Michael E Field1, Nancy Yu2, Nicholas Wold2, Michael R Gold3. 1. Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. Electronic address: fieldme@musc.edu. 2. Clinical Science, Boston Scientific Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota. 3. Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina; Clinical Science, Boston Scientific Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Left ventricular (LV) pacing at sites of prolonged LV delay (QLV) or at long interventricular delay (right ventricle [RV]-LV) is strongly associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response. QLV and RV-LV have been independently evaluated, but little is known regarding the interrelationship between these measures or of delay to the RV. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between measures of electrical delay on CRT response in the SMART-AV (SmartDelay Determined AV Optimization: A Comparison to Other AV Delay Methods Used in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial. METHODS: In 419 patients, QLV and RV-LV were measured. CRT response was defined as a >15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume from implant to 6 months. The correlation between QLV and RV-LV and the clinical variables associated with the difference between QLV and RV-LV (QRV) were determined. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the association between these measures on CRT response. A machine learning algorithm was used to construct a classification tree to predict response to CRT. RESULTS:The cohort was 66% male (age 66 ± 11 years), 75% had left bundle branch block; and QRS was 150 ± 25ms. QLV and RV-LV were highly correlated (R2 = 0.71). A longer QRV was observed among patients with right bundle branch block, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and increased QRS. In a multivariable model including QLV, RV-LV, and other known predictors of CRT response, RV-LV, but not QLV, remained associated with CRT response (odds ratio 1.13; 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.26; P = .017). Combining the 2 measures achieved better prediction of CRT response in the group with intermediate RV-LV. CONCLUSION: RV-LV is a better predictor of CRT response than QLV. There is incremental value in using both measurements or QRV in certain subpopulations.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) pacing at sites of prolonged LV delay (QLV) or at long interventricular delay (right ventricle [RV]-LV) is strongly associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response. QLV and RV-LV have been independently evaluated, but little is known regarding the interrelationship between these measures or of delay to the RV. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between measures of electrical delay on CRT response in the SMART-AV (SmartDelay Determined AV Optimization: A Comparison to Other AV Delay Methods Used in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial. METHODS: In 419 patients, QLV and RV-LV were measured. CRT response was defined as a >15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume from implant to 6 months. The correlation between QLV and RV-LV and the clinical variables associated with the difference between QLV and RV-LV (QRV) were determined. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the association between these measures on CRT response. A machine learning algorithm was used to construct a classification tree to predict response to CRT. RESULTS: The cohort was 66% male (age 66 ± 11 years), 75% had left bundle branch block; and QRS was 150 ± 25 ms. QLV and RV-LV were highly correlated (R2 = 0.71). A longer QRV was observed among patients with right bundle branch block, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and increased QRS. In a multivariable model including QLV, RV-LV, and other known predictors of CRT response, RV-LV, but not QLV, remained associated with CRT response (odds ratio 1.13; 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.26; P = .017). Combining the 2 measures achieved better prediction of CRT response in the group with intermediate RV-LV. CONCLUSION: RV-LV is a better predictor of CRT response than QLV. There is incremental value in using both measurements or QRV in certain subpopulations.
Authors: Roy S Gardner; Antonio D'Onofrio; George Mark; Daniel Gras; Yan Hu; Sara Veraghtert; Ignacio Garcia-Bolao Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2021-01-19