Echocardiography has a prominent role in the era of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by virtue of its noninvasive nature with high feasibility and reproducibility. More importantly, it permits serial assessment for optimization of the therapy before and after device implantation [1]. First, echocardiography can optimize selection of CRT candidates by baseline evaluation of left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony and myocardial contractility reserve. Second, it may be used to guide the LV lead position in order to avoid those areas with extensive scar. Finally, it is important in optimization of device programming, including atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) intervals. Although the clinical and echocardiographic benefits of CRT have been well demonstrated, about one-third of patients did not respond to the therapy, in whom the lack of systolic dyssynchrony before device implantation is mainly attributable [1,2]. Various advanced echo techniques, such as tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) and its postprocessing modalities, real-time 3-dimensional echocardiography (RT3DE) and 2-dimensional speckle tracking, have been proved to be able to detect LV dyssynchrony and predict acute or chronic favorable responses after CRT [3−5]. In addition, a certain myocardial reserve might also be necessary, as reflected by a positive result in stress echo or a preserved circumferential strain at baseline [6,7]. With rapidly evolving new technologies, more accurate identification of responders to CRT by echocardiography would be expected so as to reduce the number of nonresponders and improve the cost effectiveness of the therapy. Despite the presence of pre-implant LV dyssynchrony, recent data from MRI have demonstrated that patients with scar tissue in the posterolateral LV segments, where the LV lead is usually located, failed to show clinical and echocardiographic responses after CRT [8]. It suggests the importance of deploying the LV lead away from scar areas. However, it is unclear whether the assessment of scar region by use of echo methods would have predictive value, though the extent of scar tissue by contrast echo was shown to be inversely related to CRT responses [9]. It also needs more information whether discordance between the site of latest activation and the position of LV lead would give rise to a lesser degree of improvement after CRT, though being suggestive in observational and registry studies. Improvement of AV dyssynchrony is one of the mechanisms of benefit from CRT, which is particularly helpful in those patients with 1st AV block where diastolic filling time will be in further jeopardy [2]. Optimization of AV interval is in attempt to ensure AV synchrony and near 100% ventricular pacing in individual patient, which results in decrease in pre-systolic time, abolishment of diastolic mitral regurgitation, increase in LV filling time and gain in cardiac output. The two commonly employed methods by Doppler echocardiography are based on the principles of optimal LV diastolic filling or maximal cardiac output. Usually, AV interval optimization is performed shortly after the device implantation, ie. at the pre-discharge period. However, re-optimization of AV interval at intermediate (e.g. 3 months) and long-term (e.g.12−18 months) follow up may be necessary to further improvement in cardiac performance.[10] VV Optimization may further reduce ventricular dyssynchrony and hence improve systolic function. Currently, optimization of VV interval is commonly based on the reiterative cardiac output method, which is very time-consuming. However, the benefit of VV timing over conventional simultaneous biventricular pacing needs to be confirmed by large, prospective, randomized studies [11].
Read full abstract