Cargando…

A new baseline scoring system may help to predict response to cardiac resynchronization therapy

INTRODUCTION: The PROSPECT trial reported no single echocardiographic measurement of dyssynchrony is recommended to improve patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 100 consecutive patients who received CRT, we analyzed 27 ECG and echocardiographic vari...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shen, Xuedong, Nair, Chandra K., Aronow, Wilbert S., Holmberg, Mak J., Reddy, Madhu, Anand, Kishley, Hee, Tom, Chen, Aimin, Fang, Xiang, Maciejewski, Stephanie, Esterbrooks, Dennis J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3258780/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22291798
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2011.24132
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: The PROSPECT trial reported no single echocardiographic measurement of dyssynchrony is recommended to improve patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 100 consecutive patients who received CRT, we analyzed 27 ECG and echocardiographic variables to predict a positive response to CRT defined as a left ventricular (LV) end systolic volume decrease of ≥ 15% after CRT. RESULTS: Right ventricular (RV) pacing-induced left bundle branch block (LBBB), time difference between LV ejection measured by tissue Doppler and pulsed wave Doppler (T(TDI-PW)), and wall motion score index (WMSI) were significantly associated with positive CRT response by multivariate regression. We assigned 1 point for RV pacing-induced LBBB, 1 point for WMSI ≤ 1.59, and 2 points for T(TDI-PW) > 50 ms. Overall mean response score was 1.79 ±1.39. Cutoff point for response score to predict positive response to CRT was > 2 by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Area under ROC curve was 0.97 (p = 0.0001). Cardiac resynchronization therapy responders in patients with response score > 2 and ≤ 2 were 36/38 (95%) and 7/62 (11%, p < 0.001), respectively. After age and gender adjustment, the response score was related to CRT response (OR = 45.4, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A response score generated from clinical, ECG and echocardiographic variables may be a useful predictor for CRT response. However, this needs to be validated.