INTRODUCTION: We assessed implant rates, indications, characteristics, and outcomes in patients with the neuromuscular disease, myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) receiving a pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Device use was evaluated in a prospective, multicenter registry of 406 genetically confirmed adult patients followed for 9.5 ± 3.2 years. Forty-six (11.3%) had or received a pacemaker and 21 (5.2%) received an ICD. Devices were primarily implanted for asymptomatic conduction abnormalities and left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. However, 7 (15.2%) pacemakers were implanted for third-degree atrioventricular block and 6 (28.6%) ICDs were implanted for ventricular tachyarrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia [VT] or fibrillation [VF]). Patients receiving devices were older and more frequently had heart failure, LV systolic dysfunction, atrial tachyarrhythmias, and ECG conduction abnormalities compared to nondevice patients. Five (10.9%) pacemaker patients underwent upgrade to an ICD, 3 for LV systolic dysfunction, 1 for VT/VF, and 1 for progressive conduction disease. Seventeen (27.4%) of the 62 patients with devices were pacemaker-dependent at last follow-up. Three (14.3%) ICD patients had appropriate therapies. Twenty-four (52.2%) pacemaker patients died including 13 of respiratory failure and 7 of sudden death. Seven (33.3%) ICD patients died including 2 of respiratory failure and 3 of sudden death. The patients with ICDs and sudden death all had LV systolic dysfunction and 1 death was documented due to inappropriate therapies. CONCLUSIONS: DM1 patients commonly receive antiarrhythmia devices. The risk of VT/VF and sudden death suggests that ICDs rather than pacemakers should be considered for these patients.
INTRODUCTION: We assessed implant rates, indications, characteristics, and outcomes in patients with the neuromuscular disease, myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) receiving a pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Device use was evaluated in a prospective, multicenter registry of 406 genetically confirmed adult patients followed for 9.5 ± 3.2 years. Forty-six (11.3%) had or received a pacemaker and 21 (5.2%) received an ICD. Devices were primarily implanted for asymptomatic conduction abnormalities and left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. However, 7 (15.2%) pacemakers were implanted for third-degree atrioventricular block and 6 (28.6%) ICDs were implanted for ventricular tachyarrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia [VT] or fibrillation [VF]). Patients receiving devices were older and more frequently had heart failure, LV systolic dysfunction, atrial tachyarrhythmias, and ECG conduction abnormalities compared to nondevice patients. Five (10.9%) pacemaker patients underwent upgrade to an ICD, 3 for LV systolic dysfunction, 1 for VT/VF, and 1 for progressive conduction disease. Seventeen (27.4%) of the 62 patients with devices were pacemaker-dependent at last follow-up. Three (14.3%) ICDpatients had appropriate therapies. Twenty-four (52.2%) pacemaker patientsdied including 13 of respiratory failure and 7 of sudden death. Seven (33.3%) ICDpatientsdied including 2 of respiratory failure and 3 of sudden death. The patients with ICDs and sudden death all had LV systolic dysfunction and 1 death was documented due to inappropriate therapies. CONCLUSIONS:DM1patients commonly receive antiarrhythmia devices. The risk of VT/VF and sudden death suggests that ICDs rather than pacemakers should be considered for these patients.
Authors: Andreas Goette; Jonathan M Kalman; Luis Aguinaga; Joseph Akar; Jose Angel Cabrera; Shih Ann Chen; Sumeet S Chugh; Domenico Corradi; Andre D'Avila; Dobromir Dobrev; Guilherme Fenelon; Mario Gonzalez; Stephane N Hatem; Robert Helm; Gerhard Hindricks; Siew Yen Ho; Brian Hoit; Jose Jalife; Young-Hoon Kim; Gregory Y H Lip; Chang-Sheng Ma; Gregory M Marcus; Katherine Murray; Akihiko Nogami; Prashanthan Sanders; William Uribe; David R Van Wagoner; Stanley Nattel Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Andreas Goette; Jonathan M Kalman; Luis Aguinaga; Joseph Akar; Jose Angel Cabrera; Shih Ann Chen; Sumeet S Chugh; Domenico Corradi; Andre D'Avila; Dobromir Dobrev; Guilherme Fenelon; Mario Gonzalez; Stephane N Hatem; Robert Helm; Gerhard Hindricks; Siew Yen Ho; Brian Hoit; Jose Jalife; Young-Hoon Kim; Gregory Y H Lip; Chang-Sheng Ma; Gregory M Marcus; Katherine Murray; Akihiko Nogami; Prashanthan Sanders; William Uribe; David R Van Wagoner; Stanley Nattel Journal: J Arrhythm Date: 2016-07-11
Authors: Mark J Hamilton; Yvonne Robb; Sarah Cumming; Helen Gregory; Alexis Duncan; Monika Rahman; Anne McKeown; Catherine McWilliam; John Dean; Alison Wilcox; Maria E Farrugia; Anneli Cooper; Josephine McGhie; Berit Adam; Richard Petty; Cheryl Longman; Iain Findlay; Alan Japp; Darren G Monckton; Martin A Denvir Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elizabeth M McNally; Douglas L Mann; Yigal Pinto; Deepak Bhakta; Gordon Tomaselli; Saman Nazarian; William J Groh; Takuhisa Tamura; Denis Duboc; Hideki Itoh; Leah Hellerstein; Pradeep P A Mammen Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 5.501