Journal of cardiac failure · 2019
Baseline Right Ventricular Dysfunction Predicts Worse Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Implantation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Patel Divyang, Trulock Kevin, Kumar Anirudh, Kiehl Erich, Toro Saleem, Moennich Laurie Anne, Gorodeski Eiran, Hussein Ayman, Cantillon Daniel, Tarakji Khaldoun G, Niebauer Mark, Wazni Oussama, Varma Niraj, Wilkoff Bruce, Rickard John W
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to improve survival in patients with systolic heart failure, wide QRS duration, and left-bundle-branch-block. However, CRT outcomes stratified by right ventricular (RV) function at implant have not been well studied.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients at Cleveland Clinic who underwent CRT implantation (n = 777) from 2003 to 2011 with a diagnosis of heart failure, echocardiography with both pre-CRT left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% and available post-CRT echocardiography at 6 months post-implant. CRT response was defined as LVEF improvement ≥5%. Patients were separated into 2 groups: normal or mild RV dysfunction (n = 570) labeled Normal RV; moderate to severe dysfunction (n = 207) labeled RV DYSFXN based on qualitative echocardiography assessment. Survival was calculated as time from CRT implant to death, left ventricular assist device implant, or heart transplant.
RESULTS: CRT response was significantly higher in patients with Normal RV (67%) compared with patients with RV DYSFXN (56%; P = .006). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that CRT patients with Normal RV had significantly greater survival compared with patients with RV DYSFXN (P < .001). In multivariable Cox regression accounting for a priori covariates, RV DYSFXN was associated with worse survival (HR 1.41 [95% CI: 1.14-1.75], P = .002) and lower CRT response (HR 0.66 [95% CI: 0.44-0.97], P = .03).
CONCLUSION: Baseline RV dysfunction at CRT implant is an important predictor of worsened left ventricular remodeling and survival in CRT patients.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients at Cleveland Clinic who underwent CRT implantation (n = 777) from 2003 to 2011 with a diagnosis of heart failure, echocardiography with both pre-CRT left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% and available post-CRT echocardiography at 6 months post-implant. CRT response was defined as LVEF improvement ≥5%. Patients were separated into 2 groups: normal or mild RV dysfunction (n = 570) labeled Normal RV; moderate to severe dysfunction (n = 207) labeled RV DYSFXN based on qualitative echocardiography assessment. Survival was calculated as time from CRT implant to death, left ventricular assist device implant, or heart transplant.
RESULTS: CRT response was significantly higher in patients with Normal RV (67%) compared with patients with RV DYSFXN (56%; P = .006). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that CRT patients with Normal RV had significantly greater survival compared with patients with RV DYSFXN (P < .001). In multivariable Cox regression accounting for a priori covariates, RV DYSFXN was associated with worse survival (HR 1.41 [95% CI: 1.14-1.75], P = .002) and lower CRT response (HR 0.66 [95% CI: 0.44-0.97], P = .03).
CONCLUSION: Baseline RV dysfunction at CRT implant is an important predictor of worsened left ventricular remodeling and survival in CRT patients.