European journal of heart failure · 2022
The response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in LMNA cardiomyopathy.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Sidhu Kiran, Castrini Anna Isotta, Parikh Victoria, Reza Nosheen, Owens Anjali, Tremblay-Gravel Maxime, Wheeler Matthew T, Mestroni Luisa, Taylor Matthew, Graw Sharon, Gigli Marta, Merlo Marco, Paldino Alessia, Sinagra Gianfranco, Judge Daniel P, Ramos Hannia, Mesubi Olurotimi, Brown Emily, Turnbull Samual, Kumar Saurabh, Roy Darius, Tedrow Usha B, Ngo Long, Haugaa Kristina, Lakdawala Neal K
Аннотация
AIMS: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy is fundamental to the management of LMNA cardiomyopathy due to the high frequency of atrioventricular block and ventricular tachyarrhythmias. We aimed to define the role of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in impacting heart failure in LMNA cardiomyopathy.
METHODS AND RESULTS: From nine referral centres, LMNA cardiomyopathy patients who underwent CRT with available pre- and post-echocardiograms were identified retrospectively. Factors associated with CRT response were identified (defined as improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≥5% 6 months post-implant) and the associated impact on the primary outcome of death, implantation of a left ventricular assist device or cardiac transplantation was assessed. We identified 105 patients (mean age 51 ± 10 years) undergoing CRT, including 70 (67%) who underwent CRT as a CIED upgrade. The mean change in LVEF ∼6 months post-CRT was +4 ± 9%. A CRT response occurred in 40 (38%) patients and was associated with lower baseline LVEF or a high percentage of right ventricular pacing prior to CRT in patients with pre-existing CIED. In patients with a European Society of Cardiology class I guideline indication for CRT, response rates were 61%. A CRT response was evident at thresholds of LVEF ≤45% or percent pacing ≥50%. There was a 1.3 year estimated median difference in event-free survival in those who responded to CRT (p = 0.04).
CONCLUSION: Systolic function improves in patients with LMNA cardiomyopathy who undergo CRT, especially with strong guideline indications for implantation. Post-CRT improvements in LVEF are associated with survival benefits in this population with otherwise limited options.
METHODS AND RESULTS: From nine referral centres, LMNA cardiomyopathy patients who underwent CRT with available pre- and post-echocardiograms were identified retrospectively. Factors associated with CRT response were identified (defined as improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≥5% 6 months post-implant) and the associated impact on the primary outcome of death, implantation of a left ventricular assist device or cardiac transplantation was assessed. We identified 105 patients (mean age 51 ± 10 years) undergoing CRT, including 70 (67%) who underwent CRT as a CIED upgrade. The mean change in LVEF ∼6 months post-CRT was +4 ± 9%. A CRT response occurred in 40 (38%) patients and was associated with lower baseline LVEF or a high percentage of right ventricular pacing prior to CRT in patients with pre-existing CIED. In patients with a European Society of Cardiology class I guideline indication for CRT, response rates were 61%. A CRT response was evident at thresholds of LVEF ≤45% or percent pacing ≥50%. There was a 1.3 year estimated median difference in event-free survival in those who responded to CRT (p = 0.04).
CONCLUSION: Systolic function improves in patients with LMNA cardiomyopathy who undergo CRT, especially with strong guideline indications for implantation. Post-CRT improvements in LVEF are associated with survival benefits in this population with otherwise limited options.