Journal of arrhythmia · 2022
Impact of corticosteroid use on the clinical response and prognosis in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis who underwent an upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy.
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.
Suzuki Yuya, Takami Mitsuru, Fukuzawa Koji, Kiuchi Kunihiko, Shimane Akira, Sakai Jun, Nakamura Toshihiro, Yatomi Atsusuke, Sonoda Yusuke, Takahara Hiroyuki, Nakasone Kazutaka, Yamamoto Kyoko, Tani Ken-Ichi, Iwai Hidehiro, Nakanishi Yusuke, Hirata Ken-Ichi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are widely used in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis (CS). In addition, upgrading to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is sometimes needed. This study aimed to investigate the impact of corticosteroid use on the clinical outcomes following CRT upgrades.
METHODS: A total of 48 consecutive patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathies who underwent CRT upgrades were retrospectively reviewed and divided into three groups: group 1 included CS patients taking corticosteroids before the CRT upgrade (n = 7), group 2, CS patients not taking corticosteroids before the CRT upgrade (n = 10), and group 3, non-CS patients (n = 31). The echocardiographic response, heart failure hospitalizations, and cardiovascular deaths were evaluated.
RESULTS: The baseline characteristics during CRT upgrades exhibited no significant differences in the echocardiographic data between the three groups. After the CRT upgrade, responses regarding the ejection fraction (EF) and end-systolic volume (ESV) were significantly lower in CS patients than non-CS patients (ΔEF: group 1, 6.7% vs. group 2, 7.7% vs. group 3, 13.6%; p = .039, ΔESV: 3.0 ml vs. -12.7 ml vs. -37.2 ml; p = .008). The rate of an echocardiographic response was lowest in group 1 (29%). There were, however, no significant differences in the cumulative freedom from a composite outcome among the three groups (p = .19). No cardiovascular deaths occurred in group 1.
CONCLUSION: The echocardiographic response to an upgrade to CRT and the long-term prognosis in patients with CS should be carefully evaluated because of the complex etiologies and impact of immunosuppressive therapy.
METHODS: A total of 48 consecutive patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathies who underwent CRT upgrades were retrospectively reviewed and divided into three groups: group 1 included CS patients taking corticosteroids before the CRT upgrade (n = 7), group 2, CS patients not taking corticosteroids before the CRT upgrade (n = 10), and group 3, non-CS patients (n = 31). The echocardiographic response, heart failure hospitalizations, and cardiovascular deaths were evaluated.
RESULTS: The baseline characteristics during CRT upgrades exhibited no significant differences in the echocardiographic data between the three groups. After the CRT upgrade, responses regarding the ejection fraction (EF) and end-systolic volume (ESV) were significantly lower in CS patients than non-CS patients (ΔEF: group 1, 6.7% vs. group 2, 7.7% vs. group 3, 13.6%; p = .039, ΔESV: 3.0 ml vs. -12.7 ml vs. -37.2 ml; p = .008). The rate of an echocardiographic response was lowest in group 1 (29%). There were, however, no significant differences in the cumulative freedom from a composite outcome among the three groups (p = .19). No cardiovascular deaths occurred in group 1.
CONCLUSION: The echocardiographic response to an upgrade to CRT and the long-term prognosis in patients with CS should be carefully evaluated because of the complex etiologies and impact of immunosuppressive therapy.