• Abhishek Bose, Jagdesh Kandala, Gaurav A Upadhyay, Lindsay Riedl, Imad Ahmado, Ram Padmanabhan, Henry Gewirtz, Lawrence J Mulligan, and Jagmeet P Singh.
• Cardiac Arrhythmia Service.
• J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2014 May 1;25(5):507-13.

IntroductionCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) have scar segments that may limit ventricular resynchronization and clinical response. The impact of myocardial viability at the left ventricular (LV) pacing site on CRT response is poorly elucidated.Methods And ResultsA retrospective cohort of 160 ICM patients with single photon emission computed tomography-myocardial perfusion imaging before device implantation were included. Coronary venous angiography and chest radiographs helped classify segmental location of LV lead (LVL). The primary outcome was a composite of heart failure (HF) hospitalization and mortality at 3 years, and secondary outcome was change in systolic function at 6 months. The patients were divided into groups based on the myocardial substrate at the site of LVL: LVL on or adjacent to (1) normal myocardium (LVL-N, n = 64), (2) segmental scar (LVL-S, n = 62), and (3) scar and ischemia (LVL-SI, n = 34). Upon follow-up, 75 (47%) patients reached primary endpoint with a higher incidence noted in LVL-S (60%), and LVL-SI (53%), compared to 31% in LVL-N (P = 0.004). Kaplan Meier method demonstrated poor event free survival for primary outcome in LVL-S (P = 0.002), and LVL-SI (P = 0.03). In Cox proportional hazard model, LVL-S (HR: 2.26, P = 0.004), and LVL-SI (1.9, P = 0.047) were independent predictors of primary outcome.ConclusionIn CRT recipients with ICM, scar and reversible ischemia in or adjacent to LV pacing site were independent predictors of HF hospitalization and death.© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

51 keywords...

hide…