Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2009 Aug;32(8):1040-9.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2009.02436.x.

Relevance of echocardiographic evaluation of right ventricular function in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Relevance of echocardiographic evaluation of right ventricular function in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy

Lea Scuteri et al. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2009 Aug.

Abstract

Aims: Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction is a marker of poor prognosis in heart failure (HF) patients. It is still unclear whether RV function might influence response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

Methods: Forty-four consecutive patients with HF, large QRS, and either intraventricular or interventricular dyssynchrony underwent echocardiographic evaluation before, 1 month after, and 6 months after CRT. Response to CRT was considered in case of significant LV reverse remodeling, defined as the occurrence of LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction > or =15% at 6 months.

Results: All echocardiographic indexes of baseline RV function and dimensions were significantly more impaired in nonresponders versus responders to CRT: tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE 15 +/- 4 mm vs 20 +/- 5 mm, P = 0.001), RV systolic pulmonary artery pressure (RVSP 39 +/- 14 mmHg vs 27 +/- 8 mmHg, P = 0.02), RV end-diastolic area (RVEDA 23 +/- 6 cm(2) vs 16 +/- 3 cm(2) P < 0.001), RV end-systolic area (RVESA 16 +/- 6 cm(2) vs 8 +/- 2 cm(2), P = 0.001), and RV fractional area change (30 +/- 12% vs 48 +/- 8%, P < 0.001). All the indexes of RV function significantly correlated with the percentage of LVESV reduction after CRT. Severe RV dysfunction was defined as TAPSE < or =14 mm and the population was stratified into two groups based on baseline TAPSE < or = or > 14 mm. As compared to those with high TAPSE (n = 30), patients with low TAPSE (n = 14) were less likely to show LV reverse remodeling after CRT (76% vs 14%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Our study suggests that RV function significantly affects response to CRT. Poor LV reverse remodeling occurs after CRT in patients with HF having severe RV dysfunction at baseline.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms