Characterization of non‐response to cardiac resynchronization therapy by post‐procedural computed tomography. Issue 1 (19th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pezel, Théo; Mika, Delphine; Logeart, Damien; Cohen‐Solal, Alain; Beauvais, Florence; Henry, Patrick; Laissy, Jean Pierre; Moubarak, Ghassan
• Is Part Of: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology. Volume 44:Issue 1(2021)
• Page Start: 135
• Page End: 144
• Publication Date: 2020-12-19
• Subjects: cardiac resynchronization therapy -- computed tomography -- coronary veins -- dyssynchrony -- late iodine enhancement -- myocardial fibrosis; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1111/pace.14134
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0147-8389

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Causes of non‐response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) include mechanical dyssynchrony, myocardial scar, and suboptimal left ventricular (LV) lead location. We aimed to assess the utility of Late Iodine Enhancement Computed Tomography (LIE‐CT) with image subtraction in characterizing CRT non‐response. Methods: CRT response was defined as a decrease in LV end‐systolic volume > 15% at 6 months. LIE‐CT was performed after 6 months, and analyzed global and segmental dyssynchrony, myocardial scar, coronary venous anatomy, and position of LV lead relative to scar and segment of latest mechanical contraction. Results: We evaluated 29 patients (age 71 ± 12 years; 72% men) including 18 (62%) responders. All metrics evaluating residual dyssynchrony such as wall motion index and wall thickness index were worse in non‐responders. There was no difference in presence and extent of scar between responders and non‐responders. However, in non‐responders, the LV lead was more often over an akinetic/dyskinetic area (72% vs. 22%, p = .007), a fibrotic area (64% vs. 8%, p = .0007), an area with myocardial thickness < 6 mm (82% vs. 22%, p = .002), and less often concordant with the region of maximal wall thickness (9% vs. 72%, p = .001). Among the 11 non‐responders, eight had at least another coronary venous branch visualized by CT, including three (27%) coursing over a potentially interesting myocardial area (free of scar, with normal wall motion, and with a myocardial thickness ≥6 mm). Conclusion: LIE‐CT with image subtraction allows a comprehensive characterization of patients after CRT and may provide clues for management of non‐responders.