Predictors of positive response to cardiac resynchronization therapy

Guo

2017

Journal of Arrhythmia

BackgroundConventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT, Bi‐V) is associated with no response in about 40% patients due to an insufficient resynchronization. Some studies showed triple‐site ventricular (Tri‐V) pacing had greater benefits compared with Bi‐V pacing, but the results of these studies were conflicting. We hypothesized that Tri‐V pacing had greater benefits on long‐term outcomes compared with Bi‐V pacing in patients with heart failure.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for clinical studies with related outcomes. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular geometry, functional capacity, and quality of life between Tri‐V pacing group and control group.ResultsFive trials with 251 patients were included in the analysis. Patients in the Tri‐V pacing group had a greater improvement in LVEF (WMD 4.04; 95% CI 2.15‐5.92, P < .001) and NYHA classes (WMD −0.27; 95% CI −0.42 to −0.11, P = .001) compared with control group. However, there were no significant differences in left ventricular geometry, six‐min walk distance, or Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire score between the two groups. The subgroup analyses showed there might be a greater improvement in LVEF in the Tri‐V pacing group in patients with QRS duration ≥ 155 ms (WMD 5.60; 95% CI 3.09‐8.10, P < .001).ConclusionsThe present analysis suggests that Tri‐V pacing has greater benefits in terms of an improvement in LVEF and functional capacity in patients with systolic heart failure, especially in patients with the duration of QRS ≥ 155 ms.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Comparison of triple‐site ventricular pacing versus conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with systolic heart failure: A meta‐analysis of randomized and observational studies

Guo

2017

Journal of Arrhythmia

Cardiology Research and Practice

“…Goldenberg et al demonstrated that LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) is associated with CRT response [10]. In addition, Rinkuniene et al reported that LVEDD < 75 mm is the strongest independent predictor of CRT response [11]. Díaz-Infante et al also found that LVEDD ≥ 75 mm is an independent predictor of nonresponse to CRT [12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combination of Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Diameter and QRS Duration Strongly Predicts Good Response to and Prognosis of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Guo

Liu

Cheng

et al. 2020

Background. Approximately 20–40% of recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) do not respond to it based on the current patient selection criteria. The purpose of this study was to identify baseline parameters that can predict CRT response and to evaluate the effect of those predictive parameters on long-term prognosis. Methods. This was a retrospective, nonrandomized, noncontrolled cohort study. Patients who received CRT in our centre were divided into responders and nonresponders by the definition of CRT response (an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≥5% and improvement of ≥1 New York Heart Association (NYHA) class from baseline to the 6-month follow-up). Results. Of the 101 patients, 68 were responders and 33 were nonresponders. Left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD; OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81–0.95, P=0.001) and QRS duration (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.04–1.10, P<0.001) were independent predictors of CRT response. The combination of LVEDD and QRS duration was more valuable for predicting CRT response (AUC 0.836; 95% CI: 0.76–0.91; P<0.001). Moreover, the combination of LVEDD ≤ 71 mm and QRS duration ≥ 170 ms had a low incidence of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalisation, and the composite endpoint. In addition, baseline LVEDD had a positive correlation with QRS duration (R=0.199, P=0.046). Responders to CRT had better LV reverse remodeling. Conclusion. The combination of LVEDD and QRS duration provided more robust prediction of CRT response. Moreover, the combination of LVEDD ≤ 71 mm and QRS duration ≥ 170 ms was associated with a low incidence of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalisation, and the composite endpoint. Our results may be useful to provide individualized patient selection for CRT.

“…According to echocardiographic criteria, patients who had an increase of LVEF ≥5% after 6 months of CRT treatment was defined as responders to CRT [13], patients with an increase of LVEF < 5% were categorized as non-responders. In current study, subjects were divided into discovery set (n = 51, 27 responders and 24 nonresponders) and validation set (n = 54, 36 responders and 18 non-responders).…”

Section: Study Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Circulating metabolite profiles to predict response to cardiac resynchronization therapy

Gong

Sun

Huang

et al. 2020

BMC Cardiovasc Disord

Background: Heart failure is associated with ventricular dyssynchrony and energetic inefficiency, which can be alleviated by cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with approximately one-third of non-response rate. Thus far, there is no specific biomarker to predict the response to CRT in patients with heart failure. In this study, we assessed the role of the blood metabolomic profile in predicting the response to CRT. Methods: A total of 105 dilated cardiomyopathy patients with severe heart failure who received CRT were included in our two-stage study. Baseline blood samples were collected prior to CRT implantation. The response to CRT was defined according to echocardiographic criteria. Metabolomic profiling of serum samples was carried out using ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography coupled with quadrupole-time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Results: Seventeen metabolites showed significant differences in their levels between responders and nonresponders, and these metabolites were primarily involved in six pathways, including linoleic acid metabolism, Valine, leucine and isoleucine biosynthesis, phenylalanine metabolism, citrate cycle, tryptophan metabolism, and sphingolipid metabolism. A combination of isoleucine, tryptophan, and linoleic acid was identified as an ideal metabolite panel to distinguish responders from non-responders in the discovery set (n = 51 with an AUC of 0.981), and it was confirmed in the validation set (n = 54 with an AUC of 0.929). Conclusions: Mass spectrometry based serum metabolomics approach provided larger coverage of metabolome which can help distinguish CRT responders from non-responders. A combination of isoleucine, tryptophan, and linoleic acid may associate with significant prognostic values for CRT.