Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Jan;32(1):93-103.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq389. Epub 2010 Oct 22.

Impact of scar burden by single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging on patient outcomes following cardiac resynchronization therapy

Affiliations

Impact of scar burden by single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging on patient outcomes following cardiac resynchronization therapy

Evan C Adelstein et al. Eur Heart J. 2011 Jan.

Abstract

Aims: Ischaemic heart disease negatively impacts response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), yet the impact of infarct scar burden on clinical outcomes and its interaction with mechanical dyssynchrony have not been well described.

Methods and results: We studied 620 NYHA classes III-IV heart failure patients with ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 35% and QRS duration ≥120 ms referred for CRT. Included were 190 ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) CRT recipients with scar burden quantified by rest-redistribution Tl(201) myocardial perfusion imaging using a 17-segment (0 = normal to 4 = absence of uptake) summed rest score (SRS). Non-ICM (NICM) CRT recipients (n = 380) and 50 patients referred for CRT with unsuccessful LV lead implant comprised the comparison groups. Echocardiographic dyssynchrony analysis was performed in a subgroup of 150 patients. Follow-up left ventricular EF (LVEF) and volumes were examined at 7 ± 3 months in 143 patients. The outcome of death, cardiac transplant, or mechanical circulatory support was assessed in all. Over 2.1 ± 1.6 years, ICM patients had significantly worse survival and less LVEF improvement than NICM patients (P < 0.01). Ischaemic cardiomyopathy patients with low scar burden (SRS < 27) had favourable survival and LVEF improvement, similar to NICM patients. A high scar burden (SRS ≥ 27) was associated with reduced survival and lack of LV functional improvement (P ≤ 0.01), similar to those with unsuccessful LV lead implant, whereas baseline dyssynchrony was not predictive of outcome in these patients.

Conclusion: Extensive scar burden in ICM patients unfavourably affected clinical and LV functional outcomes after CRT, regardless of baseline dyssynchrony measures. Patients with ICM and lower scar burden had significantly better outcomes, similar to NICM patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A representative 24 h redistribution Tl201 single-photon emission computed tomography scan from an ischaemic cardiomyopathy patient with high scar burden (SRS = 32) who underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy and had a poor outcome. The short-axis (upper two rows), vertical long-axis (third row), and horizontal long-axis slices (bottom row) show extensive perfusion defects in multiple vascular territories. The summed rest score was derived using a standard 17-segment left ventricular model and semi-quantitative perfusion score shown in the left panel.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Kaplan–Meier curves depicting survival free from cardiac transplant or mechanical circulatory support in heart failure patients after cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator implantation, stratified according to ischaemic cardiomyopathy or non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy. A third group of patients with attempted but unsuccessful left ventricular lead implant who received a standard cardioverter-defibrillator was included for comparison. Patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy had significantly more favourable event-free survival than the other groups.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan–Meier curves depicting survival free from cardiac transplant or mechanical circulatory support in study patients after cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator implantation. Patients were grouped as follows: (1) cardiac resynchronization therapy with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, (2) cardiac resynchronization therapy with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and low scar burden by single-photon emission computed tomography imaging (SRS < 27), (3) cardiac resynchronization therapy with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and high scar burden (SRS ≥ 27), (4) unsuccessful left ventricular lead implant with ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy or ischaemic cardiomyopathy with SRS < 27 had significantly better survival free from transplant or assist device than ischaemic cardiomyopathy with SRS ≥ 27 and unsuccessful left ventricular lead implant ischaemic cardiomyopathy patients.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Dot plots of ejection fractions and end-systolic volumes before and after cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients grouped according to ischaemic cardiomyopathy or non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy. A third group of patients with attempted but unsuccessful left ventricular lead implant who received a standard cardioverter-defibrillator was included for comparison. Significant improvements in ventricular function and reverse remodelling were observed in patient groups who received cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Dot plots of ejection fractions and end-systolic volumes before and after cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy grouped by high scar burden (SRS ≥ 27) or low scar burden (SRS < 27). Although patients with lesser degrees of scar burden improved, patients with high scar burden failed to demonstrate consistent improvements in ventricular function or reverse remodelling, similar to those with attempted but unsuccessful left ventricular lead implant.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Kaplan–Meier curves depicting survival free from cardiac transplant or mechanical circulatory support in ischaemic cardiomyopathy patients who had both single-photon emission computed tomography perfusion imaging and echocardiographic dyssynchrony analysis before cardiac resynchronization therapy. The top panel demonstrates that high scar burden (SRS >27) was associated with significantly lower survival. The bottom panel demonstrates that significant dyssynchrony, defined as both positive longitudinal and positive radial dyssynchrony, was not predictive of survival in these patients.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith AL, Delurgio DB, Leon AR, Loh E, Kocovic DZ, Packer M, Clavell AL, Hayes DL, Ellestad M, Trupp RJ, Underwood J, Pickering F, Truex C, McAtee P, Messenger J. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1845–1853. - PubMed
    1. Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J, Krueger S, Kass DA, De Marco T, Carson P, DiCarlo L, DeMets D, White BG, DeVries DW, Feldman AM. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2140–2150. - PubMed
    1. Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, Freemantle N, Gras D, Kappenberger L, Tavazzi L. The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1539–1549. - PubMed
    1. Bax JJ, Bleeker GB, Marwick TH, Molhoek SG, Boersma E, Steendijk P, van der Wall EE, Schalij MJ. Left ventricular dyssynchrony predicts response and prognosis after cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1834–1840. - PubMed
    1. Bax JJ, Abraham T, Barold SS, Breithardt OA, Fung JW, Garrigue S, Gorcsan J, III, Hayes DL, Kass DA, Knuuti J, Leclercq C, Linde C, Mark DB, Monaghan MJ, Nihoyannopoulos P, Schalij MJ, Stellbrink C, Yu CM. Cardiac resynchronization therapy: Part 1—issues before device implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:2153–2167. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms