OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) cine and strain imaging before and after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for assessment of response and the optimal resynchronization pacing strategy. BACKGROUND: CMR with cardiac implantable electronic devices can safely provide high-quality right ventricular/left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (RVEF/LVEF) assessments and strain. METHODS: CMR with cine imaging, displacement encoding with stimulated echoes for the circumferential uniformity ratio estimate with singular value decomposition (CURE-SVD) dyssynchrony parameter, and scar assessment was performed before and after CRT. Whereas the pre-CRT scan constituted a single "imaging set" with complete volumetric, strain, and scar imaging, multiple imaging sets with complete strain and volumetric data were obtained during the post-CRT scan for biventricular pacing (BIVP), LV pacing (LVP), and asynchronous atrial pacing modes by reprogramming the device outside the scanner between imaging sets. RESULTS: 100 CMRs with a total of 162 imaging sets were performed in 50 patients (median age 70 years [IQR: 50-86 years]; 48% female). Reduction in LV end-diastolic volumes (P = 0.002) independent of CRT pacing were more prominent than corresponding reductions in right ventricular end-diastolic volumes (P = 0.16). A clear dependence of the optimal CRT pacing mode (BIVP vs LVP) on the PR interval (P = 0.0006) was demonstrated. The LVEF and RVEF improved more with BIVP than LVP with PR intervals ≥240 milliseconds (P = 0.025 and P = 0.002, respectively); the optimal mode (BIVP vs LVP) was variable with PR intervals <240 milliseconds. A lower pre-CRT displacement encoding with stimulated echoes (DENSE) CURE-SVD was associated with greater improvements in the post-CRT CURE-SVD (r = -0.69; P < 0.001), LV end-systolic volume (r = -0.58; P < 0.001), and LVEF (r = -0.52; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CMR evaluation with assessment of multiple pacing modes during a single scan after CRT is feasible and provides useful information for patient care with respect to response and the optimal pacing strategy.
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) cine and strain imaging before and after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for assessment of response and the optimal resynchronization pacing strategy. BACKGROUND: CMR with cardiac implantable electronic devices can safely provide high-quality right ventricular/left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (RVEF/LVEF) assessments and strain. METHODS: CMR with cine imaging, displacement encoding with stimulated echoes for the circumferential uniformity ratio estimate with singular value decomposition (CURE-SVD) dyssynchrony parameter, and scar assessment was performed before and after CRT. Whereas the pre-CRT scan constituted a single "imaging set" with complete volumetric, strain, and scar imaging, multiple imaging sets with complete strain and volumetric data were obtained during the post-CRT scan for biventricular pacing (BIVP), LV pacing (LVP), and asynchronous atrial pacing modes by reprogramming the device outside the scanner between imaging sets. RESULTS: 100 CMRs with a total of 162 imaging sets were performed in 50 patients (median age 70 years [IQR: 50-86 years]; 48% female). Reduction in LV end-diastolic volumes (P = 0.002) independent of CRT pacing were more prominent than corresponding reductions in right ventricular end-diastolic volumes (P = 0.16). A clear dependence of the optimal CRT pacing mode (BIVP vs LVP) on the PR interval (P = 0.0006) was demonstrated. The LVEF and RVEF improved more with BIVP than LVP with PR intervals ≥240 milliseconds (P = 0.025 and P = 0.002, respectively); the optimal mode (BIVP vs LVP) was variable with PR intervals <240 milliseconds. A lower pre-CRT displacement encoding with stimulated echoes (DENSE) CURE-SVD was associated with greater improvements in the post-CRT CURE-SVD (r = -0.69; P < 0.001), LV end-systolic volume (r = -0.58; P < 0.001), and LVEF (r = -0.52; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CMR evaluation with assessment of multiple pacing modes during a single scan after CRT is feasible and provides useful information for patient care with respect to response and the optimal pacing strategy.
Authors: David Birnie; Bernd Lemke; Kazutaka Aonuma; Henry Krum; Kathy Lai-Fun Lee; Maurizio Gasparini; Randall C Starling; Goran Milasinovic; John Gorcsan; Mahmoud Houmsse; Athula Abeyratne; Alex Sambelashvili; David O Martin Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2013-07-11 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Mark S Kremers; Stephen C Hammill; Charles I Berul; Christina Koutras; Jeptha S Curtis; Yongfei Wang; Jim Beachy; Laura Blum Meisnere; Del M Conyers; Matthew R Reynolds; Paul A Heidenreich; Sana M Al-Khatib; Ileana L Pina; Kathleen Blake; Mary Norine Walsh; Bruce L Wilkoff; Alaa Shalaby; Frederick A Masoudi; John Rumsfeld Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2013-02-09 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Xiaodong Zhong; Bruce S Spottiswoode; Craig H Meyer; Christopher M Kramer; Frederick H Epstein Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Saman Nazarian; Rozann Hansford; Amir A Rahsepar; Valeria Weltin; Diana McVeigh; Esra Gucuk Ipek; Alan Kwan; Ronald D Berger; Hugh Calkins; Albert C Lardo; Michael A Kraut; Ihab R Kamel; Stefan L Zimmerman; Henry R Halperin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R J Kim; D S Fieno; T B Parrish; K Harris; E L Chen; O Simonetti; J Bundy; J P Finn; F J Klocke; R M Judd Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-11-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Robert J Russo; Heather S Costa; Patricia D Silva; Jeffrey L Anderson; Aysha Arshad; Robert W W Biederman; Noel G Boyle; Jennifer V Frabizzio; Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green; Steven L Higgins; Rachel Lampert; Christian E Machado; Edward T Martin; Andrew L Rivard; Jason C Rubenstein; Raymond H M Schaerf; Jennifer D Schwartz; Dipan J Shah; Gery F Tomassoni; Gail T Tominaga; Allison E Tonkin; Seth Uretsky; Steven D Wolff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kenneth C Bilchick; Sujith Kuruvilla; Yasmin S Hamirani; Raghav Ramachandran; Samantha A Clarke; Katherine M Parker; George J Stukenborg; Pamela Mason; John D Ferguson; J Randall Moorman; Rohit Malhotra; J Michael Mangrum; Andrew E Darby; John Dimarco; Jeffrey W Holmes; Michael Salerno; Christopher M Kramer; Frederick H Epstein Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Eugene S Chung; Angel R Leon; Luigi Tavazzi; Jing-Ping Sun; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; John Merlino; William T Abraham; Stefano Ghio; Christophe Leclercq; Jeroen J Bax; Cheuk-Man Yu; John Gorcsan; Martin St John Sutton; Johan De Sutter; Jaime Murillo Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-05-05 Impact factor: 29.690
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
Authors: Ashish Manohar; Gabrielle M Colvert; Juan E Ortuño; Zhennong Chen; James Yang; Brendan T Colvert; W Patricia Bandettini; Marcus Y Chen; María J Ledesma-Carbayo; Elliot R McVeigh Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Derek J Bivona; Srikar Tallavajhala; Mohamad Abdi; Pim J A Oomen; Xu Gao; Rohit Malhotra; Andrew Darby; Oliver J Monfredi; J Michael Mangrum; Pamela Mason; Sula Mazimba; Michael Salerno; Christopher M Kramer; Frederick H Epstein; Jeffrey W Holmes; Kenneth C Bilchick Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-09-15