Correlation Between CRT Response and Patient-Regret Scores in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Aritra Paul, Joe Demian, Niraj Varma, J. Emanuel Finet, Arshneel Kochar, Oussama Wazni, W. H. Wilson Tang, Feras Bader, John Rickard
{"title":"Correlation Between CRT Response and Patient-Regret Scores in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction","authors":"Aritra Paul,&nbsp;Joe Demian,&nbsp;Niraj Varma,&nbsp;J. Emanuel Finet,&nbsp;Arshneel Kochar,&nbsp;Oussama Wazni,&nbsp;W. H. Wilson Tang,&nbsp;Feras Bader,&nbsp;John Rickard","doi":"10.1111/jce.16788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The correlation between CRT response and patient perception of the procedure is uncertain.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To identify whether patient-reported outcomes correlate with CRT response through a decision regret scale (DRS) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We included 150 patients with HFrEF who underwent CRT implantation at the Cleveland Clinic from 2020 to 2022. Each patient was given a DRS questionnaire at 6 months post-CRT implant, and their CRT response status was assessed echocardiographically shortly thereafter. Response was defined as an improvement in LVEF &gt; 5% with a reduction in LVESV &gt; 10%. Patients were unaware of their response status at the time of filling out the questionnaire. The DRS Questionnaire asks patients whether they regret their decision to undergo a procedure. We grouped Questions 1, 3, and 5 from the DRS together for positive questions (higher is more regret), and Questions 2 and 4 were grouped for negative questions (lower is more regret). This data was compared between the two groups based on responder and nonresponder status.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>At 6 months post-CRT, the mean LVEF for responders compared to non-responders was 43% versus 27% <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, respectively. The median IQR positive score was 3 (3–5), and 10 (8–10) for negative questions amongst all patients. There were no patients who voiced significant regret for having undergone device implant. In comparing the mean scores between responders and non-responders there was no difference (median IQR positive score 3 (3–6) in non-responders, 3 (3–4.5) in responders; <i>p</i> = 0.19; negative score 10 (8–10) non-responders, 10 (9–10) in responders; <i>p</i> = 0.44)).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Patients with HFrEF undergoing CRT overwhelmingly do not regret their decision to undergo device implantation. The presence or absence of significant remodeling did not impact patient satisfaction and feelings toward the decision to undergo device implantation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15178,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","volume":"36 9","pages":"2366-2371"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jce.16788","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The correlation between CRT response and patient perception of the procedure is uncertain.

Objective

To identify whether patient-reported outcomes correlate with CRT response through a decision regret scale (DRS) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Methods

We included 150 patients with HFrEF who underwent CRT implantation at the Cleveland Clinic from 2020 to 2022. Each patient was given a DRS questionnaire at 6 months post-CRT implant, and their CRT response status was assessed echocardiographically shortly thereafter. Response was defined as an improvement in LVEF > 5% with a reduction in LVESV > 10%. Patients were unaware of their response status at the time of filling out the questionnaire. The DRS Questionnaire asks patients whether they regret their decision to undergo a procedure. We grouped Questions 1, 3, and 5 from the DRS together for positive questions (higher is more regret), and Questions 2 and 4 were grouped for negative questions (lower is more regret). This data was compared between the two groups based on responder and nonresponder status.

Results

At 6 months post-CRT, the mean LVEF for responders compared to non-responders was 43% versus 27% p < 0.001, respectively. The median IQR positive score was 3 (3–5), and 10 (8–10) for negative questions amongst all patients. There were no patients who voiced significant regret for having undergone device implant. In comparing the mean scores between responders and non-responders there was no difference (median IQR positive score 3 (3–6) in non-responders, 3 (3–4.5) in responders; p = 0.19; negative score 10 (8–10) non-responders, 10 (9–10) in responders; p = 0.44)).

Conclusion

Patients with HFrEF undergoing CRT overwhelmingly do not regret their decision to undergo device implantation. The presence or absence of significant remodeling did not impact patient satisfaction and feelings toward the decision to undergo device implantation.

射血分数降低的心力衰竭患者CRT反应与患者后悔评分的相关性
背景:CRT反应与患者对手术的感知之间的相关性尚不确定。目的:通过对心力衰竭伴射血分数降低(HFrEF)患者的决策后悔量表(DRS),确定患者报告的结果是否与CRT反应相关。方法:我们纳入了2020年至2022年在克利夫兰诊所接受CRT植入的150例HFrEF患者。每位患者在CRT植入后6个月进行DRS问卷调查,并在此后不久通过超声心动图评估其CRT反应状态。缓解被定义为LVEF >改善5%,LVESV >降低10%。在填写问卷时,患者并不知道他们的反应状态。DRS问卷询问患者是否后悔接受手术的决定。我们将DRS中的问题1、3和5归类为积极问题(越高越后悔),问题2和4归类为消极问题(越低越后悔)。根据应答者和非应答者状态比较两组之间的数据。结果:在CRT后6个月,应答者和无应答者的平均LVEF分别为43%和27%。结论:接受CRT的HFrEF患者绝大多数不后悔他们接受装置植入的决定。存在或不存在明显的重塑并不影响患者的满意度和对接受装置植入的决定的感觉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
14.80%
发文量
433
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (JCE) keeps its readership well informed of the latest developments in the study and management of arrhythmic disorders. Edited by Bradley P. Knight, M.D., and a distinguished international editorial board, JCE is the leading journal devoted to the study of the electrophysiology of the heart.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信