Skip to main content

Table 3 Echocardiographic response by wall motion pattern and lead location

From: Prediction of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy using left ventricular pacing lead position and cardiovascular magnetic resonance derived wall motion patterns: a prospective cohort study

  All Non-T2CL CL Only T2 Only T2CL P valuea
N = 33 N = 21 (64 %) N = 18 (55 %) N = 20 (61 %) N = 12 (36 %)
∆ESV (ml) −24 ± 40 −19 ± 48 −31 ± 40b −30 ± 24c −33 ± 18 0.023
Echocardiographic responderd, n (%) 18 (55) 7 (33) 13 (72) 14 (70) 11 (92) 0.003
  1. aThe p values listed in the table are for the comparison of T2CL versus non-T2CL (type I wall motion pattern and/or a remote left ventricular lead)
  2. bFor a remote lead, regardless of wall motion pattern, ∆ESV was −15 ± 40 ml. Compared to those with CL, p = 0.11
  3. cFor a type I wall motion pattern, regardless of lead concordance, ∆ESV −15 ± 56 ml. Compared to those with T2, p = 0.019
  4. dEchocardiographic response was defined by a decrease in ESV by ≥ 15 % at 6 month follow-up
  5. CL = Concordant left ventricular lead; ESV = End-Systolic Volume; T2 = Type II wall motion pattern; T2CL = Type II wall motion pattern and a concordant left ventricular lead