4.1 Article

Usefulness and Limitation of Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography to Predict Acute Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8175.2009.00962.x

关键词

dobutamine stress echocardiography; resynchronization therapy; ventricular dyssynchrony; heart failure; myocardial viability; mitral regurgitation

资金

  1. Institut de Cardiologie de Quebec

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: It has been hypothesized that a long-term response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) could correlate with myocardial viability in patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Contractile reserve and viability in the region of the pacing lead have not been investigated in regard to acute response after CRT. Methods: Fifty-one consecutive patients with advanced heart failure, LV ejection fraction < 35%, QRS duration > 120 ms, and intraventricular asynchronism >= 50 ms were prospectively included. The week before CRT implantation, the presence of viability was evaluated using dobutamine stress echocardiography. Acute responders were defined as a >= 15% increase in LV stroke volume. Results: The average of viable segments was 5.8 +/- 1.9 in responders and 3.9 +/- 3 in nonresponders (P = 0.03). Viability in the region of the pacing lead had an excellent sensitivity (96%), but a low specificity (56%) to predict acute response to CRT. Mitral regurgitation (MR) was reduced in 21 patients (84%) with acute response. The presence of MR was a poor predictor of response (sensibility 93% and specificity 17%). However, combining the presence of MR and viability in the region of the pacing lead yields a sensibility (89%) and a specificity (70%) to predict acute response to CRT. Conclusion: Myocardial viability is an important factor influencing acute hemodynamic response to CRT. In acute responders, significant MR reduction is frequent. The combined presence of MR and viability in the region of the pacing lead predicts acute response to CRT with the best accuracy. (Echocardiography 2010;27:50-57).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据