Prediction of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Response Using Quantitative Gated Myocardial Perfusion Imaging.

Conventional selection criteria are not consistently able to discriminate between responders and non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The objective of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of quantitative gated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in predicting the response to CRT. This prospective cross-sectional study included 25 patients with advanced congestive heart failure who underwent quantitative gated SPECT before and after CRT implantation. Patients with the left ventricular (LV) lead positioned at the latest activation segment away from the scar had a significantly higher chance of responding than those with the lead positioned at a different area. Responders were likely to have a phase standard deviation (PSD) value of >33°, with 86.6% sensitivity and 90% specificity, and a phase histogram bandwidth (PHB) value of >153°, with 100% sensitivity and 80% specificity. Quantitative gated SPECT can help refine patient selection for CRT implantation, using PSD and PHB cutoff points, in addition to guiding the positioning of the LV lead.

Left atrium in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Active participant or innocent bystander.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment for patients with advanced heart failure that results in improvement of left ventricle (LV) systolic function and LV reverse remodeling. This may have a positive effect on the size and the function of the left atrium (LA). We assessed the LA function, dimensions, and volumes before and after CRT implantation. METHODS: A total of 37 patients with mean age of 55.3 ± 9.64 years including 11 (29.7%) females, having symptomatic heart failure [ejection fraction (EF) <35%, left bundle branch block >120 ms, with New York Heart Association III or ambulatory class IV] were enrolled, and underwent CRT implantation. M-mode, two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography, tissue Doppler imaging, and 2D strain (ɛ) imaging were done assessing LV volumes, ejection fraction, and diastolic function, LA diameter, area, maximal and minimal volumes, LA EF, and longitudinal strain (ɛ). Patients were reassessed after 3 months. A reduction in LV end-systolic volume of ≥10% was defined as volumetric responders to CRT. Patients with decompensated New York Heart Association class IV, sustained atrial arrhythmias, rheumatic or congenital heart diseases, nonleft bundle branch block, and those who were poorly echogenic, were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-four (64.8%) patients were volumetric responders (group A). Both groups were matched regarding demographic, clinical, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic criteria apart from the LA dimension and volumes which were significantly lower in the responders group prior to CRT. At the end of the follow-up, only the responders group had further significant reduction in LA diameter (41.6 ± 1.67 vs. 43.88 ± 1.82 mm, p < 0.01), maximal volume (62.2 ± 18.3 vs. 73.04 ± 21.78 ml, p < 0.01), minimal volume (32.6 ± 12.3 vs. 41.8 ± 13.97, p < 0.01), together with a significant increase in LA EF (48.3 ± 11.3 vs. 41.99 ± 13.9, p < 0.01), positive longitudinal strain (16.59% ± 5.89 vs. 12.45% ± 6.12, p < 0.01), and negative longitudinal strain (-3.3 ± 1.9 vs. -1.62 ± 1.2, p < 0.01) compared to baseline readings, a finding that was not present in the nonresponders group. In addition, atrial fibrillation was significantly higher in the nonresponders group. Baseline LA diameter and volumes were found to be independent predictors of response to CRT by multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: CRT induces LA anatomic, electrical, and structural reverse remodeling that could be assessed by conventional 2D echocardiography and 2D (ɛ) strain imaging. LA dimension and volumes were independent predictors of response to CRT and can help in selection of candidates for it.

Using three-dimensional echocardiography to guide left ventricle lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy: does it make any difference.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for patients with advanced heart failure. Nearly 30% of candidates are inadequate responders. Proper patient selection, left ventricle (LV) lead placement optimization, and optimization of the programming of the CRT device are important approaches to improve outcome of CRT. We examined the role of three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography in determining the optimal LV lead position as a method of optimizing CRT response. METHODS: Forty-seven patients with a mean age of 60.2 ± 11.1 years including five (10.6%) females, all having advanced CHF (EF <35%, LBBB >120 mesc, or non-LBBB >150 msec, with NYHA II-III or ambulatory class IV) were enrolled. Detailed history (NYHA class, Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire), clinical examination, 6-min walk test, and standard 2D echocardiography were done in all cases. 3D echo detailed analysis of the LV 16 segments was done to determine the latest wall to reach the minimal systolic volume. Multisite pacing was done blind to the 3D echo data achieving a stable LV lead position in mid LV segment. This exact fluoroscopic site was determined (in two orthogonal views) and correlated with 3D most delayed area using a resized 16-segment schema. Patients were classified retrospectively into group A with concordance between the delayed LV area and LV lead position and group B with discordance between both. Patients were followed up after 3-6 (5.1 ± 1.8) months. Patients with reduction of 2D LV end-systolic volume of ≥10% at follow-up were termed volumetric responders. Poorly echogenic patients and those with decompensated NYHA class IV, sustained atrial arrhythmias, and rheumatic or congenital heart diseases were excluded. RESULTS: LV lead placement was concordant in 22 (46.8%) cases. After the follow-up period, 31 (65.9%) of the study population were considered volumetric responders with no significant difference among both groups (14 (63.3%) in group A vs 17 (68%) in group B, p > 0.05). CRT insertion resulted in significant improvement of NYHA class in 36 (76.5%) cases, 6-min walk test (447.2 ± 127.0 vs 369.6 ± 87.5 m, p < 0.01), MLHFQ (58.1 ± 19.7 vs 69.6 ± 13.5, p < 0.01), QRS duration (131.2 ± 13.8 vs 149.4 ± 16 msec, p < 0.01), 2D LV EF 33.0 ± 9.5 vs 25.3 ± 6.5, p < 0.001), LVESV (156.0 ± 82.9 vs177.6 ± 92.7 ml, p < 0.05), and 3D LVEF (29.1 ± 9.0 vs 23.6 ± 5.9, p < 0.001) irrespective of the etiology of heart failure. However, there were no significant differences between both groups regarding the same parameters (6-min walk test 470.8 ± 128.7 vs 428.3 ± 126.8 m, MLHFQ 56.8 ± 20.0 vs 58.11 ± 19.0, QRS duration 129.9 ± 12.4 vs 132.1 ± 15.1 msec, 2D LVEF 30.9 ± 8.3 vs 34.58 ± 10.9, LVESV 173.0 ± 110.0 vs 143.0 ± 67.9, 3D LVEF 26 ± 8 vs 31 ± 9, for groups A and B, respectively, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Standard anatomical LV lead placement remains a simple, practical, and effective method in patients undergoing CRT. 3D echocardiography-guided LV lead placement added no clinical benefit compared to standard techniques.