Back to Search Start Over

Comparison of measures of ventricular delay on cardiac resynchronization therapy response.

Authors :
Field, Michael E.
Yu, Nancy
Wold, Nicholas
Gold, Michael R.
Source :
Heart Rhythm; Apr2020, Vol. 17 Issue 4, p615-620, 6p
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

<bold>Background: </bold>Left ventricular (LV) pacing at sites of prolonged LV delay (QLV) or at long interventricular delay (right ventricle [RV]-LV) is strongly associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response. QLV and RV-LV have been independently evaluated, but little is known regarding the interrelationship between these measures or of delay to the RV.<bold>Objective: </bold>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between measures of electrical delay on CRT response in the SMART-AV (SmartDelay Determined AV Optimization: A Comparison to Other AV Delay Methods Used in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial.<bold>Methods: </bold>In 419 patients, QLV and RV-LV were measured. CRT response was defined as a >15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume from implant to 6 months. The correlation between QLV and RV-LV and the clinical variables associated with the difference between QLV and RV-LV (QRV) were determined. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the association between these measures on CRT response. A machine learning algorithm was used to construct a classification tree to predict response to CRT.<bold>Results: </bold>The cohort was 66% male (age 66 ± 11 years), 75% had left bundle branch block; and QRS was 150 ± 25 ms. QLV and RV-LV were highly correlated (R2 = 0.71). A longer QRV was observed among patients with right bundle branch block, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and increased QRS. In a multivariable model including QLV, RV-LV, and other known predictors of CRT response, RV-LV, but not QLV, remained associated with CRT response (odds ratio 1.13; 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.26; P = .017). Combining the 2 measures achieved better prediction of CRT response in the group with intermediate RV-LV.<bold>Conclusion: </bold>RV-LV is a better predictor of CRT response than QLV. There is incremental value in using both measurements or QRV in certain subpopulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
15475271
Volume :
17
Issue :
4
Database :
Supplemental Index
Journal :
Heart Rhythm
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
142296818
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2019.11.023