We read with great interest the study by Corut Guzel et al. titled "Comparison of Doppler Echocardiographic and Invasive Hemodynamic Methods for Optimization of Patients Receiving Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy" In this study there was no control group. Including a control group with no optimization and with baseline device settings may answer this question: “Is routine optimization necessary for all CRT-D patients” and may show us the specific role of optimization just for nonresponder patients. In addition, it would have been beneficial for the study to report pacing percentages during device follow-up in patients who showed clinical improvement, and to discuss the presence or absence of leads in scarred myocardial regions. Despite these limitations, conducting such a complex and labor-intensive study involving both invasive and echocardiographic optimization in a single center with 40 patients is highly fascinating and commendable.
Corut Guzel ve ark yaptıkları Comparison of Doppler Echocardiographic and Invasive Hemodynamic Methods for Optimization of Patients Receiving Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy çalışması çok ilgi çekici ve değerli bilgiler veren bir çalışma olmuş.Bunun yanında CRT-D takılan hastaların pil kontrollerinde pacing oranlarının fayda gören hastalar açısından belirtilmesi veya skar bölgesinde elektrod varlığı/yokluğu tartışmada belirtilebilirdi. Tüm bunların yanında invaziv ve ekokardiyografik optimizasyon gibi zahmetli bir çalışmayı tek merkezli 40 hasta gibi bir hasta sayısıyla yapmak takdir edilmesi gereken bir çalışma.
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Cardiology |
| Journal Section | Letter to the Editor |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | November 25, 2025 |
| Submission Date | August 16, 2025 |
| Acceptance Date | September 4, 2025 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2025 Volume: 6 Issue: 3 |