TY - JOUR
T1 - Novel Non-Invasive Index for Prediction of Responders in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Using High-Resolution Magnetocardiography
AU - Nakashima, Takahiro
AU - Usami, Shunsuke
AU - Aiba, Takeshi
AU - Oishi, Shogo
AU - Kimura, Yoshitaka
AU - Kawakami, Shoji
AU - Yamada-Inoue, Yuko
AU - Ogata, Soshiro
AU - Ueda, Nobuhiko
AU - Nakajima, Kenzaburo
AU - Kamakura, Tsukasa
AU - Wada, Mitsuru
AU - Yamagata, Kenichiro
AU - Ishibashi, Kohei
AU - Miyamoto, Koji
AU - Noda, Takashi
AU - Nagase, Satoshi
AU - Kanzaki, Hideaki
AU - Izumi, Chisato
AU - Yasuda, Satoshi
AU - Kamakura, Shiro
AU - Takaki, Hiroshi
AU - Sugimachi, Masaru
AU - Kusano, Kengo
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Japanese Circulation Society. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - Background: Approximately one-third of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) do not respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We investigated whether the left ventricular (LV) conduction pattern on magnetocardiography (MCG) can predict CRT responders. Methods and Results: This retrospective study enrolled 56 patients with advanced HF (mean [±SD] LV ejection fraction [LVEF] 23±8%; QRS duration 145±19ms) and MCG recorded before CRT. MCG-QRS current arrow maps were classified as multidirectional (MDC; n=28) or unidirectional (UDC; n=28) conduction based on a change of either ≥35° or <35°, respectively, in the direction of the maximal current arrow after the QRS peak. Baseline New York Heart Association functional class and LVEF were comparable between the 2 groups, but QRS duration was longer and the presence of complete left bundle branch block and LV dyssynchrony was higher in the UDC than MDC group. Six months after CRT, 30 patients were defined as responders, with significantly more in the UDC than MDC group (89% vs. 14%, respectively; P<0.001). Over a 5-year follow-up, Kaplan-Meyer analysis showed that adverse cardiac events (death or implantation of an LV assist device) were less frequently observed in the UDC than MDC group (6/28 vs. 15/28, respectively; P=0.027). Multivariate analysis revealed that UDC on MCG was the most significant predictor of CRT response (odds ratio 69.8; 95% confidence interval 13.14–669.32; P<0.001). Conclusions: Preoperative non-invasive MCG may predict the CRT response and long-term outcome after CRT.
AB - Background: Approximately one-third of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) do not respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We investigated whether the left ventricular (LV) conduction pattern on magnetocardiography (MCG) can predict CRT responders. Methods and Results: This retrospective study enrolled 56 patients with advanced HF (mean [±SD] LV ejection fraction [LVEF] 23±8%; QRS duration 145±19ms) and MCG recorded before CRT. MCG-QRS current arrow maps were classified as multidirectional (MDC; n=28) or unidirectional (UDC; n=28) conduction based on a change of either ≥35° or <35°, respectively, in the direction of the maximal current arrow after the QRS peak. Baseline New York Heart Association functional class and LVEF were comparable between the 2 groups, but QRS duration was longer and the presence of complete left bundle branch block and LV dyssynchrony was higher in the UDC than MDC group. Six months after CRT, 30 patients were defined as responders, with significantly more in the UDC than MDC group (89% vs. 14%, respectively; P<0.001). Over a 5-year follow-up, Kaplan-Meyer analysis showed that adverse cardiac events (death or implantation of an LV assist device) were less frequently observed in the UDC than MDC group (6/28 vs. 15/28, respectively; P=0.027). Multivariate analysis revealed that UDC on MCG was the most significant predictor of CRT response (odds ratio 69.8; 95% confidence interval 13.14–669.32; P<0.001). Conclusions: Preoperative non-invasive MCG may predict the CRT response and long-term outcome after CRT.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85096889783&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85096889783&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1253/circj.CJ-20-0325
DO - 10.1253/circj.CJ-20-0325
M3 - Article
C2 - 33162489
AN - SCOPUS:85096889783
SN - 1346-9843
VL - 84
SP - 216
EP - 2174
JO - Circulation Journal
JF - Circulation Journal
IS - 12
ER -