Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Who Benefits?

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been well established in multiple large trials to improve symptoms, hospitalizations, reverse remodeling, and mortality in well-selected patients with heart failure when used in addition to optimal medical therapy. Updated consensus guidelines outline patients in whom such therapy is most likely to result in substantial benefit. However, pooled data have demonstrated that only approximately 70% of patients who qualify for CRT based on current indications actually respond favorably. In addition, current guidelines are based on outcomes from the carefully selected patients enrolled in clinical trials, and almost certainly fail to include all patients who might benefit from CRT. Findings: The identification of patients most likely to benefit from CRT requires consideration of factors beyond these standard criteria, QRS morphology with particular consideration in patients with left bundle-branch block pattern, extent of QRS prolongation, etiology of cardiomyopathy, rhythm, and whether the patient requires or will eventually need antibradycardia pacing. In addition, the baseline severity of functional impairment may influence the type of benefit to be expected from CRT; for example, New York Heart Association class I patients may derive long-term benefit in cardiac structure and function, but no benefit in symptoms or hospitalizations can be reasonably expected. In contrast, certain New York Heart Association class IV patients may be too sick to realize long-term mortality benefits from CRT, but improvements in hemodynamic profile and functional capacity may represent vital advances in this population. Conclusion: This review evaluates the evidence regarding the various factors that can predict positive or even detrimental responses to CRT, to help better determine who benefits most from this evolving therapy

Mitral Apparatus Assessment by Delayed Enhancement CMR : Relative Impact of Infarct Distribution on Mitral Regurgitation

Objectives: This study sought to assess patterns and functional consequences of mitral apparatus infarction after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Background: The mitral apparatus contains 2 myocardial components: papillary muscles and the adjacent left ventricular (LV) wall. Delayed-enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance (DE-CMR) enables in vivo study of inter-relationships and potential contributions of LV wall and papillary muscle infarction (PMI) to mitral regurgitation (MR). Methods: Multimodality imaging was performed: CMR was used to assess mitral geometry and infarct pattern, including 3D DE-CMR for PMI. Echocardiography was used to measure MR. Imaging occurred 27 ± 8 days after AMI (CMR, echocardiography within 1 day). Results: A total of 153 patients with first AMI were studied; PMI was present in 30% (n = 46 [72% posteromedial, 39% anterolateral]). When stratified by angiographic culprit vessel, PMI occurred in 65% of patients with left circumflex, 48% with right coronary, and only 14% of patients with left anterior descending infarctions (p \u3c0.001). Patients with PMI had more advanced remodeling as measured by LV size and mitral annular diameter (p \u3c0.05). Increased extent of PMI was accompanied by a stepwise increase in mean infarct transmurality within regional LV segments underlying each papillary muscle (p \u3c0.001). Prevalence of lateral wall infarction was 3-fold higher among patients with PMI compared to patients without PMI (65% vs. 22%, p \u3c0.001). Infarct distribution also impacted MR, with greater MR among patients with lateral wall infarction (p = 0.002). Conversely, MR severity did not differ on the basis of presence (p = 0.19) or extent (p = 0.12) of PMI, or by angiographic culprit vessel. In multivariable analysis, lateral wall infarct size (odds ratio 1.20/% LV myocardium [95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 1.39], p = 0.01) was independently associated with substantial (moderate or greater) MR even after controlling for mitral annular (odds ratio 1.22/mm [1.04 to 1.43], p = 0.01), and LV end-diastolic diameter (odds ratio 1.11/mm [0.99 to 1.23], p = 0.056). Conclusions: Papillary muscle infarction is common after AMI, affecting nearly one-third of patients. Extent of PMI parallels adjacent LV wall injury, with lateral infarction—rather than PMI—associated with increased severity of post-AMI MR