Zhuo He1, Dianfu Li2, Chang Cui2, Hui-Yuan Qin2, Zhongqiang Zhao2, Xiaofeng Hou2, Jiangang Zou2, Ming-Long Chen2, Cheng Wang3, Weihua Zhou4,5. 1. Department of Applied Computing, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Dr, Houghton, MI, 49931, USA. 2. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, China. 3. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, China. wangcheng361@126.com. 4. Department of Applied Computing, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Dr, Houghton, MI, 49931, USA. whzhou@mtu.edu. 5. Center for Biocomputing and Digital Health, Institute of Computing and Cybersystems, and Health Research Institute, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Dr, Houghton, MI, 49931, USA. whzhou@mtu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients with different pathophysiology may influence mechanical dyssynchrony and get different ventricular resynchronization and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Ninety-two dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and fifty ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) patients with gated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) were included in this retrospective study. Patients were classified based on the concordance between the left ventricular (LV) lead and the latest contraction or relaxation position. If the LV lead was located on or adjacent to both the latest contraction and relaxation position, the patient was categorized into the both match group; if the LV lead was located on or adjacent to the latest contraction or relaxation position, the patient was classified into the one match group; if the LV lead was located on or adjacent to neither the latest contraction nor relaxation position, the patient was categorized to the neither group. CRT response was defined as [Formula: see text] improvement of LV ejection fraction at the 6-month follow-up. Variables with P < .05 in the univariate analysis were included in the stepwise multivariate model. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 58.7% (54 of 92) for DCM patients and 54% (27 of 50) for ICM patients were CRT responders. The univariate analysis and stepwise multivariate analysis showed that QRS duration, systolic phase bandwidth (PBW), diastolic PBW, diastolic phase histogram standard deviation (PSD), and left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony (LVMD) concordance were independent predictors of CRT response in DCM patients; diabetes mellitus and left ventricular end-systolic volume were significantly associated with CRT response in ICM patients. The intra-group comparison revealed that the CRT response rate was significantly different in the both match group of DCM (N = 18, 94%) and ICM (N = 24, 62%) patients (P = .016). However, there was no significant difference between DCM and ICM in the one match and neither group. For the inter-group comparison, Kruskal-Wallis H-test revealed that CRT response was significantly different in all the groups of DCM patients (P < .001), but not in ICM patients (P = .383). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ICM patients, systolic PBW, diastolic PBW and PSD have better predictive and prognostic values for the CRT response in DCM patients. Placing the LV lead in or adjacent to the latest contraction and relaxation position can improve the clinical outcomes of DCM patients, but it does not apply to ICM patients.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients with different pathophysiology may influence mechanical dyssynchrony and get different ventricular resynchronization and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Ninety-two dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and fifty ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) patients with gated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) were included in this retrospective study. Patients were classified based on the concordance between the left ventricular (LV) lead and the latest contraction or relaxation position. If the LV lead was located on or adjacent to both the latest contraction and relaxation position, the patient was categorized into the both match group; if the LV lead was located on or adjacent to the latest contraction or relaxation position, the patient was classified into the one match group; if the LV lead was located on or adjacent to neither the latest contraction nor relaxation position, the patient was categorized to the neither group. CRT response was defined as [Formula: see text] improvement of LV ejection fraction at the 6-month follow-up. Variables with P < .05 in the univariate analysis were included in the stepwise multivariate model. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 58.7% (54 of 92) for DCM patients and 54% (27 of 50) for ICM patients were CRT responders. The univariate analysis and stepwise multivariate analysis showed that QRS duration, systolic phase bandwidth (PBW), diastolic PBW, diastolic phase histogram standard deviation (PSD), and left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony (LVMD) concordance were independent predictors of CRT response in DCM patients; diabetes mellitus and left ventricular end-systolic volume were significantly associated with CRT response in ICM patients. The intra-group comparison revealed that the CRT response rate was significantly different in the both match group of DCM (N = 18, 94%) and ICM (N = 24, 62%) patients (P = .016). However, there was no significant difference between DCM and ICM in the one match and neither group. For the inter-group comparison, Kruskal-Wallis H-test revealed that CRT response was significantly different in all the groups of DCM patients (P < .001), but not in ICM patients (P = .383). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ICM patients, systolic PBW, diastolic PBW and PSD have better predictive and prognostic values for the CRT response in DCM patients. Placing the LV lead in or adjacent to the latest contraction and relaxation position can improve the clinical outcomes of DCM patients, but it does not apply to ICM patients.
Authors: Neal A Chatterjee; Gaurav A Upadhyay; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Finlay A McAlister; Niteesh K Choudhry; Jagmeet P Singh Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2011-12-20
Authors: Xiongchao Chen; P Hendrik Pretorius; Bo Zhou; Hui Liu; Karen Johnson; Yi-Hwa Liu; Michael A King; Chi Liu Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Anna I Mishkina; Victor V Saushkin; Tariel A Atabekov; Svetlana I Sazonova; Vladimir V Shipulin; Samia Massalha; Roman E Batalov; Sergey V Popov; Konstantin V Zavadovsky Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 3.872