51. Comparison of two methods to predict CRT-response
- Author
-
V Le Rolle, Erwan Donal, Alfredo Hernandez, E Galli, A Galard, and Arnaud Hubert
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Ischemic cardiomyopathy ,Ejection fraction ,Ventricular End-Systolic Volume ,business.industry ,Cardiomyopathy ,Diastole ,General Medicine ,medicine.disease ,Internal medicine ,Ventricular pressure ,medicine ,Cardiology ,End-diastolic volume ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,Systole ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business - Abstract
Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): Hospital university of Rennes INSERM - LTSI Background Non-invasive estimation of myocardial work by trans-thoracic echocardiography is a novel tool to analyze myocardial contraction efficiency during systole. Two methods are described, on using Left ventricular (LV) strain and a LV pressure estimation, and another with only LV strain integrals. The present study analyzes their utility in prediction of CRT-response. Methods and results: 243 patients implanted by a CRT according to current recommendations were retrospectively included in hospital university of Rennes. All patients had a complete trans-thoracic echocardiography at implantation and at 6-moths follow-up. Responders were defined as having a 15% decrease in indexed LV end-systolic volume at follow-up compared to baseline. Baseline characteristics are described in table 1. 25.1% were non-responders. In this group, there were more men, more ischemic cardiomyopathies with more dilated LV. Strain signals ware analyzed only in the most informative loop, the apical 4 cavities. Myocardial work estimation with LV pressure estimation was previously described. The 3 different integral of strain signal were represented in figure 1. According to ROC curves, myocardial work (particularly wasted work in septal wall with AUC = 0.718 ± 0.04) estimated with LV pressure estimation is better than strain integrals to predict LV positive remodeling (best AUC 0.631 ± 0.040) after CRT-implantation. Conclusion Left ventricular pressure estimation give useful information on top of strain curves for prediction for CRT-response. Table 1 Responders n = 182 Non-responders n = 61 Men (%) 109 (59.9%) 52 (85%) Ischemic cardiomyopathy (%) 42 (23.1%) 34 (55.7%) LVEF (%) 28 ± 6 28 ± 7 GLS (%) -9 ± 3 -7 ± 3 LVEDD (mm) 62 ± 8 67 ± 7 LVEDVi (ml/m2) 85 ± 34 88 ± 30 LVEF Left ventricular ejection fraction; GLS: global longitudinal strain; LVEDD: left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LVEDVi: left ventricular end diastolic volume index Abstract Figure 1
- Published
- 2021