Syed Yaseen Naqvi1, Anas Jawaid1, Ilan Goldenberg1, Valentina Kutyifa2. 1. Heart Research Follow-Up Program, Cardiology Division, University of Rochester Medical Center, 265 Crittenden Blvd., Box 653, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA. 2. Heart Research Follow-Up Program, Cardiology Division, University of Rochester Medical Center, 265 Crittenden Blvd., Box 653, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA. Valentina.Kutyifa@heart.rochester.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment option for therapy-refractory mild to severe heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction and left ventricular (LV) conduction delay. Multiple clinical trials have shown that CRT improves cardiac function and overall quality of life, as well as reduces HF hospitalizations, health care costs, and mortality. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite its effectiveness, the "non-response" rate to CRT is around 30%, remaining a major challenge that faces electrophysiologists and researchers. It has been recently suggested that the etiology of CRT non-response is multifactorial, and it requires a multifaceted approach to address it. In this focused review, we will summarize the definitions of CRT non-response, identify key factors for CRT non-response, and offer a simplified framework to address CRT non-response with the main goal of improving CRT outcomes.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment option for therapy-refractory mild to severe heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction and left ventricular (LV) conduction delay. Multiple clinical trials have shown that CRT improves cardiac function and overall quality of life, as well as reduces HF hospitalizations, health care costs, and mortality. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite its effectiveness, the "non-response" rate to CRT is around 30%, remaining a major challenge that faces electrophysiologists and researchers. It has been recently suggested that the etiology of CRT non-response is multifactorial, and it requires a multifaceted approach to address it. In this focused review, we will summarize the definitions of CRT non-response, identify key factors for CRT non-response, and offer a simplified framework to address CRT non-response with the main goal of improving CRT outcomes.
Authors: Maureen M Henneman; Ernst E van der Wall; Claudia Ypenburg; Gabe B Bleeker; Nico R van de Veire; Nina Ajmone Marsan; Ji Chen; Ernest V Garcia; Jos J M Westenberg; Martin J Schalij; Jeroen J Bax Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Navin Kedia; Kenneth Ng; Carolyn Apperson-Hansen; Chaohui Wang; Patrick Tchou; Bruce L Wilkoff; Richard A Grimm Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-07-28 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Nicole H M K Uszko-Lencer; Rafael Mesquita; Eefje Janssen; Christ Werter; Hans-Peter Brunner-La Rocca; Fabio Pitta; Emiel F M Wouters; Martijn A Spruit Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 4.164
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: José Manuel Rubio Campal; Hugo Del Castillo; Belén Arroyo Rivera; Carmen de Juan Bitriá; Mikel Taibo Urquia; Pepa Sánchez Borque; Ángel Miracle Blanco; Loreto Bravo Calero; David Martí Sánchez; José Tuñón Fernández Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 2.737