OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether tissue Doppler imaging parameters, especially the peak systolic velocity of the left ventricular lead-implanted segment (Ss), affect cardiac resynchronization therapy response. METHODS: In this case-control study, 110 enrolled patients were divided into cases (responder group, n=65) and controls (nonresponder group, n=45) based on whether their left ventricular end-systolic volume was reduced by ≥15% at 6 months after surgery. Preoperative clinical and echocardiographic data were collected. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to analyze the factors affecting the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy, and receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted to evaluate their diagnostic values. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with left bundle branch block in the case group was higher than that in the control group. The control group showed a higher left atrial volume index, E/A ratio and E/Em ratio but lower Ss than that of the case group. A multivariate regression analysis showed that left bundle branch block, Ss, and an E/Em ratio>14 were independent risk factors affecting the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Ss=4.1 cm/s was the best diagnostic threshold according to the receiver operating characteristic curve. CONCLUSIONS: Ss is an important factor affecting the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Patients with heart failure associated with Ss<4.1 cm/s have a higher risk of nonresponse.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between diastolic function and the different beneficial effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure due to different causes. METHODS: The 104 enrolled patients were divided into an ischemic cardiomyopathy group (n=27) and a non-ischemic cardiomyopathy group (n=77) according to the cause of heart failure. Before implantation, left ventricular diastolic function was evaluated in all patients using echocardiography. After six months of follow-up, the beneficial effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy were evaluated using a combination of clinical symptoms and echocardiography parameters. RESULTS: The ischemic cardiomyopathy group included significantly more patients with restrictive filling than the non-ischemic cardiomyopathy group. The response rate after the implantation procedure was significantly higher in the non-ischemic cardiomyopathy group than in the ischemic cardiomyopathy group. Degrees of improvement in echocardiography parameters were significantly greater in the non-ischemic cardiomyopathy group than in the ischemic cardiomyopathy group. Multivariate regression analysis showed that a restrictive filling pattern was an independent factor that influenced responses to cardiac resynchronization therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study again confirmed that the etiology of heart failure affects the beneficial effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy and a lower degree of improvement in ventricular systolic function and remodelling was observed in ischemic cardiomyopathy patients than in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy patients. In addition, systolic heart failure patients with severe diastolic dysfunction had poor responses to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Ischemic cardiomyopathy patients exhibited more severe diastolic dysfunction than non-ischemic cardiomyopathy patients, which may be a reason for the reduced beneficial effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy.