Mechanical Dyssynchrony Combined with Septal Scarring Reliably Identifies Responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Background and aim: The presence of mechanical dyssynchrony on echocardiography is associated with reverse remodelling and decreased mortality after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Contrarily, myocardial scar reduces the effect of CRT. This study investigated how well a combined assessment of different markers of mechanical dyssynchrony and scarring identifies CRT responders. Methods: In a prospective multicentre study of 170 CRT recipients, septal flash (SF), apical rocking (ApRock), systolic stretch index (SSI), and lateral-to-septal (LW-S) work differences were assessed using echocardiography. Myocardial scarring was quantified using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) or excluded based on a coronary angiogram and clinical history. The primary endpoint was a CRT response, defined as a ≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume 12 months after implantation. The secondary endpoint was time-to-death. Results: The combined assessment of mechanical dyssynchrony and septal scarring showed AUCs ranging between 0.81 (95%CI: 0.74-0.88) and 0.86 (95%CI: 0.79-0.91) for predicting a CRT response, without significant differences between the markers, but significantly higher than mechanical dyssynchrony alone. QRS morphology, QRS duration, and LV ejection fraction were not superior in their prediction. Predictive power was similar in the subgroups of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. The combined assessments significantly predicted all-cause mortality at 44 ± 13 months after CRT with a hazard ratio ranging from 0.28 (95%CI: 0.12-0.67) to 0.20 (95%CI: 0.08-0.49). Conclusions: The combined assessment of mechanical dyssynchrony and septal scarring identified CRT responders with high predictive power. Both visual and quantitative markers were highly feasible and demonstrated similar results. This work demonstrates the value of imaging LV mechanics and scarring in CRT candidates, which can already be achieved in a clinical routine.

Lateral Wall Dysfunction Signals Onset of Progressive Heart Failure in Left Bundle Branch Block.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate if contractile asymmetry between septum and left ventricular (LV) lateral wall drives heart failure development in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and whether the presence of lateral wall dysfunction affects potential for recovery of LV function with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). BACKGROUND: LBBB may induce or aggravate heart failure. Understanding the underlying mechanisms is important to optimize timing of CRT. METHODS: In 76 nonischemic patients with LBBB and 11 controls, we measured strain using speckle-tracking echocardiography and regional work using pressure-strain analysis. Patients with LBBB were stratified according to LV ejection fraction (EF) ≥50% (EFpreserved), 36% to 49% (EFmid), and ≤35% (EFlow). Sixty-four patients underwent CRT and were re-examined after 6 months. RESULTS: Septal work was successively reduced from controls, through EFpreserved, EFmid, and EFlow (all p < 0.005), and showed a strong correlation to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; r = 0.84; p < 0.005). In contrast, LV lateral wall work was numerically increased in EFpreserved and EFmid versus controls, and did not significantly correlate with LVEF in these groups. In EFlow, however, LV lateral wall work was substantially reduced (p < 0.005). There was a moderate overall correlation between LV lateral wall work and LVEF (r = 0.58; p < 0.005). In CRT recipients, LVEF was normalized (≥50%) in 54% of patients with preserved LV lateral wall work, but only in 13% of patients with reduced LV lateral wall work (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In early stages, LBBB-induced heart failure is associated with impaired septal function but preserved lateral wall function. The advent of LV lateral wall dysfunction may be an optimal time-point for CRT.

Afterload Hypersensitivity in Patients With Left Bundle Branch Block.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the hypothesis that patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) are hypersensitive to elevated afterload. BACKGROUND: Epidemiological data suggest that LBBB can provoke heart failure in patients with hypertension. METHODS: In 11 asymptomatic patients with isolated LBBB and 11 age-matched control subjects, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) were measured by echocardiography. Systolic arterial pressure was increased by combining pneumatic extremity constrictors and handgrip exercise. To obtain more insight into mechanisms of afterload response, 8 anesthetized dogs with left ventricular (LV) micromanometer and dimension crystals were studied during acutely induced LBBB and aortic constriction. Regional myocardial work was assessed by LV pressure-dimension analysis. RESULTS: Consistent with normal afterload dependency, elevation of systolic arterial pressure by 38 ± 12 mm Hg moderately reduced LVEF from 60 ± 4% to 54 ± 6% (p < 0.01) in control subjects. In LBBB patients, however, a similar blood pressure increase caused substantially larger reduction in LVEF (p < 0.01), from 56 ± 6% to 42 ± 7% (p < 0.01). There were similar findings for GLS. In the dog model, aortic constriction abolished septal shortening (p < 0.02), and septal work decreased to negative values (p < 0.01). Therefore, during elevated systolic pressure, the septum made no contribution to global LV work, as indicated by net negative work, and instead absorbed energy from work done by the LV lateral wall. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate elevation of arterial pressure caused marked reductions in LVEF and GLS in patients with LBBB. This reflects a cardiodepressive effect of elevated afterload in the dyssynchronous ventricle and was attributed to loss of septal function.

Corrigendum to: 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases.

Corrigendum to: 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases [Eur Heart Journal (2014) 35, 2873­2926,doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu281]. In Table 3, the radiation for MRI is "0" and not "-". The corrected table is shown below.