Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy for Advanced Heart Failure.

Philip B. Adamson1, William T. Abraham

  • 1Departments of Medicine, Cardiology, and Physiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, P.O. Box 26901, 920 S.L. Young Boulevard, WP3120, Oklahoma City, OK 73190, USA. Philip-adamson@ouhsc.edu

Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine
|July 2, 2003
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Pathogenesis of Sodium and Water Retention in Congestive Heart Failure: Therapeutic Implications.

The American journal of geriatric cardiologyยท1993
See all related articles

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves heart failure outcomes. Refining patient selection criteria is crucial to maximize benefits and minimize nonresponse rates for this device-based therapy.

Area of Science:

  • Cardiology
  • Medical Devices
  • Heart Failure Management

Background:

  • Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) offers symptom relief and reduces hospitalizations for advanced heart failure patients.
  • Current CRT candidates include patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and conduction delays (NYHA class III-IV).
  • CRT can reverse ventricular remodeling, reduce mitral regurgitation, and improve cardiac efficiency.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review current strategies for refining patient selection criteria for CRT.
  • To identify patient subgroups likely to respond or not respond to CRT.
  • To address practical considerations in prescribing CRT.

Main Methods:

  • Review of existing literature and clinical guidelines on CRT patient selection.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of factors influencing CRT response rates.
  • Discussion of evolving criteria for CRT candidacy.

    • Main Results:

    • A significant percentage of patients (20-25%) do not respond to current CRT selection criteria.
    • New criteria are being explored to improve patient selection and outcomes.
    • Potential benefits of CRT extend to patients needing pacing, with atrial fibrillation, or prophylactic defibrillators.

    Conclusions:

    • Optimizing patient selection is key to improving CRT efficacy.
    • Further research is needed to refine CRT prescribing practices.
    • CRT remains a vital therapy for selected heart failure patients.