LVM were lower in women, but QRSd/LVM ratio greater (p < 0.0001). Sexes did not differ for pharmacotherapy and comorbidities, but female CRT response was greater: 90% (65 of 72) versus 66% (38 of 58) in males (p < 0.001). With QRSd as a continuum, the overall CRT-response relationship showed a progressive increase to plateau between 150 and 170 ms, then a decrease. Sex-specific differences were conspicuous: among females, a peak effect was observed between 135 and 150 ms, thereafter a decline, with the male response rate lower, but with a gradual increase as QRSd lengthened. Sex-specific differences were unaltered by BSA, but resolved with integration of LVM or end-diastolic volume. CONCLUSIONS: Sex differences in the QRSd-response relationship among CRT patients with LBBB were unexplained by application of strict LBBB criteria or by BSA, but resolved by QRSd normalization for heart size using LV mass or volume.
OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors sought to assess the impact of body and heart size on sex-specific cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response rate, according to QRS duration (QRSd) as a continuum. BACKGROUND: Effects of CRT differ between sexes for any given QRSd. METHODS: New York Heart Association functional class III/IV patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and "true" left bundle branch block (LBBB) were evaluated. Left ventricular mass (LVM) and end-diastolic volume were measured echocardiographically. Positive response was defined by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement post-CRT. RESULTS: Among 130 patients (LVEF 19 ± 7.1%; QRSd 165 ± 20 ms; 55% female), CRT improved LVEF to 32 ± 14% (p < 0.001) during a median 2 years follow-up. Positive responses occurred in 103 of 130 (79%) (78% when QRSd <150 ms vs. 80% when QRSd ≥150 ms; p = 0.8). Body surface area (BSA), QRSd, and LVM were lower in women, but QRSd/LVM ratio greater (p < 0.0001). Sexes did not differ for pharmacotherapy and comorbidities, but female CRT response was greater: 90% (65 of 72) versus 66% (38 of 58) in males (p < 0.001). With QRSd as a continuum, the overall CRT-response relationship showed a progressive increase to plateau between 150 and 170 ms, then a decrease. Sex-specific differences were conspicuous: among females, a peak effect was observed between 135 and 150 ms, thereafter a decline, with the male response rate lower, but with a gradual increase as QRSd lengthened. Sex-specific differences were unaltered by BSA, but resolved with integration of LVM or end-diastolic volume. CONCLUSIONS: Sex differences in the QRSd-response relationship among CRT patients with LBBB were unexplained by application of strict LBBB criteria or by BSA, but resolved by QRSd normalization for heart size using LV mass or volume.
Authors: Norman C Wang; Ure Mezu-Chukwu; Evan C Adelstein; Andrew D Althouse; Michael S Sharbaugh; Sandeep K Jain; Alaa A Shalaby; Andrew H Voigt; Samir Saba Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Hye Bin Gwag; June Soo Kim; Kyoung-Min Park; Young Keun On; Seung-Jung Park Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2021-03-27 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Izaias Marques de Sá Junior; José Carlos Pachón Mateos; Juan Carlos Pachón Mateos; Remy Nelson Albornoz Vargas Journal: Am J Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2020-04-15
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
Authors: Niraj Varma; Suneet Mittal; Julie B Prillinger; Jeff Snell; Nirav Dalal; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Niraj Varma; Peter Sogaard; Jeroen J Bax; William T Abraham; Jeffrey S Borer; Kenneth Dickstein; Jagmeet P Singh; Daniel Gras; Johannes Holzmeister; Josep Brugada; Frank Ruschitzka Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-05-27 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Daniel J Friedman; Kasper Emerek; Peter L Sørensen; Emily P Zeitler; Sarah A Goldstein; Sana M Al-Khatib; Peter Søgaard; Claus Graff; Brett D Atwater Journal: Heart Rhythm O2 Date: 2020-08-04
Authors: Angela W C Lee; Declan P O'Regan; Justin Gould; Baldeep Sidhu; Benjamin Sieniewicz; Gernot Plank; David R Warriner; Pablo Lamata; Christopher A Rinaldi; Steven A Niederer Journal: Biophys J Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 4.033