AI Insight
In a retrospective analysis of 120 patients with non-left bundle branch block heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy, echocardiographic response at one year occurred in approximately 42.5% of patients. Baseline structural variables, specifically left ventricular end-diastolic diameter and left ventricular ejection fraction, were the strongest predictors of response, with the primary model achieving an optimism-corrected AUC of 0.766. Procedural factors such as pacing strategy and lead positioning provided no meaningful incremental predictive value after statistical validation.
Why it matters
These findings suggest that clinicians should prioritize baseline cardiac structural assessment when selecting non-LBBB patients likely to benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy, rather than relying on procedural optimization as the primary driver of response. This has practical implications for patient counseling and pre-implant decision-making in a population historically underrepresented in CRT trials.
⚠️ Preprint – Noch nicht peer-reviewed
Dieser Artikel wurde noch nicht von unabhängigen Experten begutachtet. Die Ergebnisse sind vorläufig und sollten mit Vorsicht interpretiert werden.
Background: Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is heterogeneous in patients with non-left bundle branch block (non-LBBB) heart failure. Whether pre-implant substrate or procedural characteristics provide the more stable framework for predicting 1-year echocardiographic response remains uncertain. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 120 non-LBBB patients undergoing CRT. The primary logistic model included left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left atrial diameter, log-transformed NT-proBNP, baseline QRS duration, fragmented QRS burden across V1?V6 leads, and pulmonary artery pressure. Missing predictor data were handled using multiple imputation with 20 datasets. Model performance was assessed using bootstrap internal validation and recalibration. A prespecified procedural extension added pacing strategy, posterolateral biventricular left ventricular lead location, left ventricular pacing threshold, and right ventricular lead position. Exploratory phenotyping and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Echocardiographic response occurred in 51 patients (42.5%). LVEDD (OR, 0.899 [95% CI, 0.826?0.978]; P=0.013) and LVEF (OR, 1.068 [95% CI, 1.000?1.140]; P=0.050) were the most informative predictors. The primary model showed apparent AUC 0.811 and Brier score 0.173, with optimism-corrected AUC 0.766 and calibration slope 0.765. Procedural extension showed no retained incremental value after validation. Exploratory phenotyping identified three response patterns with moderate stability. Conclusions: In non-LBBB CRT, baseline structural, biomarker, and electrocardiographic substrate provided the most stable framework for predicting 1-year echocardiographic response. Procedural variables added limited retained value, suggesting that pacing strategy should be interpreted alongside baseline substrate.