14 September 2014: Clinical Research
What is the Lowest Value of Left Ventricular Baseline Ejection Fraction that Predicts Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy?
Aysen Agacdiken Agir ACDEF , Umut Celikyurt CE , Tayfun Sahin B , Irem Yılmaz B , Kurtulus Karauzum B , Serdar Bozyel BF , Dilek Ural D , Ahmet Vural A
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.891036
Med Sci Monit 2014; 20:1641-1646
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment option for patients with refractory heart failure. However, many patients do not respond to therapy. Although it has been thought that there was no relation between response to CRT and baseline ejection fraction (EF), the response rate of patients with different baseline LVEF to CRT has not been evaluated in severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. We aimed to investigate any difference in response to CRT between the severe heart failure patients with different baseline LVEF.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, 141 consecutive patients (mean age 59±13 years; 89 men) with severe heart failure and complete LBBB were included. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to their baseline LVEF: 5–15%, Group 1; 15–25%, Group 2, and 25–35%, Group 3. NYHA functional class, LVEF, LV volumes, and diameters were assessed at baseline and after 6 months of CRT. A response to CRT was defined as a decrease in LVSVi (left ventricular end-systolic volume index) ≥10% on echocardiography at 6 months.
RESULTS: After 6 months, a significant increase of EF and a significant decrease of LVESVi and LVEDVi after 6 months of CRT were observed in all groups. Although the magnitude of improvement in EF was biggest in the first group, the percentage of decrease in LVESVi and LVEDVi was similar between the groups. The improvement in NYHA functional class was similar in all EF subgroups. At 6-month follow-up, 100 (71%) patients showed a reduction of >10% in LVESVi (mean reduction: –15.5±26.1 ml/m^2) and were therefore classified as responders to CRT. Response rate to CRT was similar in all groups. It was 67%, 75%, and 70% in Group 1, 2, and 3, respectively, at 6-month follow-up (p>0.05). There was no statistically significant relation between the response rate to CRT and baseline LVEF, showing that the CRT has beneficial effects even in patients with very low LVEF.
CONCLUSIONS: It seems there is no lower limit for baseline LVEF to predict non-response to CRT in eligible patients according to current guidelines.
Keywords: Demography, cardiac resynchronization therapy, Echocardiography, Heart Failure - ultrasonography, Societies, Medical, Stroke Volume - physiology
Background
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is considered an important treatment option for selected patients with severe chronic heart failure (CHF) [1–3]. CRT improves heart failure symptoms, functional capacity, and quality of life [4–6]. Despite current guidelines recommending CRT for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% [7,8], it was recently shown that CRT produced reverse remodeling and similar clinical benefit in patients with mild HF, QRS prolongation, and LVEF >30% compared to subjects with more severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction [9]. However, the response rate of patients with different baseline LVEF to CRT has not been evaluated in severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. We aimed to investigate any difference in response to CRT between severe heart failure patients with different baseline LVEF and to find if any lowest value of baseline LVEF predicts non-response to CRT.
Material and Methods
PATIENTS:
The study population consisted of 141 consecutive patients (mean age 59±13 years; 89 men) with severe heart failure and QRS duration >120 ms scheduled for implantation of a CRT device. Inclusion criteria were severe heart failure New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV, LVEF ≤35%, and LBBB. The etiology of heart failure was considered ischemic in the presence of ≥50% stenosis in 1 of the major epicardial coronary arteries on coronary angiography. Ischemic heart disease was present in 62 (44%) patients. All patients received optimal pharmacological treatment before and after pacemaker implantation.
Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee.
CARDIAC RESYNCHRONIZATION THERAPY DEVICE IMPLANTATION:
All pacemaker implantations were performed by left infraclavicular approach. Right atrial and right ventricular leads were implanted using a transvenous approach. LV leads were inserted by a transvenous approach through the coronary sinus into a cardiac vein of the free wall. Eighty-nine patients received biventricular pacemaker (InSync III, Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, USA) and 52 patients received a biventricular cardioverter-defibrillator (InSync ICD, Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, USA). The atrioventricular interval was optimized by Doppler echocardiography immediately after implantation.
ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY:
Patients were imaged in the left lateral decubitus position with a commercially available system (VIVID 7, General Electric-Vingmed Ultrasound, Horten, Norway). Images were obtained with a 2.5-MHz broadband transducer at a depth of 16 cm in the parasternal and apical views (standard long-axis, 2- and 4-chamber images). Standard 2-dimensional and color Doppler data triggered to the QRS complex were saved in cine-loop format. The 2- and 4-chamber images were used to calculate left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), and values were indexed to body surface area. LVEF was calculated from the conventional apical 2- and 4-chamber images using the biplane Simpson’s technique [10].
Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before pacemaker implantation and repeated 6 months later. All echocardiographic measurements after CRT implantation were made with the device in active pacing mode. Echocardiographic response to CRT was defined as a decrease in LVSVi (left ventricular end-systolic volume index) ≥10% on echocardiography at 6 months [11].
Clinical response was defined as improvement in NYHA class.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:
All analyses were performed with the statistical software program SPSS V.13.0. Continuous data are expressed as mean ±SD. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to their baseline LVEF: Group 1 was <15%, Group 2 was 16–25%, and Group 3 was 26–35%. Comparison of the continuous parametric variables between LV EF subgroups was performed using a independent-sample t test or the χ2 test for the ordinal variables. Echocardiographic and clinical findings at baseline and 6 months were compared with each other using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. For comparison of echocardiographic parameters between responders and non-responders, Mann-Whitney U test and χ2 test were used. Variables associated with CRT response in univariate analysis were entered into a forward stepwise logistic regression model. A value of p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Baseline patient characteristics of the groups are summarized in Table 1.The mean QRS duration of the patients was 151±21 ms and all of them had LBBB morphology. No difference in baseline patient characteristics was observed between groups except LVEF, LVEDD, LVESD, LVEDV, LVESV, LVEDVi (left ventricular end-diastolic volume index), and LVESVi (left ventricular end-systolic volume index).
At 6-month follow-up, significant improvement in LVEF, LVEDV, LVESV, LVEDVi, and LVESVi was observed in 3 patient groups when compared to baseline (Table 2). A significant increase of EF and a significant decrease of LVESVi and LVEDVi after 6 months of CRT were observed in all groups. Although the magnitude of improvement in EF was largest in the first group, the percentage of decrease in LVESVi and LVEDVi was similar between the groups. At 6 months, there was an improvement of clinical status for the overall study group (from 3.2±0.5 to 2.6±0.6, p<0.001). The improvement in NYHA functional class was similar in all EF subgroups (Figure 1).
At 6 months, 100 (71%) patients showed a reduction of >10% in LVESVi (mean reduction: −15.5±26.1 ml/m2) and were therefore classified as responders to CRT. Response rate to CRT was similar in all groups. At 6 months, it was 67% in Group 1, 75% in Group 2, and 70% in Group 3 (p>0.05). At baseline, clinical characteristics, as well as LV volumes and EF, were similar between responders and non-responders (Table 3). There was no statistically significant relation between CRT and baseline LVEF, showing that the benefit of CRT did not vary with baseline LVEF in severe heart failure. Although all patients had LBBB, the baseline QRS duration was shorter in non-responders but the difference was not statistically significant. However, the QRS duration was the only parameter associated with the response to CRT in the entire study population (r=0.20, p=0.16).
Discussion
STUDY LIMITATION:
We acknowledge that there were some limitations in this study. One limitation of our study was the single-center, nonrandomized design. Second, the study sample was small. Third, we did not investigate the survival in our patients. However, considering improvements in functional capacity and left ventricular remodeling, our data support implantation of biventricular pacemaker in patients with heart failure, LBBB, and very low LVEF.
Conclusions
Our study demonstrates that there is no lower limit for LVEF associated with non-response to CRT in eligible patients according to current guidelines. CRT has beneficial effects in heart failure patients, even those with very low LVEF.
