Echo response and clinical outcome in CRT patients

Publication date

2016-01

Authors

van t Sant, Jetske
Mast, Thomas P.
Bos, M M
Ter Horst, I. A H
van Everdingen, Wouter MISNI 0000000464452962
Meine, MathiasORCID 0000-0002-1102-2155ISNI 0000000369243476
Cramer, Maarten JISNI 0000000390984527

Editors

Advisors

Supervisors

Document Type

Article

Collections

Open Access logo

License

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (∆LVESV) is the most frequently used surrogate marker in measuring response to cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). We investigated whether ∆LVESV is the best measure to discriminate between a favourable and unfavourable outcome and whether this is equally applicable to non-ischaemic and ischaemic cardiomyopathy. METHODS: 205 CRT patients (age 65 ± 12 years, 69 % men) were included. At baseline and 6 months echocardiographic studies, exercise testing and laboratory measurements were performed. CRT response was assessed by: ∆LVESV, ∆LV ejection fraction (LVEF), ∆ interventricular mechanical delay, ∆VO2 peak, ∆VE/VCO2, ∆BNP, ∆creatinine, ∆NYHA, and ∆QRS. These were correlated to the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between 6 and 24 months. RESULTS: MACE occurred in 19 % of the patients (non-ischaemic: 13 %, ischaemic: 24 %). ∆LVESV remained the only surrogate marker for CRT response for the total population and patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, showing areas under the curve (AUC) of 0.69 and 0.850, respectively. For ischaemic cardiomyopathy, ∆BNP was the best surrogate marker showing an AUC of 0.66. CONCLUSION: ∆LVESV is an excellent surrogate marker measuring CRT response concerning long-term outcome for non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy. ∆LVESV is not suitable for ischaemic cardiomyopathy in which measuring CRT response remains difficult.

Keywords

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy, Surrogate markers, Journal Article

Citation

van t Sant, J, Mast, T P, Bos, M M, Ter Horst, I A, van Everdingen, W M, Meine, M & Cramer, M J 2016, 'Echo response and clinical outcome in CRT patients', Netherlands Heart Journal, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 47-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-015-0767-5