Vectorcardiographic QRS area as a novel predictor of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND QRS duration and left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology are used to select patients for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We investigated whether the area of the QRS complex (QRSAREA) on the 3-dimensional vectorcardiogram (VCG) can improve patient selection. METHODS VCG (Frank orthogonal lead system) was recorded prior to CRT device implantation in 81 consecutive patients. VCG parameters, including QRSAREA, were assessed, and compared to QRS duration and morphology. Three LBBB definitions were used, differing in requirement of mid-QRS notching. Responders to CRT (CRT-R) were defined as patients with ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end systolic volume after 6months of CRT. RESULTS Fifty-seven patients (70%) were CRT-R. QRSAREA was larger in CRT-R than in CRT non-responders (140±42 vs 100±40 μVs, p<0.001) and predicted CRT response better than QRS duration (AUC 0.78 vs 0.62, p=0.030). With a 98μVs cutoff value, QRSAREA identified CRT-R with an odds ratio (OR) of 10.2 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 3.4 to 31.1. This OR was higher than that for QRS duration >156ms (OR=2.5; 95% CI 0.9 to 6.6), conventional LBBB classification (OR=5.5; 95% CI 0.9 to 32.4) or LBBB classification according to American guidelines (OR=4.5; 95% CI 1.6 to 12.6) or Strauss (OR=10.0; 95% CI 3.2 to 31.1). CONCLUSION QRSAREA is an objective electrophysiological predictor of CRT response that performs at least as good as the most refined definition of LBBB. CONDENSED ABSTRACT In 81 candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) we measured the area of the QRS complex (QRSAREA) using 3-dimensional vectorcardiography. QRSAREA was larger in echocardiographic responders than in non-responders and predicted CRT response better than QRS duration and than simple LBBB criteria. QRSAREA is a promising electrophysiological predictor of CRT response.

[1]  J. Daubert,et al.  The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  C. H. Chen,et al.  Improved left ventricular mechanics from acute VDD pacing in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and ventricular conduction delay. , 1999, Circulation.

[3]  J. Stypmann,et al.  QRS integral: an electrocardiographic indicator of mechanical interventricular asynchrony. , 2010, Journal of electrocardiology.

[4]  M. Rosen,et al.  Right ventricular pacing-induced electrophysiological remodeling in the human heart and its relationship to cardiac memory. , 2007, Heart rhythm.

[5]  L. A. Bonet,et al.  ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012 , 2012, Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi arsivi : Turk Kardiyoloji Derneginin yayin organidir.

[6]  E. W. Hancock,et al.  AHA/ACCF/HRS recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram: part III: intraventricular conduction disturbances: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; the American , 2009, Circulation.

[7]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[8]  J. Daubert,et al.  Effect of QRS Duration and Morphology on Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Outcomes in Mild Heart Failure: Results From the Resynchronization Reverses Remodeling in Systolic Left Ventricular Dysfunction (REVERSE) Study , 2012, Circulation.

[9]  Anna Strömberg,et al.  ESC GUIDELINES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF ACUTE AND CHRONIC HEART FAILURE 2008 (ENDING) , 2009 .

[10]  Biykem Bozkurt,et al.  2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. , 2013, Circulation.

[11]  A. Sittig,et al.  Reconstruction of the Frank vectorcardiogram from standard electrocardiographic leads: diagnostic comparison of different methods. , 1990, European heart journal.

[12]  A. Mateášik,et al.  Electrocardiographic patterns of left bundle-branch block caused by intraventricular conduction impairment in working myocardium: a model study. , 2011, Journal of electrocardiology.

[13]  David G Strauss,et al.  Evaluating strict and conventional left bundle branch block criteria using electrocardiographic simulations. , 2013, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[14]  O. Pahlm,et al.  Vectorcardiogram synthesized from a 12-lead ECG: superiority of the inverse Dower matrix. , 1988, Journal of electrocardiology.

[15]  G. Mascioli,et al.  Electrocardiographic Criteria of True Left Bundle Branch Block: A Simple Sign to Predict a Better Clinical and Instrumental Response to CRT , 2012, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[16]  D. Delurgio,et al.  Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  David G Strauss,et al.  Defining left bundle branch block in the era of cardiac resynchronization therapy. , 2011, The American journal of cardiology.

[18]  Milton Packer,et al.  Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  Y. Rudy Noninvasive electrocardiographic imaging of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure. , 2006, Journal of electrocardiology.

[20]  Nicolas Derval,et al.  Noninvasive electrocardiographic mapping to improve patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy: beyond QRS duration and left bundle branch block morphology. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[21]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Results of the Predictors of Response to CRT (PROSPECT) Trial , 2008, Circulation.

[22]  E. W. Hancock,et al.  AHA/ACCF/HRS recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram: part III: intraventricular conduction disturbances: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; the American , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  Paul J. Wang,et al.  Effectiveness of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy by QRS Morphology in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) , 2011, Circulation.

[24]  M. Drazner,et al.  2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[25]  F. Prinzen,et al.  Similarities and differences between electrocardiogram signs of left bundle-branch block and left-ventricular uncoupling. , 2012, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[26]  Y. Rudy,et al.  Electrocardiographic imaging of patients with heart failure with left bundle branch block and response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. , 2007, Journal of electrocardiology.

[27]  Frits W Prinzen,et al.  Non-Responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy – The Magnitude of the Problem and the Issues – , 2011 .

[28]  F. Prinzen,et al.  The value of the 12-lead ECG for evaluation and optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy in daily clinical practice. , 2014, Journal of electrocardiology.

[29]  A. Hoes,et al.  Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure: executive summary (update 2005): The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology. , 2005, European heart journal.

[30]  Niraj Varma,et al.  Differential response to cardiac resynchronization therapy and clinical outcomes according to QRS morphology and QRS duration. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[31]  Ping Zhang,et al.  True complete left bundle branch block morphology strongly predicts good response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. , 2013, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.