Article
Left ventricular lead electrical delay predicts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA.
Heart Rhythm (impact factor:
4.1).
11/2006;
3(11):1285-92.
DOI:10.1016/j.hrthm.2006.07.034
pp.1285-92
Source: PubMed
-
Citations (0)
- Cited In (4)
-
Article: Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: is it time to expand the criteria?
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a promising treatment for a subgroup of patients with advanced congestive heart failure and a prolonged QRS interval. Despite the majority of patients benefiting from CRT, 10-40% of patients do not respond to this treatment and are labeled as nonresponders. Given that there is a lack of consensus on how to define response to CRT, the purpose of this viewpoint is to discuss currently used definitions and their shortcomings, and to provide recommendations as to how an expansion of the criteria for CRT response may be useful to clinicians. Analysis of the literature and case reports indicates that the majority of established measures of CRT response, including New York Heart Association functional class and echocardiographic, hemodynamic, and neurohormonal parameters, are poor associates of patient-reported symptoms and quality of life. Moreover, the potential moderating role of psychological factors in determining health outcomes after CRT has largely been neglected. It is recommended to routinely assess health status after CRT with a disease-specific questionnaire in standard clinical practice and to examine its determinants, including psychological factors such as personality traits and depression. This may lead to improved (secondary) treatment and prognosis in CHF patients treated with CRT.Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 09/2009; 32(10):1247-56. · 1.35 Impact Factor -
Article: Indications for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: 2011 Update from the Heart Failure Society of America Guideline Committee
Journal of Cardiac Failure 02/2012; 18(2-2):94-106. · 3.66 Impact Factor -
Article: 2012 EHRA/HRS expert consensus statement on cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: implant and follow-up recommendations and management.
Europace 09/2012; 14(9):1236-86. · 1.98 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual
current impact factor.
Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence
agreement may be applicable.
Keywords
48 subjects
95% confidence interval
acute phase
acute responders
baseline QRS interval
cause mortality
combined endpoint
combined group
CRT device implantation
Echocardiographic assessment
electrogram measurements
hazard ratio
heart failure
Kaplan-Meier method
long-term clinical outcome
nonischemic subgroups
patients undergoing CRT
primary endpoint
QRS duration
sensed electrogram