References
1. Cleland JGF, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure: N Engl J Med, 2005; 352; 1539-49, pmid: 15753115
2. Linde C, Abraham WT, Gold MR, Randomized trial of cardiac resynchronization in mildly symptomatic heart failure patients and in asymptomatic patients with left ventricular dysfunction and previous heart failure symptoms: J Am Coll Cardiol, 2008; 52; 1834-43, pmid: 19038680
3. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for theprevention of heart-failure events: N Engl J Med, 2009; 361; 1329-38, pmid: 19723701
4. Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith ALfor MIRACLE Study Group, Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation: Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure: N Engl J Med, 2002; 346; 1845-53, pmid: 12063368
5. Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer Jfor the COMPANION Investigators, Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure: N Engl J Med, 2004; 350; 2140-50, pmid: 15152059
6. Agacdiken A, Celikyurt U, Sahin T, Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: Med Sci Monit, 2013; 19; 373-77, pmid: 23686301
7. Stevenson WG, Hernandez AF, Carson PEfrom the Heart Failure Society of America Guideline Committee Indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy, 2011 update from the Heart Failure Society of America guideline committee: J Card Fail, 2012; 18; 94-106, pmid: 22300776
8. Brignole M, Auricchio A, Barón Esquivias G, 2013 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: Eur Heart J, 2013; 34; 2281-329, pmid: 23801822
9. Linde C, Daubert C, Abraham WT, Impact of Ejection Fraction on the Clinical Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Mild Heart Failure: Circ Heart Fail, 2013; 6; 1180-89, pmid: 24014828
10. Schiller NB, Shah PM, Crawford M, Recommendations for quantitation of the left ventricle by two-dimensional echocardiography. American Society of Echocardiography Committee on Standards, Subcommittee on Quantitation of Two-Dimensional Echocardiograms: J Am Soc Echocardiogr, 1989; 2; 358-67, pmid: 2698218
11. Davis DR, Krahn AD, Tang AS, Long-term outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with severe congestive heart failure: Can J Cardiol, 2005; 21; 413-17, pmid: 15861258
12. Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) Investigators. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure: N Engl J Med, 2004; 350; 2140-50, pmid: 15152059
13. Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, Cardiac Resynchronization-Heart Failure (CARE-HF) Study Investigators. The effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy on morbidity and mortality in heart failure: N Engl J Med, 2005; 352; 1539-49, pmid: 15753115
14. Chung ES, Katra RP, Ghio S, Cardiac resynchronization therapy may benefit patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >35%: a PROSPECT trial sub-study: Eur J Heart Fail, 2010; 12; 581-87, pmid: 20150328
15. Kutyifa V, Kloppe A, Zareba W, The influence of left ventricular ejection fraction on the effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy: MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy): J Am Coll Cardiol, 2013; 61; 936-44, pmid: 23449428
16. Chung ES, Leon AR, Tavazzi L, Results of the predictors of response to CRT (PROSPECT) trial: Circulation, 2008; 117; 2608-16, pmid: 18458170
17. Cleland JG, Ghio S, The determinants of clinical outcome and clinical response to CRT are not the same: Heart Fail Rev, 2012; 17; 755-66, pmid: 22081054
18. Leclercq C, Kass D, Retiming the failing heart: principlesand current clinical status of cardiac resynchronization: J Am Coll Cardiol, 2002; 39; 194-201, pmid: 11788207
19. Lecoq G, Leclercq C, Leray E, Clinical and electrocardiographic predictors of a positive response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in advanced heart failure: Eur Heart J, 2005; 26; 1094-100, pmid: 15728648
20. Ghio S, Constantin C, Klersy C, Interventricular and intraventricular dyssynchrony are common in heart failure patients, regardless of QRS duration: Eur Heart J, 2004; 25; 571-78, pmid: 15120054
21. Schuster I, Habib G, Jego C, Diastolic asynchrony is more frequent than systolic asynchrony in dilated cardiomyopathy and is less improved by cardiac resynchronization therapy: J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005; 46; 2250-57, pmid: 16360054
22. Bax JJ, Gorcsan J, Echocardiography and noninvasive imaging in cardiac resynchronization therapy: results of the PROSPECT (Predictors of Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study in perspective: J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009; 53; 1933-43, pmid: 19460606
In Press
Clinical Research
Institutional and Regional Variations in Access to Clinical Trials and Next-Generation Sequencing in Turkis...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.951027
Clinical Research
Low-Intensity Blood Flow-Restricted Multi-Joint Exercise Improves Muscle Function in Patients With Patellof...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.950516
Review article
Musculoskeletal Ultrasound and MRI in the Evaluation of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A ReviewMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.951283
Clinical Research
Sensory Processing, Dissociation, and Affective Symptoms in Misophonia: A Cross-Sectional Study of 35 AdultsMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.950938
Most Viewed Current Articles
17 Jan 2024 : Review article 10,187,196
Vaccination Guidelines for Pregnant Women: Addressing COVID-19 and the Omicron VariantDOI :10.12659/MSM.942799
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e942799
13 Nov 2021 : Clinical Research 3,708,487
Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination and Its Associated Factors Among Cancer Patients Attending the Oncology ...DOI :10.12659/MSM.932788
Med Sci Monit 2021; 27:e932788
14 Dec 2022 : Clinical Research 2,341,643
Prevalence and Variability of Allergen-Specific Immunoglobulin E in Patients with Elevated Tryptase LevelsDOI :10.12659/MSM.937990
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e937990
16 May 2023 : Clinical Research 706,524
Electrophysiological Testing for an Auditory Processing Disorder and Reading Performance in 54 School Stude...DOI :10.12659/MSM.940387
Med Sci Monit 2023; 29:e940387