| Literature DB >> 31973068 |
Ibadete Bytyçi1,2, Gani Bajraktari1,2, Per Lindqvist1,3, Michael Y Henein1,4.
Abstract
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is associated with reverse left atrial (LA) remodeling. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the relationship between clinical response to CRT and LA function changes. We conducted a systematic search of all electronic databases up to September 2019 which identified 488 patients from seven studies. At (mean) 6 months follow-up, LA systolic strain and emptying fraction (EF) were increased in CRT responders, with a -5.70% weighted mean difference (WMD) [95% confidence interval (CI) -8.37 to -3.04, p < 0.001 and a WMD of -8.98% [CI -15.1 to -2.84, p = 0.004], compared to non-responders. The increase in LA strain was associated with a fall in left ventricle (LV) end-systolic volume (LVESV) r = -0.56 (CI -0.68 to -0.40, p < 0.001) and an increase in the LV ejection fraction (LVEF) r = 0.58 (CI 0.42 to 0.69, p < 0.001). The increase in LA EF correlated with the fall in LVESV r = -0.51 (CI -0.63 to -0.36, p < 0.001) and the increase in the LVEF r = 0.48 (CI 0.33 to 0.61, p = 0.002). The increase in LA strain correlated with the increase in the LA EF, r = 0.57 (CI 0.43 to 0.70, p < 0.001). Thus, the improvement of LA function in CRT responders reflects LA reverse remodeling and is related to its ventricular counterpart.Entities:
Keywords: cardiac resynchronization therapy; heart failure; left atrial strain
Year: 2020 PMID: 31973068 PMCID: PMC7074461 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9020298
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1Two types of gating, based on zero reference point (P–P and R–R gating).
Main characteristics of studies included in the study.
| Study, Year | Study | Type of | Inclusion | Exclusion | Key | Echo- | Criteria for | Follow |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design | Intervention | Criteria | Criteria | Endpoints | Cardiography | CRT Respond | Up | |
| Yo et al. 2007 | Prospective | CRT | LV < 40% | Patients with | LA | 2DE | LVESV ≥ 15% | 3 mo |
| observational | QRS ≥ 120 ms | AF | predictors | |||||
| NYHA-III-IV | ||||||||
| Marsan et al. 2008 | Prospective | CRT-D | LV ≤ 35% | Patients with | LA and LV | 3DE | LVESV ≥ 15% | 6 mo |
| observational | QRS ≥ 120 ms | AF | predictors | |||||
| NYHA-III-IV | ||||||||
| Donal et al. 2009 | Prospective | CRT | HFrEF | Patients with AF | LA | 2DE | LVESV ≥ 15% | 6 mo |
| observational | LV ≤ 35% | Fibrillation; MR | predictors | |||||
| QRS ≥ 120 ms | (EROA > 20 mm2) | |||||||
| Feneon et al. 2015 | Prospective | CRT | LV ≤ 35% | Patients with | LA | 2DE | LVESV ≥ 15% | 6 mo |
| observational | QRS ≥ 120 ms | AF | predictors | |||||
| NYHA-II-IV | ||||||||
| NYHA-III-IV | ||||||||
| Valzania et al. 2016 | Prospective | CRT | HFrEF | Patients with | LA | 2DE | LVESV ≥ 15% | 12 mo |
| observational | LV ≤ 35% | AF | predictors | |||||
| QRS ≥ 120 ms | ||||||||
| Badran et al. 2017 | Prospective | CRT | LV ≤ 35% | Patients with | LA | 2DE | LVESV ≥ 15% | 3 mo |
| observational | QRS ≥ 120 ms | AF | predictors | |||||
| NYHA-II-IV | ||||||||
| Hansen et al. 2017 | Clinical | CRT | LV ≤ 35% | Recently MI | LA | 2DE | LVESV ≥ 15% | 6 mo |
| trial | QRS ≥ 120 ms | CRF, contrast | predictors | |||||
| NYHA-II-IV | allergy |
HF (heart failure), HFrEF (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), CRT (cardiac resynchronization therapy), LV (left ventricle), EF (ejection fraction), AF (atrial fibrillation), CRF (chronic renal failure), MR (mitral regurgitation), 2DE (two dimensional echocardiography), LVESV (left ventricle end-systolic volume) and mo (months).
Main characteristics of patients among trials included in the study.
| Study, Year | Arms | No. | Age | Male | QRS | NYHA | Ischemic | Mean | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | (%) | Duration | Functional | Etiology | Change of | Change of | |||
| Yo et al. 2007 | R | 62 | 66 ± 11 * | 75 * | 142 ± 28 | 3.0 ± 0.5 | NR | −5.1 | −14 |
| Non-R | 45 | 154 ± 31 | 3.0 ± 0.4 | NR | −2.7 | −5.2 | |||
| Marsan et al. 2008 | R | 34 | 65 ± 7 | 78 | 142 ± 28 | 3.0 ± 0.5 | NR | −6 | −5.0 |
| Non-R | 17 | 67 ± 10 | 70 | 154 ± 31 | 3.0 ± 0.4 | NR | 0 | 0 | |
| Donal et al. 2009 | R | 23 | 67 ± 10.4 * | 76 * | NR | 3.2 ± 0.6 * | NR | −12.1 | NR |
| Non-R | 23 | 1.4 | NR | ||||||
| Feneon et al. 2015 | R | 54 | 62.3 ± 10 | 63 | 163 ± 27 | N−II = 24% | 18.6 | NR | NR |
| Non-R | 25 | 66.5 ± 10 | 80 | 158 ± 30 | N−II = 22% | 60 | NR | NR | |
| Valzania et al. 2016 | R | 18 | 61 ± 13 | 63 | 160 ± 24 | 2.9 ± 0.2 | 20 | −5.5 | −72 |
| Non-R | 12 | 67 ± 8 | 50 | 159 ± 23 | 3.1 ± 0.3 | 50 | 4.5 | NR | |
| Badran et al. 2017 | R | 24 | 56 ± 9.8 | 71 | NR | N−IV = 33% | 29 | −4.2 | −35.2 |
| Non-R | 13 | 53 ± 9.5 | 69 | NR | N−IV = 46% | 23 | 2.87 | −0.3 | |
| Hansen et al. 2017 | R | 114 | 69.4 ± 9 * | 80 * | 166.2 ± 23.0 * | N−IV = 3% * | 50 * | −4.4 | −5.0 |
| Non-R | 24 | −2 | NR |
R (respond), Non-R (non-respond), LVESV (left ventricle endsystolic volume), LVEF (left ventricle ejection fraction), NR (non-reported) and * only whole group represented. Mean change of LVESV. LVEF was represented only in CRT responders.
Figure 2Baseline comparison of LA (left atrial), CRT (function in group of patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy), responders vs. CRT non responders. (a) LA strain; (b) LA ejection fraction (EF).
Figure 3Mean changed LA (left atrial) strain in patients with CRT (cardiac resynchronization therapy). (a) CRT responders; (b) CRT non responders.
Figure 4Mean changed LA (left atrial) EF (ejection fraction) in patients with CRT (cardiac resynchronization therapy). (a) CRT responders; (b) CRT non-responders.
Figure 5Weighted summary correlation between (a) LA (left atrial) ( strain vs. left ventricle end-systolic volume (LVESV); (b) LA strain vs. left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF); (c) LA EF (ejection fraction) (vs. LVESV; and (d) LA EF vs. LVEF (left ventricle ejection fraction).