Abstract

The aim of the study was: (1) to verify the hypothesis that left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) may be of additive prognostic value in prediction CRT response and (2) to obtain such a LVGLS value that in the best optimal way enables to characterize potential CRT responders. Forty-nine HF patients (age 66.5 ± 10 years, LVEF 24.9 ± 6.4%, LBBB 71.4%, 57.1% ischemic aetiology of HF) underwent CRT implantation. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed prior to and 15 ± 7 months after CRT implantation. Speckle-tracking echocardiography was performed to assess longitudinal left ventricular function as LVGLS. The response to CRT was defined as a ≥ 15% reduction in the left ventricular end-systolic volume (∆LVESV). Thirty-six (73.5%) patients responded to CRT. There was no linear correlation between baseline LVGLS and ∆LVESV (r = 0.09; p = 0.56). The patients were divided according to the percentile of baseline LVGLS: above 80th percentile; between 80 and 40th percentile; below 40th percentile. Two peripheral groups (above 80th and below 40th percentile) formed “peripheral LVGLS” and the middle group was called “mid-range LVGLS”. The absolute LVGLS cutoff values were − 6.07% (40th percentile) and − 8.67% (80th percentile). For the group of 20 (40.8%) “mid-range LVGLS” patients mean ΔLVESV was 33.3 ± 16.9% while for “peripheral LVGLS” ΔLVESV was 16.2 ± 18.8% (p < 0.001). Among non-ischemic HF etiology, all “mid-range LVGLS” patients (100%) responded positively to CRT (in “peripheral LVGLS”—55% responders; p = 0.015). Baseline LVGLS may have a potential prognostic value in prediction CRT response with relationship of inverted J-shaped pattern. “Mid-range LVGLS” values should help to select CRT responders, especially in non-ischemic HF etiology patients.

Highlights

  • Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is approved form of treatment for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and prolonged QRS duration [1, 2]

  • The prospective study included 49 patients (84% male, 66.5 ± 10 years, 34.7%/63.3% in New York Heart Association class II/III) with symptomatic heart failure who met the criteria for CRT implantation in class I/IIa according to the 2013 ESC guidelines [15]

  • The study included a total of 49 patients (84% male, 66.5 ± 10 years, NYHA II/III/IV: 34.7%/63.3%/2%; 57.1% ischemic aetiology of HF), who underwent CRT implantation

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is approved form of treatment for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and prolonged QRS duration [1, 2]. Identification of ‘responders’ and ‘nonresponders’ before CRT implantation is still the essence of the matter and up to 40% of patients do not benefit after CRT implantation [3]. Michal Orszulak and Artur Filipecki contributed to this manuscript. The incidence of non-responders remains the same for many years despite the numbers of trials and great effort that have been dedicated to improve the identification of responders. Dyssynchrony has been thought to be the missing link. To date, all the approaches have turned out to be suboptimal in this regard [4]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call