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

Table 3 Echocardiographic response by wall motion pattern and lead location

	All	Non-T2CL	CL Only	T2 Only	T2CL	P value^a
	N = 33	N = 21 (64 %)	N = 18 (55 %)	N = 20 (61 %)	N = 12 (36 %)	P value^a
∆ESV (ml)	−24 ± 40	−19 ± 48	−31 ± 40^b	−30 ± 24^c	−33 ± 18	0.023
Echocardiographic responder^d, n (%)	18 (55)	7 (33)	13 (72)	14 (70)	11 (92)	0.003

^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)
^bFor a remote lead, regardless of wall motion pattern, ∆ESV was −15 ± 40 ml. Compared to those with CL, p = 0.11
^cFor a type I wall motion pattern, regardless of lead concordance, ∆ESV −15 ± 56 ml. Compared to those with T2, p = 0.019
^dEchocardiographic response was defined by a decrease in ESV by ≥ 15 % at 6 month follow-up
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

ISSN: 1532-429X