University of Pittsburgh, Scaife 564, 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2582, USA.
Heart Fail Rev. 2012 Nov;17(6):737-46. doi: 10.1007/s10741-011-9274-y.
Although there is little debate over the fact that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can benefit the majority of patients selected with routine indications, the precise mechanism for improvement may be considered controversial. Among patients selected with New York Heart Association functional class III or IV symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35% and electrocardiographic QRS widening of at least 120-130 ms, approximately 60-80% of patients improved depending on the definition of response used. Although a reasonable assumption is that electrocardiographic QRS widening is a surrogate for delays in regional ventricular mechanical activation, a large volume of data has demonstrated that there is a subset of patients with widened QRS complexes who have no significant mechanical dyssynchrony. The reason for dissociation of electrical dispersion and mechanical dyssynchrony is unknown presently, but many studies have demonstrated the association of dyssynchrony with favorable outcome following CRT. Perhaps more importantly, several imaging studies (principally by echocardiography) have shown the lack of baseline mechanical dyssynchrony to be as a marker for a less favorable outcome after CRT. Recently, the lack of dyssynchrony before CRT has been shown to be associated with a significantly lower long-term probability of freedom from death, heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device placement. As further mechanistic evidence for the relationship of mechanical dyssynchrony and LV functional response to CRT, it has been suggested that patients who failed to improve their tissue Doppler measures of dyssynchrony after CRT have a lower chance of reverse remodeling. This topic has been muddled by technical difficulties in measurement of mechanical dyssynchrony by all imaging approaches, the confounding variable of scar in ischemic disease, and the widely variable definitions of response used by different investigators. However, the weight of evidence from a pathophysiological basis to the recent long-term patient outcome data strongly support the notion that resynchronization is the principle mechanism of benefit from CRT.
虽然心脏再同步治疗(CRT)可以使大多数符合常规适应证的患者受益,这一事实几乎没有争议,但改善的确切机制可能被认为存在争议。在选择具有纽约心脏协会(NYHA)功能 III 或 IV 级症状、左心室射血分数≤35%和至少 120-130ms 心电图 QRS 增宽的患者中,根据所使用的反应定义,约 60-80%的患者得到改善。尽管人们合理地假设心电图 QRS 增宽是区域性心室机械激活延迟的替代指标,但大量数据表明,有一部分 QRS 波群增宽的患者没有明显的机械不同步。电弥散和机械不同步分离的原因目前尚不清楚,但许多研究已经证明,不同步与 CRT 后有利的结果相关。也许更重要的是,几项影像学研究(主要是通过超声心动图)表明,基线机械不同步的缺乏是 CRT 后预后较差的标志物。最近,CRT 前不同步的缺乏与 CRT 后免于死亡、心脏移植或左心室辅助装置放置的长期可能性显著降低相关。作为机械不同步与 CRT 后 LV 功能反应之间关系的进一步机制证据,已经表明 CRT 后未能改善组织多普勒测量的不同步的患者,其逆重构的机会较低。由于所有影像学方法测量机械不同步的技术困难、缺血性疾病中的瘢痕混杂变量以及不同研究人员使用的反应定义广泛不同,这个问题变得复杂。然而,从病理生理学基础到近期长期患者预后数据的大量证据强烈支持这样一种观点,即再同步是 CRT 获益的主要机制。