HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 295/2/H640    most recent 00106.2008v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Kirn, B. Articles by Prinzen, F. W. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kirn, B. Articles by Prinzen, F. W.

Mechanical discoordination rather than dyssynchrony predicts reverse remodeling upon cardiac resynchronization

¹Institute of Physiology, School of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; ²Department of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven; and ³Department of Biomedical Engineering, and ⁴Department of Physiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Submitted 31 January 2008 ; accepted in final form 27 May 2008

By current guidelines a considerable part of the patients selected for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) do not respond to the therapy. We hypothesized that mechanical discoordination [opposite strain within the left ventricular (LV) wall] predicts reversal of LV remodeling upon CRT better than mechanical dyssynchrony. MRI tagging images were acquired in CRT candidates (n = 19) and in healthy control subjects (n = 9). Circumferential strain (_cc) was determined in 160 regions. From _cc signals we derived 1) an index of mechanical discoordination [internal stretch fraction (ISF), defined as the ratio of stretch to shortening during ejection] and 2) indexes of mechanical dyssynchrony: the 10–90% width of time to onset of shortening, time to peak shortening, and end-systolic strain. LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), end-systolic volume (LVESV), and ejection fraction (LVEF) were determined before and after 3 mo of CRT. Responders were defined as those patients in whom LVESV decreased by >15%. In responders (n = 10), CRT increased LVEF and decreased LVEDV and LVESV (11 ± 6%, 21 ± 16%, and 30 ± 16%, respectively) significantly more (P < 0.05) than in nonresponders (1 ± 6%, 3 ± 4%, and 5 ± 10%, respectively). Among mechanical indexes, only ISF was different between responders and nonresponders (0.53 ± 0.25 vs. 0.31 ± 0.16; P < 0.05). In patients with ISF >0.4 (n = 10), LVESV decreased by 31 ± 18% vs. 5 ± 11% in patients with ISF <0.4 (P < 0.05). We conclude that mechanical discoordination, as estimated from ISF, is a better predictor of reverse remodeling after CRT than differences in time to onset and time to peak shortening. Therefore, discoordination rather than dyssynchrony appears to reflect the reserve contractile capacity that can be recruited by CRT.

resynchronization therapy; cardiac mechanics