Cargando…

Strain-time curve analysis by speckle tracking echocardiography in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Insight into the pathophysiology of responders vs. non-responders

BACKGROUND: Patients with non-ischemic heart failure etiology and left bundle branch block (LBBB) show better response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). While these patients have the most pronounced left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony, LV dyssynchrony assessment often fails to predict outco...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: To, Andrew C. Y., Benatti, Rodolfo D., Sato, Kimi, Grimm, Richard A., Thomas, James D., Wilkoff, Bruce L., Agler, Deborah, Popović, Zoran B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4835914/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27090784
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12947-016-0057-4
_version_ 1782427695099936768
author To, Andrew C. Y.
Benatti, Rodolfo D.
Sato, Kimi
Grimm, Richard A.
Thomas, James D.
Wilkoff, Bruce L.
Agler, Deborah
Popović, Zoran B.
author_facet To, Andrew C. Y.
Benatti, Rodolfo D.
Sato, Kimi
Grimm, Richard A.
Thomas, James D.
Wilkoff, Bruce L.
Agler, Deborah
Popović, Zoran B.
author_sort To, Andrew C. Y.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patients with non-ischemic heart failure etiology and left bundle branch block (LBBB) show better response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). While these patients have the most pronounced left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony, LV dyssynchrony assessment often fails to predict outcome. We hypothesized that patients with favorable outcome from CRT can be identified by a characteristic strain distribution pattern. METHODS: From 313 patients who underwent CRT between 2003 and 2006, we identified 10 patients who were CRT non-responders (no LV end-systolic volume [LVESV] reduction) with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB and compared with randomly selected CRT responders (n = 10; LVESV reduction ≥15 %). Longitudinal strain (ε(long)) data were obtained by speckle tracking echocardiography before and after (9 ± 5 months) CRT implantation and standardized segmental ε(long)-time curves were obtained by averaging individual patients. RESULTS: In responders, ejection fraction (EF) increased from 25 ± 9 to 40 ± 11 % (p = 0.002), while in non-responders, EF was unchanged (20 ± 8 to 21 ± 5 %, p = 0.57). Global ε(long) was significantly lower in non-responders at pre CRT (p = 0.02) and only improved in responders (p = 0.04) after CRT. Pre CRT septal ε(long) -time curves in both groups showed early septal contraction with mid-systolic decrease, while lateral ε(long) showed early stretch followed by vigorous mid to late contraction. Restoration of contraction synchrony was observed in both groups, though non-responder remained low amplitude of ε(long). CONCLUSIONS: CRT non-responders with LBBB and non-ischemic etiology showed a similar improvement of ε(long) pattern with responders after CRT implantation, while amplitude of ε(long) remained unchanged. Lower ε(long) in the non-responders may account for their poor response to CRT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4835914
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48359142016-04-20 Strain-time curve analysis by speckle tracking echocardiography in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Insight into the pathophysiology of responders vs. non-responders To, Andrew C. Y. Benatti, Rodolfo D. Sato, Kimi Grimm, Richard A. Thomas, James D. Wilkoff, Bruce L. Agler, Deborah Popović, Zoran B. Cardiovasc Ultrasound Research BACKGROUND: Patients with non-ischemic heart failure etiology and left bundle branch block (LBBB) show better response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). While these patients have the most pronounced left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony, LV dyssynchrony assessment often fails to predict outcome. We hypothesized that patients with favorable outcome from CRT can be identified by a characteristic strain distribution pattern. METHODS: From 313 patients who underwent CRT between 2003 and 2006, we identified 10 patients who were CRT non-responders (no LV end-systolic volume [LVESV] reduction) with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB and compared with randomly selected CRT responders (n = 10; LVESV reduction ≥15 %). Longitudinal strain (ε(long)) data were obtained by speckle tracking echocardiography before and after (9 ± 5 months) CRT implantation and standardized segmental ε(long)-time curves were obtained by averaging individual patients. RESULTS: In responders, ejection fraction (EF) increased from 25 ± 9 to 40 ± 11 % (p = 0.002), while in non-responders, EF was unchanged (20 ± 8 to 21 ± 5 %, p = 0.57). Global ε(long) was significantly lower in non-responders at pre CRT (p = 0.02) and only improved in responders (p = 0.04) after CRT. Pre CRT septal ε(long) -time curves in both groups showed early septal contraction with mid-systolic decrease, while lateral ε(long) showed early stretch followed by vigorous mid to late contraction. Restoration of contraction synchrony was observed in both groups, though non-responder remained low amplitude of ε(long). CONCLUSIONS: CRT non-responders with LBBB and non-ischemic etiology showed a similar improvement of ε(long) pattern with responders after CRT implantation, while amplitude of ε(long) remained unchanged. Lower ε(long) in the non-responders may account for their poor response to CRT. BioMed Central 2016-04-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4835914/ /pubmed/27090784 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12947-016-0057-4 Text en © To et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
To, Andrew C. Y.
Benatti, Rodolfo D.
Sato, Kimi
Grimm, Richard A.
Thomas, James D.
Wilkoff, Bruce L.
Agler, Deborah
Popović, Zoran B.
Strain-time curve analysis by speckle tracking echocardiography in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Insight into the pathophysiology of responders vs. non-responders
title Strain-time curve analysis by speckle tracking echocardiography in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Insight into the pathophysiology of responders vs. non-responders
title_full Strain-time curve analysis by speckle tracking echocardiography in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Insight into the pathophysiology of responders vs. non-responders
title_fullStr Strain-time curve analysis by speckle tracking echocardiography in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Insight into the pathophysiology of responders vs. non-responders
title_full_unstemmed Strain-time curve analysis by speckle tracking echocardiography in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Insight into the pathophysiology of responders vs. non-responders
title_short Strain-time curve analysis by speckle tracking echocardiography in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Insight into the pathophysiology of responders vs. non-responders
title_sort strain-time curve analysis by speckle tracking echocardiography in cardiac resynchronization therapy: insight into the pathophysiology of responders vs. non-responders
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4835914/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27090784
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12947-016-0057-4
work_keys_str_mv AT toandrewcy straintimecurveanalysisbyspeckletrackingechocardiographyincardiacresynchronizationtherapyinsightintothepathophysiologyofrespondersvsnonresponders
AT benattirodolfod straintimecurveanalysisbyspeckletrackingechocardiographyincardiacresynchronizationtherapyinsightintothepathophysiologyofrespondersvsnonresponders
AT satokimi straintimecurveanalysisbyspeckletrackingechocardiographyincardiacresynchronizationtherapyinsightintothepathophysiologyofrespondersvsnonresponders
AT grimmricharda straintimecurveanalysisbyspeckletrackingechocardiographyincardiacresynchronizationtherapyinsightintothepathophysiologyofrespondersvsnonresponders
AT thomasjamesd straintimecurveanalysisbyspeckletrackingechocardiographyincardiacresynchronizationtherapyinsightintothepathophysiologyofrespondersvsnonresponders
AT wilkoffbrucel straintimecurveanalysisbyspeckletrackingechocardiographyincardiacresynchronizationtherapyinsightintothepathophysiologyofrespondersvsnonresponders
AT aglerdeborah straintimecurveanalysisbyspeckletrackingechocardiographyincardiacresynchronizationtherapyinsightintothepathophysiologyofrespondersvsnonresponders
AT popoviczoranb straintimecurveanalysisbyspeckletrackingechocardiographyincardiacresynchronizationtherapyinsightintothepathophysiologyofrespondersvsnonresponders