A novel and simple exercise test parameter to assess responsiveness to cardiac resynchronization therapy

3Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This study assessed the value of heart rate recovery index (HRRI), a new parameter of an exercise test, as the predictor of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods: Consecutive patients receiving a CRT device were followed up after implantation and every 6 months. An effort test (ET) was quantified by minimum heart rate/maximum heart rate, as well as acceleration and deceleration times. HRRI was calculated as the ratio between acceleration and deceleration time (AT/DT) and compared to outcome. We used logistic regression to assess the predictive value of HRRI for responders and non-responders to CRT. The area under the curve (AUC) was computed to distinguish between positive and negative outcomes. Results: A total of 109 patients (74 men, mean age 63.3 ± 9.8 years) were analyzed; permanent long-term fusion CRT pacing was possible in 65 patients. Patients were assigned to two groups: responders and non-responders (98/11 patients). During a mean follow-up of 36 months, 545 ETs were performed. HRRI was significantly higher in responders versus non-responders (3.16 ± 2 vs. 1.4 ± 0.5, p < 0.001). The optimal cutoff value for HRRI as a predictor of CRT response was 1.51 (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve = 0.844). Responders had significant left-ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling (LV end-diastolic volume = 240 ± 90 mL vs. 217 ± 89 mL, p < 0.001) and higher LV ejection fraction (26 ± 5.8% vs. 35 ± 8.7%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: HRRI computation during routine ET is useful for the evaluation of responsiveness to CRT.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cozlac, A. R., Petrescu, L., Crisan, S., Luca, C. T., Vacarescu, C., Streian, C. G., … Cozma, D. (2020). A novel and simple exercise test parameter to assess responsiveness to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Diagnostics, 10(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10110920

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free