Affiliation:
1. “George I.M. Georgescu” Cardiovascular Disease Institute , Iași , Romania
2. “Grigore T. Popa”, University of Medicine and Pharmacy , Iași , Romania
Abstract
Abstract
Background: In just a few years, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has emerged as a key player in the treatment of advanced heart failure (HF). However, approximately 30% of patients with CRT device implantation do not achieve a favorable response. The purpose of the present study was to identify clinical, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic predictors of a positive response to biventricular pacing in patients with advanced decompensated HF.
Methods: This prospective, observational study involved 42 consecutive patients admitted in emergency settings in our clinic with HF in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III/IV, with QRS duration ≥120 ms and left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, who underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-P or CRT-D) between January 2010 and July 2014. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS statistical software.
Results: The clinical response (improvement in NYHA class) was recorded in 6 patients (14.3%), while echocardiographic response (change in ejection fraction and/or in endsystolic or end-diastolic volumes) was recorded in 10 patients (23.8%). The most frequently observed type of response to CRT was the double (clinical plus echocardiographic) response, recorded in 23 out of 42 patients (54.8%). ROC analysis identified the absence of chronic renal disease and the duration from onset of symptoms to CRT implantation as good predictors for clinical improvement after CRT (AUC = 0.625, 95% CI: 0.400–0.850 for absence of renal failure and AUC = 0.516, 95% CI: 0.369–0.853 for symptoms duration). However, gender, age, duration from symptom onset, and comorbidities were not good predictors for the echocardiographic response (AUC <0.600).
Conclusions: CRT represents an important therapeutic option for selected patents with advanced decompensated HF and prolonged QRS interval; however, only some of the commonly used criteria can predict a favorable outcome in patients undergoing CRT.
Reference23 articles.
1. 1. Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, et al. 2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the Task Force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Eur Heart J. 2013;34:2281-2329. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht150.10.1093/eurheartj/eht150
2. 2. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18:891-975. doi:10.1002/ejhf.592.10.1002/ejhf.592
3. 3. Bui AL, Horwich TB, Fonarow GC. Epidemiology and risk profile of heart failure. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011;8:30-41. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2010.165.10.1038/nrcardio.2010.165
4. 4. Arsenescu Georgescu C, Gaitan A, Stătescu C. On Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy. Romanian Journal of Artistic Creativity. 2014;2:7-13.
5. 5. Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, et al. The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1539-1549. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa050496.10.1056/NEJMoa050496