Right ventricular dysfunction is a predictor of non-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. (14th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Neves Pereira, M; Leite, P.V.H; Dias, G; Cardoso, A.F; Tinoco, M; Azevedo, O; Lourenco, M; Ribeiro, S; Ferreira, F; Sanfins, V; Lourenco, A
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 42(2021)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2021-10-14
• Subjects: Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy (CRT); Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.0933
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-668X

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been of great benefit to many heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF) and intraventricular conduction delay. However, approximately 30% of patients fail to respond to CRT. We investigated baseline characteristics that might influence response to CRT. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 227 patients undergoing CRT implantation between 2013 and 2020 according to the guidelines. 118 patients were included in our analysis, from whom all data were available. Clinical, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters were evaluated at baseline and 6 months after CRT implantation. Response to CRT was defined as an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >10%. Right ventricular systolic dysfunction (RVSD) was defined as S' velocity <9.5 cm/s or tricuspid anular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) <17 mm. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) was defined as GFR <60 ml/min/1.73m 2 . Results: 118 patients were included (mean age 69±11 years, 66.1% males, 39.8% ischemic etiology; 35, 6% atrial fibrillation, baseline LVEF 27, 6±6%). After 6 months of CRT, 65 patients (55.1%) were considered responders. Responders were more frequently female than non responders (43, 1% vs 22, 6, p=0.02). Atrial fibrillation and CKD were more prevalent in non responders (47, 2% vs 26, 2%, p=0.018; 62, 3% vs 21, 5%, p<0.001, respectively). RVSD was present in 60, 4% of non responders vs 16, 9% of responders (p<0.001). In responder group, the mean S' velocity was 10, 9±2, 1 cm/s vs 9, 1±2, 1 cm/s in non responder group, p<0.001. The mean TAPSE was also higher in responder group (20, 3±7, 2 mm vs 16, 5±4, 4 mm, p=0.031). On multivariate analysis only RVSD (OR 7, 754; 95% CI 2, 968 – 20, 282 p<0.001] and CKD (OR 5, 434; 95% CI 2, 109 – 14, 002; p<0.001) were independently associated with non-response to CRT. Conclusion: From a range of preoperative characteristics, multivariate analysis only identified RVSD and CKD as independent predictors of CRT response, with S' <9, 5 cm/s and TAPSE <17 mm associated with non-response to CRT. This study highlights the importance of routine RV assessment in order to improve patient selection and optimize CRT response in heat failure patients. Funding Acknowledgement: Type of funding sources: None.