Factors that Determined a Positive Response to Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Cardiac Dyssynchrony. One Center Experience.

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) associated with cardiac dyssynchrony and to identify the factors that influence the CRT efficacy.

Material and methods: This retrospective study included 155 patients after implantation of CRT devices. The CRT devices with a built-in cardioverter-defibrillator (CRT-D) and without it (CRT-P) were implanted in 139 (89.7%) and 16 (10.3%) patients, respectively. The follow-up period was 52.37±35.94 months. Based on the study results, two groups of patients were formed depending on the presence of a clinical response to CRT, responders and non-responders. The factors that influenced the clinical response to CRT were studied. The effect of the baseline state of patients on the effect of therapy was assessed. The need for CRT optimization and a possibility of using electrocardiographic criteria for that purpose were studied. Modern devices and leads for CRT, their functional capabilities and their influence on the CRT efficacy were characterized. Statistical analysis was performed with an IBM SPSS Statistics 21.0 (Chicago, USA) package.

Results: CRT implantation with the left ventricular lead placement according to the traditional technique, through the coronary sinus, was successful in 130 (87.9%) patients. Difficulties with the left ventricular lead placement were noted in 13 (8.3%) patients when other techniques were used. After 6 months, a hemodynamic and clinical response was observed in 112 (72.2%) patients, and no positive response in 43 (27.8%). The increase in left ventricular ejection fraction in the responder group was more than 21.8±3.7%, which was associated with an improvement of the 6-minute walk test results. Th clinical response was significantly influenced by the possibility of stimulation from the basal parts of the heart; the use of more modern devices for CRT and quadripolar left ventricular leads; timely CRT optimization; and persistent dyssynchrony in non-responders. During the follow-up period, 34 (21.9%) patients died. The death rate in the non-responder group was significantly higher than in the responder group, 18 (41.3%) vs. 16 (14.3%), p=0.001. The main cause of death in the group of non-responders was CHF. Heart transplantation was performed in 3 (1.9%) patients.

Conclusion: CRT increases the life span and improves the quality of life in patients with CHF and cardiac dyssynchrony. There was a group of patients with no benefit from CRT in this study. Modern devices allow increasing the number of patients who benefit from CRT. Periodic optimization of CRT is necessary. When optimizing CRT, it is possible to use electrocardiographic criteria of effectiveness: duration of the QRS complex and changes in the position of the electrical axis of the heart.