This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mullens, W. Articles by Tang, W.H. W. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Mullens, W. Articles by Tang, W.H. W. Related Collections Related Article

CLINICAL RESEARCH: CARDIAC RESYNCHRONIZATION THERAPY

Insights From a Cardiac Resynchronization Optimization Clinic as Part of a Heart Failure Disease Management Program

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Manuscript received August 13, 2008; revised manuscript received November 10, 2008, accepted November 12, 2008.

^_* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. W. H. Wilson Tang, Section of Heart Failure and Cardiac Transplantation Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Desk J3-4, Cleveland, Ohio 44195 (Email: tangw{at}ccf.org).

Objectives: Our aim was to determine the feasibility and value of a protocol-driven approach to patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) who did not exhibit a positive response long after implant.

Background: Up to one-third of patients with advanced heart failure do not exhibit a positive response to CRT.

Methods: A total of 75 consecutive ambulatory patients with persistent advanced heart failure symptoms and/or adverse reverse remodeling and CRT implanted >6 months underwent a comprehensive protocol-driven evaluation to determine the potential reasons for a suboptimal response. Recommendations were made to maximize the potential of CRT, and adverse events were documented.

Results: All patients (mean left ventricular [LV] ejection fraction 23 ± 9%, LV end-diastolic volume 275 ± 127 ml) underwent evaluation. Eighty-eight percent of patients had significantly better echocardiographic indexes of LV filling and LV ejection with optimal setting of their CRT compared with a temporary VVI back-up setting. Most patients had identifiable reasons for suboptimal response, including inadequate device settings (47%), suboptimal medical treatment (32%), arrhythmias (32%), inappropriate lead position (21%), or lack of baseline dyssynchrony (9%). Multidisciplinary recommendations led to changes in device settings and/or other therapy modifications in 74% of patients and were associated with fewer adverse events (13% vs. 50%, odds ratio: 0.2 [95% confidence interval: 0.07 to 0.56], p = 0.002) compared with those in which no recommendation could be made.

Conclusions: Routine protocol-driven approach to evaluate ambulatory CRT patients who did not exhibit a positive response is feasible, and changes in device settings and/or other therapies after multidisciplinary evaluation may be associated with fewer adverse events.

Key Words: heart failure • cardiac resynchronization • optimization • disease management

Abbreviations and Acronyms   AV = atrioventricular   CRT = cardiac resynchronization therapy   LV = left ventricle/ ventricular

Related Article

Inside This Issue
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2009 53: A31. [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. P. Singh and W. T. Abraham Enhancing the Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Is It Time to Individualize the Left Ventricular Pacing Site? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 18, 2009; (2009) j.jacc.2009.10.017v1. [Full Text] [PDF]

				O. A. Breithardt Echocardiographic patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy betting on a dead horse? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img., May 1, 2009; 2(5): 544 - 547. [Full Text] [PDF]