Cargando…

Clinical effectiveness of a dedicated cardiac resynchronization therapy pre-assessment clinic incorporating cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and cardiopulmonary exercise testing on patient selection and outcomes

BACKGROUND: Pre-procedural assessment of patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is heterogenous and patients implanted with unfavorable characteristics may account for non-response. A dedicated CRT pre-assessment clinic (CRT PAC) was developed to standardize the review process a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sidhu, Baldeep S., Gould, Justin, Elliott, Mark K., Mehta, Vishal S., Niederer, Steven A., Carr-White, Gerald, Rinaldi, Christopher A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8203725/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34159251
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100800
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Pre-procedural assessment of patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is heterogenous and patients implanted with unfavorable characteristics may account for non-response. A dedicated CRT pre-assessment clinic (CRT PAC) was developed to standardize the review process and undertake structured pre-procedural evaluation. The aim of this analysis was to determine the effectiveness on patient selection and outcomes. METHODS: A prospective database of consecutive patients attending the CRT PAC between 2013 and 2018 was analyzed. Pre-operative assessment included cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). Patients were considered CRT responders based on improvement in clinical composite score (CCS) and/or reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) ≥ 15% at 6-months follow-up. RESULTS: Of 252 patients reviewed in the CRT PAC during the analysis period, 192 fulfilled consensus guidelines for implantation. Of the patients receiving CRT, 82% showed improvement in their CCS and 57% had a reduction in LVESV ≥ 15%. The presence of subendocardial scar on CMR and a peak VO(2) ≤ 12 ml/kg/min on CPET predicted CRT non-response. Two patients were unsuitable for CRT as they had end-stage heart failure and died during follow-up. The majority of patients initially deemed unsuitable for CRT did not suffer from unexpected hospitalization for decompensated heart failure or died from cardiovascular disease; only 8 patients (13%) received CRT devices during follow-up because of symptomatic left ventricular systolic impairment. CONCLUSION: A dedicated CRT PAC is able to appropriately select patients for CRT. Pre-procedural investigation/imaging can identify patients unlikely to respond to, or may not yet be suitable for CRT.