Heart, lung & circulation · 2018
The Prevalence of Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy (PICM) in Patients With Long Term Right Ventricular Pacing - Is it a Matter Of Definition?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kaye Gerald, Ng Jun Yen, Ahmed Shameer, Valencia Diana, Harrop Danielle, Ng Arnold C T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Chronic right ventricular pacing may contribute to deterioration in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The aim of the study was to identify the prevalence of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in patients with chronic right ventricular pacing.
METHODS: Patients attending a pacemaker clinic were retrospectively identified as having had transthoracic echocardiographic LVEF measurement during the 12 months prior to device implantation. Those with cardioverter-defibrillators or biventricular devices were excluded. The remaining patients were invited back for a repeat echocardiogram. Three (3) different definitions of PICM were employed: 1) follow-up LVEF of ≤40% if baseline LVEF was ≥50%, or an absolute reduction in LVEF ≥5% if baseline LVEF was <50%; 2) follow-up LVEF of ≤40% if baseline LVEF was ≥50%, or an absolute reduction in LVEF ≥10% if baseline LVEF was ≤50%; 3) absolute reduction in LVEF ≥10% irrespective of baseline LVEF. Alternate causes of cardiomyopathy were excluded following a chart review.
RESULTS: The study cohort of 118 included 67 males (mean age 77.8±10.5years) and 51 females (mean age 76.8±11.2years). The mean time between baseline and follow-up echocardiograms was 3.5+1.4years (range 1.5-6.4 years). The prevalence of PICM ranged from 5.9 to 39.0% depending on PICM definition. Multivariate analysis found that PICM was significantly associated with ventricular pacing burden (p=0.013).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of pacing induced cardiomyopathy is dependent on current accepted clinical definitions. A clear definition of PICM is required for a better understanding of the clinical implications of right ventricular pacing.
METHODS: Patients attending a pacemaker clinic were retrospectively identified as having had transthoracic echocardiographic LVEF measurement during the 12 months prior to device implantation. Those with cardioverter-defibrillators or biventricular devices were excluded. The remaining patients were invited back for a repeat echocardiogram. Three (3) different definitions of PICM were employed: 1) follow-up LVEF of ≤40% if baseline LVEF was ≥50%, or an absolute reduction in LVEF ≥5% if baseline LVEF was <50%; 2) follow-up LVEF of ≤40% if baseline LVEF was ≥50%, or an absolute reduction in LVEF ≥10% if baseline LVEF was ≤50%; 3) absolute reduction in LVEF ≥10% irrespective of baseline LVEF. Alternate causes of cardiomyopathy were excluded following a chart review.
RESULTS: The study cohort of 118 included 67 males (mean age 77.8±10.5years) and 51 females (mean age 76.8±11.2years). The mean time between baseline and follow-up echocardiograms was 3.5+1.4years (range 1.5-6.4 years). The prevalence of PICM ranged from 5.9 to 39.0% depending on PICM definition. Multivariate analysis found that PICM was significantly associated with ventricular pacing burden (p=0.013).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of pacing induced cardiomyopathy is dependent on current accepted clinical definitions. A clear definition of PICM is required for a better understanding of the clinical implications of right ventricular pacing.