Clinical and gated SPECT MPI parameters associated with super-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the behavior of cardiac mechanical synchrony as measured by phase SD (PSD) derived from gated MPI SPECT (gSPECT) in patients with super-response after CRT and to evaluate the clinical and imaging characteristics associated with super-response. METHODS: 158 subjects were evaluated with gSPECT before and 6 months after CRT. Patients with an improvement of LVEF > 15% and NYHA class I/II or reduction in LV end-systolic volume > 30% and NYHA class I/II were labeled as super-responders (SR). RESULTS: 34 patients were classified as super-responders (22%) and had lower PSD (32° ± 17°) at 6 months after CRT compared to responders (45° ± 24°) and non-responders 46° ± 28° (P = .02 for both comparisons). Regression analysis identified predictors independently associated with super-response to CRT: absence of previous history of CAD (odds ratio 18.7; P = .002), absence of diabetes mellitus (odds ratio 13; P = .03), and history of hypertension (odds ratio .2; P = .01). CONCLUSION: LV dyssynchrony after CRT implantation, but not at baseline, was significantly better among super-responders compared to non-super-responders. The absence of diabetes, absence of CAD, and history of hypertension were independently associated with super-response after CRT.

Reproducibility of global LV function and dyssynchrony parameters derived from phase analysis of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT: A multicenter comparison with core laboratory setting.

BACKGROUND: Gated myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (GMPS) phase analysis is an important tool to investigate the physiology of left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony. We aimed to test the performance of GMPS LV function and phase analysis in different clinical settings and on a diverse population. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a prospective, non-randomized, multinational, multicenter cohort study. Clinical evaluation and GMPS prior to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)(baseline) and 6-month post CRT (follow-up) were done. LV end-systolic volume (LVESV), LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), LV ejection fraction (LVEF), LV phase standard deviation (LVPSD), and percentage of left ventricle non-viable (PLVNV) were obtained by 10 centers and compared to the core lab. RESULTS: 276 GMPS studies had all data available from individual sites and from core lab. There were no statistically significant differences between all variables except for LVPSD. When subjects with no mechanical dyssynchrony were excluded, LVPSD difference became non-significant. LVESV, LVEF, LVPSD and PLVNV had strong correlation in site against core lab comparison. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated good agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The presented correlation and agreement of LV function and dyssynchrony analysis over different sites with a diverse sample corroborate the strength of GMPS in the management of heart failure in clinical practice.

Diastolic dyssynchrony assessment by gated myocardial perfusion-SPECT in subjects who underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular diastolic dyssynchrony (LVDD) can be assessed by gated myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography (GMP-SPECT). LVDD is an area of interest in subjects who underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The aim of this post hoc analysis was to assess the role of LVDD in subjects with CRT who were followed up at 6-month period. MATERIAL & METHODS: Left ventricular diastolic dyssynchrony was assessed by GMP-SPECT at baseline and after CRT procedure in 160 subjects from 10 different cardiological centers. CRT procedure was performed as per current guidelines. Outcomes were defined as improvement in ≥1 New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by 5%, and reduction in end-systolic volume (ESV) by 15% and 5% points in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. LVDD was defined as diastolic phase standard deviation ≥40 ± 14°. RESULTS: Improvement in NYHA functional class occurred in 105 (65.6%), LVEF in 74 (46.3%), decrease in ESV in 86 (53.8%), and Minnesota score in 85 (53.1%) cases. Baseline LV diastolic standard deviation was 53.53° ± 20.85 and at follow-up 40.44° ± 26.1283; (P < 0.001). LVDD was not associated with improvement in clinical outcomes at follow-up. CONCLUSION: CRT improves both systolic and diastolic dyssynchrony values at 6-month follow-up. LVDD at baseline is correlated with cardiac functionality at follow-up, but not with overall favorable clinical outcomes.

Value of intraventricular dyssynchrony assessment by gated-SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging in the management of heart failure patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (VISION-CRT).

BACKGROUND: Placing the left ventricular (LV) lead in a viable segment with the latest mechanical activation (vSOLA) may be associated with optimal cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response. We assessed the role of gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (gSPECT MPI) in predicting clinical outcomes at 6 months in patients submitted to CRT. METHODS: Ten centers from 8 countries enrolled 195 consecutive patients. All underwent gSPECT MPI before and 6 months after CRT. The procedure was performed as per current guidelines, the operators being unaware of gSPECT MPI results. Regional LV dyssynchrony (Phase SD) and vSOLA were automatically determined using a 17 segment model. The lead was considered on-target if placed in vSOLA. The primary outcome was improvement in ≥1 of the following: ≥1 NYHA class, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by ≥5%, reduction in end-systolic volume by ≥15%, and ≥5 points in Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ). RESULTS: Sixteen patients died before the follow-up gSPECT MPI. The primary outcome occurred in 152 out of 179 (84.9%) cases. Mean change in LV phase standard deviation (PSD) at 6 months was 10.5°. Baseline dyssynchrony was not associated with the primary outcome. However, change in LV PSD from baseline was associated with the primary outcome (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07, P = .007). Change in LV PSD had an AUC of 0.78 (0.66-0.90) for the primary outcome. Improvement in LV PSD of 4° resulted in the highest positive likelihood ratio of 7.4 for a favorable outcome. In 23% of the patients, the CRT lead was placed in the vSOLA, and in 42% in either this segment or in a segment within 10° of it. On-target lead placement was not significantly associated with the primary outcome (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.71-3.28). CONCLUSION: LV dyssynchrony improvement by gSPECT MPI, but not on-target lead placement, predicts clinical outcomes in patients undergoing CRT.

Use of Heart Failure Medical Therapies Among Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Insights From INTERMACS.

BACKGROUND: Use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) for treatment of advanced heart failure has expanded significantly over the past decade. However, concomitant use of heart failure medical therapies after implant is poorly characterized. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the use of heart failure medications before and after LVAD implant in adult patients enrolled in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) between 2008 and 2013 (N = 9359). Using logistic regression, we examined relationships between patient characteristics and medication use at 3 months after implant. Baseline rates of heart failure therapies before implant were 38% for angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 55% for ß-blockers, 40% for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), 87% for loop diuretics, 54% for amiodarone, 11% for phosphodiesterase inhibitors, 22% for warfarin, and 54% for antiplatelet agents. By 3 months after implant, the rates were 50% for ACE inhibitors or ARBs, 68% for ß-blockers, 33% for MRAs, 68% for loop diuretics, 42% for amiodarone, 21% for phosphodiesterase inhibitors, 92% for warfarin, and 84% for antiplatelet agents. In general, age, preimplant INTERMACS profile, and prior medication use were associated with medication use at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Overall use of neurohormonal antagonists was low after LVAD implant, whereas use of loop diuretics and amiodarone remained high. Heart failure medication use is highly variable, but appears to generally increase after LVAD implantation. Low neurohormonal antagonist use may reflect practice uncertainty in the clinical utility of these medications post-LVAD.