Absence of left ventricular apical rocking and atrial-ventricular dyssynchrony predicts non-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.
ABSTRACT Current imaging techniques attempt to identify responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, because CRT response may depend upon several factors, it may be clinically more useful to identify patients for whom CRT would not be beneficial even under optimal conditions. We aimed to determine the negative predictive value of a composite echocardiographic index evaluating atrial-ventricular dyssynchrony (AV-DYS) and intraventricular dyssynchrony.
Subjects with standard indications for CRT underwent echo before and during the month following device implantation. AV-DYS was defined as a percentage of left ventricular (LV) filling time over the cardiac cycle. AV-DYS, which produces a characteristic rocking of the LV apex, was quantified as the percentage of the cardiac cycle over which tissue Doppler-derived displacement curves of the septal and lateral walls showed discordance. CRT responder status was determined based on the early haemodynamic response to CRT (intra-individual improvement >25% in the Doppler-derived LV dP/dt). Among 40 patients, optimal cut-points predicting CRT response were 31% for LV apical rocking and 39% for AV-DYS. The presence of either apical rocking >31% or AV-DYS ≤ 39% had a sensitivity of 95%, specificity of 80%, positive predictive value of 83%, and a negative predictive value of 94% for CRT response.
After pre-selection of candidates for CRT by QRS duration, application of a simple composite echocardiographic index may exclude patients who would be non-responders to CRT and thus improve the global rate of therapy success.
- SourceAvailable from: Mark John Monaghan[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been used extensively over the last years in the therapeutic management of patients with end-stage heart failure. Data from 4,017 patients have been published in eight large, randomized trials on CRT. Improvement in clinical end points (symptoms, exercise capacity, quality of life) and echocardiographic end points (systolic function, left ventricular size, mitral regurgitation) have been reported after CRT, with a reduction in hospitalizations for decompensated heart failure and an improvement in survival. However, individual results vary, and 20% to 30% of patients do not respond to CRT. At present, the selection criteria include severe heart failure (New York Heart Association functional class III or IV), left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, and wide QRS complex (>120 ms). Assessment of inter- and particularly intraventricular dyssynchrony as provided by echocardiography (predominantly tissue Doppler imaging techniques) may allow improved identification of potential responders to CRT. In this review a summary of the clinical and echocardiographic results of the large, randomized trials is provided, followed by an extensive overview on the currently available echocardiographic techniques for assessment of LV dyssynchrony. In addition, the value of LV scar tissue and venous anatomy for the selection of potential candidates for CRT are discussed.Journal of the American College of Cardiology 12/2005; 46(12):2153-67. · 14.09 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Multiple imaging modalities are required in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy. We have developed a strategy to integrate echocardiographic and angiographic information to facilitate left ventricle (LV) lead position. Full three-dimensional LV-volumes (3DLVV) and dyssynchrony maps were acquired before and after resynchronization. At the time of device implantation, 3D-rotational coronary venous angiography was performed. 3D-models of the veins were then integrated with the pre- and post-3DLVV. In the case displayed, prior to implantation, the lateral wall was delayed compared to the septum. The LV lead was positioned into the vein over the most delayed region, resulting in improved LV synchrony.Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 09/2007; 30(8):1021-2. · 1.75 Impact Factor
- European Journal of Heart Failure 01/2010; 12(1):52-7. · 5.25 Impact Factor