The relationship of the prolonged PR interval with the long-term survival in patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy

Aim. To assess the relationship between the prolonged PR interval (≥200 ms) and the long-term survival of patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

Material and methods. A total of 85 patients (mean age — 55,1Ѓ}9,9 years; men — 81,2%) with NYHA class II-IV heart failure (HF) were examined. The mean follow-up was 34,0Ѓ}21,2 months. Patients with PR<200 ms (n=52) made up group I, with PR≥200 ms (n=33) — group II. Then the patients were divided into subgroups depending on the QRS duration: ≥150 ms (n=33 in group I and n=14 in group II, respectively) <150 ms (n=19 in group I and n=19 in group II, respectively).

Results. In patients of group II, a history of myocardial infarction (MI) was more often registered (p=0,005), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower (p=0,032). In a multivariate analysis, MI (OR 3,217; CI 95% 1,188-8,712; p=0,022) and LVEF value (OR 0,869; CI 95% 0,780-0,968; p=0,011) had a significant relationship with the PR interval prolongation (≥200 ms). The survival of patients of group I was 59,6%, group II — 18,2% (Log-rank test p<0,001). According to Cox regression model, the initial left ventricle end-systolic volume (OR 1,012; 95% CI 1,006-1,017; p<0,001), inferior wall MI (OR 1,690; 95% CI 1,131-2,527; p=0,011) and PR interval ≥200 ms (OR 2,179; 95% CI 1,213–3,915; p=0,009) were associated with long-term mortality. In patients with PR≥200 ms, survival rate was low, regardless of the QRS duration (21,4% in patients with QRS≥150 ms, 15,8% in patients with QRS<150 ms; Log-rank test p=0,698) In patients with PR<200 ms, the survival rate of patients with QRS≥150 ms was 72,7%, and for patients with QRS<150 ms — 36,8% (Log-rank test p=0,031).

Conclusion. In HF patients, PR interval prolongation (≥200 ms) is associated with long-term mortality increase. The highest survival rates were observed in patients with PR<200 ms and QRS≥150 ms. In patients with QRS≥150 ms, the presence of PR≥200 ms should be considered as an additional criterion for CRT.

1. Mareev V.Ju., Ageev F.T., Arutjunov G.P., Koroteev A.V., Mareev Ju.V., Ovchinnikov A.G., Belenkov Ju.N., Vasjuk Ju.A., Galjavich A.S., Garganeeva A.A., Giljarevskij S.R., Glezer M.G., Koziolova N.A., Koc Ja.I., Lopatin Ju.M., Martynov A.I. (prezident RNMOT), Moiseev V.S., Revishvili A.Sh., Sitnikova M.Ju., Skibickij V.V., Sokolov E.I., Storozhakov G.I., Fomin I.V., Chesnikova A.I., Shljahto E.V. (prezident RKO) National guidelines OSSN,RCS and RNMOT for diagnosis and treatment of CHF (fourth revision). Journal of heart failure. 2013; 14: 7(81). (In Rus).

2. Cleland J.G.F., Abraham W.T., Linde C. et al. An individual patient meta-analysis of five randomized trials assessing the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on morbidity and mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure. European heart journal. 2013; 34 (46):3547-3556.

3. Poole J.E., Singh J.P., Birgersdotter-Green U. QRS Duration or QRS Morphology What Really Matters in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy? Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2016; 67(9), 1104-1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.12.039

4. Nikolaidou T, Ghosh J.M., Clark A.L. Outcomes related to first-degree atrioventricular block and therapeutic implications in patients with heart failure. JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 2016 Apr 1;2(2):181-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2016.02.012.

5. Gervais R., Leclercq C., Shankar A., Jacobs S., Eiskjaer H., Johannessen A., Freemantle N., Cleland J.G., Tavazzi L., Daubert C.; CARE-HF investigators. Surface electrocardiogram to predict outcome in candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy: a subanalysis of the CARE-HF trial. Eur J Heart Fail 2009;11:699–705. doi: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfp074.

6. Cheng S., Keyes M.J., Larson M.G., McCabe E.L., Newton-Cheh C., Levy D., Benjamin E.J., Vasan R.S., Wang, T.J. Long-term outcomes in individuals with prolonged PR interval or first-degree atrioventricular block. Jama, 301(24) 2009: 2571-2577. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.888.

7. Kwok C.S., Rashid M., Beynon R., Barker D., Patwala A., Morley-Davies A., Satchithananda D., Nolan J., Myint P.K., Buchan I., Loke Y.K. Prolonged PR interval, first-degree heart block and adverse cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2016 Feb 15:heartjnl-2015. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308956.

8. Olshansky B., Day J.D., Sullivan R.M., Yong P., Galle E., Steinberg J.S. Does cardiac resynchronization therapy provide unrecognized benefit in patients with prolonged PR intervals? The impact of restoring atrioventricular synchrony: An analysis from the COMPANION Trial. Heart Rhythm. 2012; 9:34–9. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2011.07.038.

9. Joshi N.P., Stopped M.M., Li J., Beshai J.F., Pavri B.B. Impact of baseline PR interval on cardiac resynchronization therapy outcomes in patients with narrow QRS complexes: an analysis of the ReTHinQ Trial. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2015; 43:145–149. doi: 10.1007/s10840-015-9999-y.

10. Kutyifa V., Stockburger M., Daubert J.P., Holmqvist F., Olshansky B., Schuger C., Klein H., Goldenberg I., Brenyo A., McNitt S., Merkely B., Zareba W., Moss A.J.. PR interval identifies clinical response in patients with non-left bundle branch block. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014; 7:645–651. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.113.001299.

11. Lee H.S., Wu J.H., Asirvatham S.J., Del Carpio Munoz F., Webster T., Brooke K.L., Hodge D.O., Wiste H.J., Friedman P.A., Cha Y.M.. Effects of atrioventricular conduction delay on the outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Electrocardiol. 2014; 47:930–935. doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2014.07.024.

12. Januszkiewicz L., Vegh E., Borgquist R., Bose A., Sharma A., Orencole M., Mela T., Singh J.P., Parks K.A.. Prognostic implication of baseline PR interval in cardiac resynchronization therapy recipients. Heart Rhythm. 2015; 12:2256–2262. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.06.016.

13. Friedman D.J., Bao H., Spatz E.S., Curtis J.P., Daubert J.P., Al-khatib S. Association between a prolonged PR interval and outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy. A report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circulation. 2016; 134:1617–1628. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022913

14. Rickard J., Karim M., Baranowski B., Cantillon D., Spragg D., Tang W.W., Niebauer M., Grimm R., Trulock K., Wilkoff B., Varma N. Effect of PR interval prolongation on long-term outcomes in patients with left bundle branch block vs non–left bundle branch block morphologies undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart rhythm. 2017 Oct 1;14(10):1523-8. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.05.028.

15. Nagueh S.F., Smiseth O.A., Appleton C.P., Byrd B.F. 3rd, Dokainish H., Edvardsen T., Flachskampf F.A., Gillebert T.C., Klein A.L., Lancellotti P., Marino P., Oh J.K., Popescu B.A., Waggoner A.D. Recommendations for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function by Echocardiography: An Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016; 29(4):277–314. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2016.01.011.