loading page

Interaction of Left Ventricular Size with the Outcome of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Small Body Size
  • +7
  • Ryo Ito,
  • Yusuke Kondo,
  • Masahiro Nakano,
  • Takatsugu Kajiyama,
  • Miyo Nakano,
  • Haruhiro Takahira,
  • Mari Kitagawa,
  • Masafumi Sugawara,
  • Toshinori Chiba,
  • Yoshio Kobayashi
Ryo Ito
Chiba University Grduate School of Medicine

Corresponding Author:ryo.ito1111@gmail.com

Author Profile
Yusuke Kondo
Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine School of Medicine
Author Profile
Masahiro Nakano
Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine School of Medicine
Author Profile
Takatsugu Kajiyama
Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine School of Medicine
Author Profile
Miyo Nakano
Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine School of Medicine
Author Profile
Haruhiro Takahira
Chiba University Grduate School of Medicine
Author Profile
Mari Kitagawa
Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine School of Medicine
Author Profile
Masafumi Sugawara
Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine School of Medicine
Author Profile
Toshinori Chiba
Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine School of Medicine
Author Profile
Yoshio Kobayashi
Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine School of Medicine
Author Profile

Abstract

Introduction: We analyzed the influence of the QRS duration (QRSd) to left ventricle (LV) end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) ratio on the clinical outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in HF patients with small body size and New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification III/IV. Methods and Results We enrolled 114 patients with advanced heart failure (NYHA class III/IV, and LV ejection fraction > 35%) who received a CRT device, including those with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and QRSd ≥ 120 ms (n = 60), non-LBBB and QRSd ≥ 150 ms (n = 30), and non-LBBB and QRSd of 120-149 ms (n = 24). Over a mean follow-up period of 65 ± 58 months, the incidence of the primary endpoint, a composite of all-cause death and hospitalization for heart failure, showed no significant intergroup difference (43.3% vs. 50.0% vs. 37.5%, respectively, p = 0.72). Similarly, among 104 patients with QRSd/LVEDV ≥ 0.67 (n = 54) and QRSd/LVEDV < 0.67 (n = 52), no significant differences were observed in the incidence of the primary endpoint (35.1% vs. 51.9%, p = 0.49). Nevertheless, patients with QRSd/LVEDV ≥ 0.67 showed better survival than those with QRSd/LVEDV < 0.67 (14.8% vs. 34.6%, p = 0.0024). Conclusion: Advanced HF patients with a higher QRSd/LVEDV ratio showed better survival in this small-body–size population. Thus, the risk is concentrated among those with a larger QRSd, and patients with a relatively smaller left ventricular size appeared to benefit from CRT.