Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2019
Systolic aortic root motion predicts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.
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.
Celikyurt Umut, Acar Burak, Hidayet Siho, Karauzum İrem, Karauzum Kurtulus, Vural Ahmet, Agacdiken Aysen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is recommended for patients with advanced chronic heart failure. Systolic aortic root motion (SARM) has been investigated in dilated cardiomyopathy patients and found that heart failure patients had reduced SARM. We aimed to investigate the relationship between SARM and response to CRT.
METHODS: Fifty-six patients with advanced heart failure, wide QRS complex, and LVEF ≤35% were included. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before, and repeated at 6 months in follow-up. Systolic aortic root motion was measured in each patient before the device implantation. Echocardiographic response to CRT was defined by a ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months follow-up.
RESULTS: Forty patients (71%) had CRT response after 6 months of follow-up. In multivariate analysis, significant associates of response to CRT was evaluated adjusting for functional capacity, etiology of cardiomyopathy, QRS duration, baseline left ventricular dimensions/volumes and SARM. SARM was the only predictor of response to CRT (OR 1.818, 95% CI, 1.101-3.003, P = .019).
CONCLUSIONS: SARM predicts non-response to CRT and may help in the selection of CRT candidates.
METHODS: Fifty-six patients with advanced heart failure, wide QRS complex, and LVEF ≤35% were included. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed before, and repeated at 6 months in follow-up. Systolic aortic root motion was measured in each patient before the device implantation. Echocardiographic response to CRT was defined by a ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months follow-up.
RESULTS: Forty patients (71%) had CRT response after 6 months of follow-up. In multivariate analysis, significant associates of response to CRT was evaluated adjusting for functional capacity, etiology of cardiomyopathy, QRS duration, baseline left ventricular dimensions/volumes and SARM. SARM was the only predictor of response to CRT (OR 1.818, 95% CI, 1.101-3.003, P = .019).
CONCLUSIONS: SARM predicts non-response to CRT and may help in the selection of CRT candidates.