Determinants of left ventricular function improvement for cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates
Jung Ae Hong1,2, Sang Eun Lee1, Seon-Ok Kim3
1Department of Cardiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Insights
Early cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may benefit some heart failure patients. However, left ventricular function improvement is rare, with higher mortality in CRT-indicated patients, suggesting individualized treatment timing.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Heart Failure Management
Background:
- Standard practice recommends a waiting period before cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).
- Early CRT may be beneficial for select heart failure (HF) patients due to high mortality rates.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate left ventricular (LV) function improvement rates and predictors in HF patients eligible for CRT.
- To assess the impact of CRT indications on patient outcomes and mortality.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 1792 hospitalized acute HF patients with LVEF ≤ 35%.
- Patients categorized into: left bundle branch block (LBBB), wide QRS without LBBB, and control groups.
- Logistic regression and classification trees used to identify predictors of no LV function improvement.
Main Results:
- LV function improvement was observed in 24.3% (LBBB), 15.4% (wide QRS), and 40.5% (control) of patients.
- Patients meeting CRT indications had higher 3-month mortality (24.6% vs. 17.7%).
- Predictors of no improvement included large LV end-systolic dimension, low LVEF, insulin-treated diabetes, and suboptimal medical therapy.
Conclusions:
- Patients indicated for CRT exhibit higher mortality and rare LV function improvement, particularly with risk factors.
- The findings challenge the uniform waiting period for CRT, advocating for individualized treatment timing.
Aims:
A waiting period of more than 3 months is recommended for patients before undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, due to an anticipated high mortality rate, early implementation of CRT might be beneficial for some patients. We aimed to evaluate the rate and the probability of left ventricular (LV) function improvement and their predictors in patients with heart failure (HF) with indications for CRT.
Methods And Results:
From March 2011 to February 2014, a total of 5625 hospitalized patients for acute HF were consecutively enrolled in 10 tertiary hospitals. Among them, we analysed 1792 patients (mean age 63.96 ± 15.42 years, female 63.1%) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% at the baseline echocardiography and divided them into three groups: 144 with left bundle branch block (LBBB), 136 with wide QRS complexes without LBBB, and 1512 not having these findings (control). We compared and analysed these three groups for improvement of LV function at follow-up echocardiography. In patients who met CRT indications (patients with LBBB or wide QRS complexes without LBBB), logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for no improvement of LV. No improvement of LV was defined as LVEF ≤ 35% at follow-up echocardiography or the composite adverse outcomes: death, heart transplantation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or use of a ventricular assist device before follow-up echocardiography. A classification tree was established using the binary recursive partitioning method to predict the outcome of patients who met CRT indications. In a median follow-up of 11 months, LVEF improvement was observed in 24.3%, 15.4%, and 40.5% of patients with LBBB, wide QRS complexes without LBBB, and control, respectively. Patients meeting CRT indications had higher 3 month mortality rates than the control (24.6% vs. 17.7%, P = 0.002). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that large LV end-systolic dimension [odds ratio (OR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.15, P < 0.001], low LVEF (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.98, P = 0.006), diabetes requiring insulin (OR 6.49, 95% CI 2.53-19.33, P < 0.001), and suboptimal medical therapy (OR 6.85, 95% CI 3.21-15.87, P < 0.001) were significant factors predictive of no improvement. A decision tree analysis was consistent with these results.
Conclusions:
Patients with CRT indications had higher mortality during their follow-up compared with control. LV function improvement was rare in this population, especially when they had some risk factors. These results suggest that the uniform waiting period before CRT implantation could be reconsidered and individualized.
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy III: Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Heart Failure Drugs: Inotropic Agents
Heart Failure II: Pathophysiology


