Left ventricular lead electrical delay predicts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.
ABSTRACT Intracardiac electrograms can be used to guide left ventricular (LV) lead placement during implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. Although attempts often are made to ensure that the LV lead is positioned at a site of maximal electrical delay, information on whether this is useful in predicting the acute hemodynamic response and long-term clinical outcome to CRT is limited.
The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of intracardiac (electrogram) measurements made during LV lead placement in patients undergoing CRT for predicting acute hemodynamic response and long-term clinical outcome to CRT.
Seventy-one subjects with standard indications for CRT underwent electrogram measurements and echocardiograms performed in the acute phase of this study. The LV lead electrical delay was measured intraoperatively from the onset of the surface ECG QRS complex to the onset of the sensed electrogram on the LV lead, as a percentage of the baseline QRS interval. Echocardiographic assessment of the hemodynamic response to CRT was measured as an intra-individual percentage change in dP/dt over baseline (DeltadP/dt, derived from the mitral regurgitation Doppler profile) with CRT on and off. dP/dt was measurable in 48 subjects, and acute responders to CRT were defined as those with DeltadP/dt >or=25%. Long-term response was measured as a combined endpoint of hospitalization for heart failure and/or all cause mortality at 12 months. Time to the primary endpoint was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, with comparisons made using the log rank test.
LV lead electrical delay correlated weakly with DeltadP/dt of the combined group (n = 48, r = 0.311, P = .029) but was strongly correlated with DeltadP/dt in the nonischemic subgroup (n = 20, r = 0.48, P = .027). LV lead electrical delay (%) was significantly longer in acute responders (69.6 +/- 23.9 vs 31.95 +/- 11.57, P = .002) among patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. A reduced LV lead electrical delay (<50% of the QRS duration) was associated with worse clinical outcome within the entire cohort (hazard ratio: 2.7, 95% confidence interval: 1.17-6.68, P = .032) as well as when stratified into ischemic and nonischemic subgroups.
Measuring LV lead electrical delay is useful during CRT device implantation because it may help predict hemodynamic response and long-term clinical outcome.
[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 CommitteeJournal 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