Background-Data from single-center studies suggest that echocardiographic parameters of mechanical dyssynchrony may improve patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). In a prospective, multicenter setting, the Predictors of Response to CRT (PROSPECT) study tested the performance of these parameters to predict CRT response. Methods and Results-Fifty-three centers in Europe, Hong Kong, and the United States enrolled 498 patients with standard CRT indications (New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction Յ35%, QRS Ն130 ms, stable medical regimen). Twelve echocardiographic parameters of dyssynchrony, based on both conventional and tissue Doppler-based methods, were evaluated after site training in acquisition methods and blinded core laboratory analysis. Indicators of positive CRT response were improved clinical composite score and Ն15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months. Clinical composite score was improved in 69% of 426 patients, whereas left ventricular end-systolic volume decreased Ն15% in 56% of 286 patients with paired data. The ability of the 12 echocardiographic parameters to predict clinical composite score response varied widely, with sensitivity ranging from 6% to 74% and specificity ranging from 35% to 91%; for predicting left ventricular end-systolic volume response, sensitivity ranged from 9% to 77% and specificity from 31% to 93%. For all the parameters, the area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve for positive clinical or volume response to CRT was Յ0.62. There was large variability in the analysis of the dyssynchrony parameters. Conclusion-Given the modest sensitivity and specificity in this multicenter setting despite training and central analysis, no single echocardiographic measure of dyssynchrony may be recommended to improve patient selection for CRT beyond current guidelines. Efforts aimed at reducing variability arising from technical and interpretative factors may improve the predictive power of these echocardiographic parameters in a broad clinical setting. (Circulation. 2008;117: 2608-2616.)

Background-Numerous criteria believed to define a positive response to cardiac resynchronization therapy have been used in the literature. No study has investigated agreement among these response criteria. We hypothesized that the agreement among the various response criteria would be poor. Methods and Results-A literature search was conducted with the keywords "cardiac resynchronization" and "response." The 50 publications with the most citations were reviewed. After the exclusion of editorials and reviews, 17 different primary response criteria were identified from 26 relevant articles. The agreement among 15 of these 17 response criteria was assessed in 426 patients from the Predictors of Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (PROSPECT) study with Cohen's -coefficient (2 response criteria were not calculable from PROSPECT data). The overall response rate ranged from 32% to 91% for the 15 response criteria. Ninety-nine percent of patients showed a positive response according to at least 1 of the 15 criteria, whereas 94% were classified as a nonresponder by at least 1 criterion.

This study compares LV performance during high right ventricular septal (RVS) and apical (RVA) pacing in patients with LV dysfunction who underwent His-bundle ablation for chronic AF. We inserted a passive fixation pacing electrode into the RVA and an active fixation electrode in the RVS. A dual chamber, rate responsive pulse generator stimulated the RVA through the ventricular port and the RVS via the atrial port. Patients were randomized to initial RVA (VVIR) or RVS (AAIR) pacing for 2 months. The pacing site was reversed during the next 2 months. At the 2 and 4 month follow-up visit, each patient underwent a transthoracic echocardiographical study and a rest/exercise first pass radionuclide ventriculogram. We studied nine men and three women (mean age of 68 +/- 7 years) with congestive heart failure functional Class (NYHA Classification): I (3 patients), II (7 patients), and III (2 patients). The QRS duration was shorter during RVS stimulation (158 +/- 10 vs 170 +/- 11 ms, P < 0.001). Chronic capture threshold and lead impedance did not significantly differ. LV fractional shortening improved during RVS pacing (0.31 +/- 0.05 vs 0.26 +/- 0.07, P < 0.01). RVS activation increased the resting first pass LV ejection fraction (0.51 +/- 0.14 vs 0.43 +/- 0.10, P < 0.01). No significant difference was observed during RVS and RVA pacing in the exercise time (5.6 +/- 3.2 vs 5.4 +/- 3.1, P = 0.6) or the exercise first pass LV ejection fraction (0.58 +/- 0.15 vs 0.55 +/- 0.16, P = 0.2). The relative changes in QRS duration and LV ejection fraction at both pacing sites showed a significant correlation (P < 0.01). We conclude that RVS pacing produces shorter QRS duration and better chronic LV function than RVA pacing in patients with mild to moderate LV dysfunction and chronic AF after His-bundle ablation.

No abstract