Literature DB >> 18222636

Clinical and echocardiographic variables fail to predict response to dual-chamber pacing for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Josepha Binder1, Steve R Ommen, Paul Sorajja, Rick A Nishimura, A Jamil Tajik.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although dual-chamber pacing therapy for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy has been relegated to a limited role, there remains a subset of patients who are not good candidates for more definitive therapies.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this investigation was to determine whether preprocedural variables could help identify patients most likely to respond.
METHODS: Retrospective review of 84 patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who underwent dual-chamber pacing for obstructive physiology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, included baseline demographics and echocardiographic features known to favor left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Results of therapy, based on clinical visit, were obtained at two time points: within 2 years after pacemaker placement and at final follow-up (mean 3.7 years). Successful response to therapy was defined by improvement in New York Heart Association of at least 1 class without the need for surgical myectomy.
RESULTS: Overall, 66 (79%) patients had a follow-up visit within 2 years after the pacemaker placement, and 78 (93%) had at least one follow-up visit. There were 18 myectomies performed for persistent symptoms. A total of 33 (50%) patients had positive response to pacing therapy at the short-term analysis, whereas 34 (44%) had improvement sustained to the final visit. No preprocedural demographic or echocardiographic variables readily distinguished between responders and nonresponders.
CONCLUSION: Dual-chamber pacing therapy for the relief of symptoms caused by dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction has a limited role because of the availability of more definitive therapies; less than 50% long-term symptom relief; less than 20% long-term relief from a combined end point of death, symptoms, surgery, residual gradient, or a combination of these; and the inability to appropriately identify those patients most likely to derive benefit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18222636     DOI: 10.1016/j.echo.2007.11.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr        ISSN: 0894-7317            Impact factor:   5.251


  5 in total

Review 1.  Pacing for drug-refractory or drug-intolerant hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Mohammed Qintar; Abdulrahman Morad; Hazem Alhawasli; Khaled Shorbaji; Belal Firwana; Adib Essali; Waleed Kadro
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-05-16

2.  Provokable left ventricular outflow tract obstruction in a patient without hypertrophy.

Authors:  Ferdinando Pasquale; Maria Teresa Tomé-Esteban; Riccardo Morgagni; Perry Elliott
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 32.419

3.  Permanent pacing in patients with recurrence of symptoms and relapse of left ventricular obstruction at midcavity level after alcohol septal ablation.

Authors:  Vasil Velchev; Arman Postadzhiyan; Dobri Hazarbasanov; Bojidar Finkov
Journal:  Int J Vasc Med       Date:  2012-02-19

Review 4.  Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: The need for randomized trials.

Authors:  Iacopo Olivotto; Benedetta Tomberli; Roberto Spoladore; Alessandro Mugelli; Franco Cecchi; Paolo G Camici
Journal:  Glob Cardiol Sci Pract       Date:  2013-11-01

5.  Right ventricular pacing for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy: meta-analysis and meta-regression of clinical trials.

Authors:  Ahran D Arnold; James P Howard; Kayla Chiew; William J Kerrigan; Felicity de Vere; Hannah T Johns; Leonid Churlilov; Yousif Ahmad; Daniel Keene; Matthew J Shun-Shin; Graham D Cole; Prapa Kanagaratnam; S M Afzal Sohaib; Amanda Varnava; Darrel P Francis; Zachary I Whinnett
Journal:  Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes       Date:  2019-10-01
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.