Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Volume 14, Issue 12, Pages (December 2017)

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Volume 14, Issue 12, Pages (December 2017)"— Presentation transcript:

1 Volume 14, Issue 12, Pages 1748-1755 (December 2017)
The role of interventricular conduction delay to predict clinical response with cardiac resynchronization therapy  Michael R. Gold, MD, PhD, FHRS, Yinghong Yu, MS, Nicholas Wold, MS, John D. Day, MD, FHRS  Heart Rhythm  Volume 14, Issue 12, Pages (December 2017) DOI: /j.hrthm Copyright © 2017 Heart Rhythm Society Terms and Conditions

2 Figure 1 Two examples of RV-LV interval measurements. The RV-LV interval was measured by a validated device-based algorithm using the RV and LV marker channels The RV-LV interval was measured as 48 ms for the patient in panel A and 108 ms for the patient in panel B. V = ventricle; EGM = electrogram. Heart Rhythm  , DOI: ( /j.hrthm ) Copyright © 2017 Heart Rhythm Society Terms and Conditions

3 Figure 2 Distribution of the percentage of patients who were worsened, unchanged, and improved by clinical composite score from baseline to 12 months for the short and long RV-LV groups. LV = left ventricle; RV = right ventricle. Heart Rhythm  , DOI: ( /j.hrthm ) Copyright © 2017 Heart Rhythm Society Terms and Conditions

4 Figure 3 Kaplan-Meier curves of HF-free survival for the short and long RV-LV groups. HF = heart failure; LV = left ventricle; RV = right ventricle. Heart Rhythm  , DOI: ( /j.hrthm ) Copyright © 2017 Heart Rhythm Society Terms and Conditions

5 Figure 4 Optimal RV-LV cutoffs. Receiver operating characteristic curves are shown for both the end points of worsened clinical composite score as well as heart failure hospitalization or death. Time-dependent curves at 6 and 12 months were calculated for the end point of heart failure hospitalization or death. The optimal cutoffs were consistent from each analysis, ranging from 62 to 65 ms. The areas under the curves (AUCs) and 95% confidence intervals are presented for each curve. LV = left ventricle; RV = right ventricle. Heart Rhythm  , DOI: ( /j.hrthm ) Copyright © 2017 Heart Rhythm Society Terms and Conditions

6 Figure 5 Spline analysis of the relationship between the RV-LV interval and the hazard ratio for death or HFH. The response was normalized for the median RV-LV interval of 67 ms. The model is adjusted for age, sex, New York Heart Association class, QRS morphology, QRS duration, etiology of heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction, and LV lead location. HFH = heart failure hospitalization LV = left ventricle; RV = right ventricle. Heart Rhythm  , DOI: ( /j.hrthm ) Copyright © 2017 Heart Rhythm Society Terms and Conditions

7 Figure 6 Forest plots of logistic regression analyses assessing the effect of interventricular electrical delay in prespecified subgroups for both the proportion of subjects who worsened by CCS (A) and the odds ratio of death or HFH (B). CAD = coronary artery disease; CCS = clinical composite score; HFH = heart failure hospitalization; HR = hazard ratio; LBBB = left bundle branch block; LV = left ventricle; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA = New York Heart Association; OR = odds ratio; RV = right ventricle. Heart Rhythm  , DOI: ( /j.hrthm ) Copyright © 2017 Heart Rhythm Society Terms and Conditions


Download ppt "Volume 14, Issue 12, Pages (December 2017)"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google