Dong, Yun-xu

Background Neurohormonal dysregulation contributes to heart failure (HF) progression. We sought to determine the effect of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) on the nerve growth factor (NGF), a biomarker that promotes the maturation, and survival of sympathetic nerve endings, and amino-terminal propeptide of type III procollagen (PIIINP), a marker of type III collagen synthesis. Methods This prospective study enrolled 20 healthy age-matched controls and 45 consecutive patients (pts) who received CRT-D. NYHA class, distance of 6-min walk and echocardiography and plasma concentrations of NGF, PIIINP, b-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), norepinephrine (NE), epinephrine (EPI) and dopamine (DA) were measured before and 6 month after CRT. Response to CRT was defined as ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) at 6-month follow-up. Results The baseline BNP (557±692 vs 47±35, p<0.01) and PIIINP (8.22±3.76 vs 5.36±1.47, p<0.01) were elevated in HF compared to controls, while NGF, NE, EPI and DA levels were not different. Twenty two of 45 pts (49%) responded to CRT. The responder group demonstrated significant decrease only in BNP level (p=0.04) at 6-month follow-up, parallelling with the clinical improvements (table 1). The baseline PIIINP was lower in CRT responders than non-responders (p=0.04), and it correlated with the reduction of LVESVI (p=0.01, r=−0.50) after CRT. The further multivariate analysis showed only the plasma PIIINP level among clinic characters and all the biomarkers can predict the improvement of LVESV index (OR=8.33, P=0.01). Conclusion The low PIIINP level, which is consistent with possible less cardiac fibrosis and a more plastic ventricle at baseline, is associated with CRT responsiveness. Contrary to previous reports, the NGF levels were not reduced during HF and that there was no NGF rebound in CRT responders.

Introduction Lateral or posteriolateral coronary vein has been considered the optimal location of left ventricular (LV) lead placement for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). However, the long-term clinical outcomes of CRT based on LV lead location have not been sufficiently addressed. Methods Seven hundred and eighteen CRT-P/CRT-D recipients from Jan 2002 to Dec 2008 were studied. At the CRT implant, the LV lead placement was prioritised as posterolateral/lateral (PL, 50%), anterior lateral (AL, 31%), anterior interventricular (AI, 12%) or middle cardiac veins (MC, 7%). NYHA class and echocardiography were assessed before and after CRT. Clinical outcomes of CRT were compared among 4 LV lead locations. Results Patient baseline demographics, except the gender (P=0.03), were similar among four groups. After CRT, the improvement in NYHA class, LV ejection fraction (EF), and LV diastolic diameter were significantly improved comparably across four LV lead locations (table). The increase in LVEF by >5% were 46%, 47%, 41% and 42% in PL, AL, AI and MC groups (p=0.87). Conclusion The present study suggests that LV lead positioned in the alternative coronary veins, other than posteriolateral or lateral location, achieve comparable benefit in improvement of HF symptoms, and LV function after CRT. Table Comparison of clinic outcomes before and after CRT in different LV lead locations Lateral vein (N=359) Anterolateral vein (N=226) middle cardiac vein (N=49) anterior interventricular vein (N=84) Pre-CRT Post-CRT Pre-CRT Post-CRT Pre-CRT Post-CRT Pre-CRT Post-CRT NYHA 3.02±0.46 2.34±0.81* 2.92±0.53 2.34±0.89* 3.10±0.45 2.70±0.85* 2.98±0.52 2.43±0.86* LVEF (%) 23.57±7.28 30.82±11.67* 24.19±7.96 30.44±12.06* 24.97±7.62 30.72±11.43* 22.45±7.25 28.40±11.73* LVEDD (mm) 65.71±9.12 63.00±9.73* 65.79±8.87 63.88±9.88* 65.39±9.32 62.61±10.25* 68.48±8.92 64.86±9.67* LVESD (mm) 57.91±9.89 52.83±11.68* 56.69±10.23 53.03±12.01* 56.18±11.56 52.24±13.11* 59.09±10.04 55.32±13.30 RVD (mm) 0.90±0.86 0.82±0.85 0.85±0.92 0.82±0.85 0.86±0.83 1.01±0.84 0.56±0.77 0.78±0.91 RV dysfunction 1.05±0.92 0.88±0.92* 1.03±0.93 0.93±0.91 1.06±0.97 1.06±0.90 0.74±0.86 0.79±0.96 MR (m/s) 1.54±0.78 1.30±0.75* 1.57±0.83 1.35±0.75* 1.53±0.71 1.15±0.70* 1.36±0.69 1.19±0.68 * P<0.05 compared to pre-CRT.