Evidence Hub

Results of the Predictors of Response to CRT (PROSPECT) Trial

E. Chung, A. León, L. Tavazzi, J. Sun, P. Nihoyannopoulos, J. Merlino, W. Abraham, S. Ghio et al.

Circulation, 2008

498 participants · 2,171 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Data from single-center studies suggest that echocardiographic parameters of mechanical dyssynchrony may improve patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). In a prospective, multicenter setting, the Predictors of Response to CRT (PROSPECT) study tested the performance of these parameters to predict CRT response. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-three centers in Europe, Hong Kong, and the United States enrolled 498 patients with standard CRT indications (New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction or = 130 ms, stable medical regimen). Twelve echocardiographic parameters of dyssynchrony, based on both conventional and tissue Doppler-based methods, were evaluated after site training in acquisition methods and blinded core laboratory analysis. Indicators of positive CRT response were improved clinical composite score and > or = 15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months. Clinical composite score was improved in 69% of 426 patients, whereas left ventricular end-systolic volume decreased > or = 15% in 56% of 286 patients with paired data. The ability of the 12 echocardiographic parameters to predict clinical composite score response varied widely, with sensitivity ranging from 6% to 74% and specificity ranging from 35% to 91%; for predicting left ventricular end-systolic volume response, sensitivity ranged from 9% to 77% and specificity from 31% to 93%. For all the parameters, the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 498 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free