6533b7ddfe1ef96bd127361d

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Cardiovascular outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy in cardiac amyloidosis

Jean-baptiste GuichardKilian FischerNicolas LelloucheHervé DevilliersRodrigue GarciaRaphaël P. MartinsArnaud BissonGuillaume SerzianMadeline EspinosaNicolas ClementyOlivier HuttinFrançois JourdaThibaud DamyFrançois LesaffreCharles GuenanciaBruno DegandJean-christophe EicherGabriel Laurent

subject

medicine.medical_specialtygenetic structuresmedicine.medical_treatmentPopulationCardiac resynchronization therapyHeart failureCardiac amyloidosisVentricular Function LeftInternal medicineImplantable cardioverter defibrillatormedicineHumansDiseases of the circulatory (Cardiovascular) systemcardiovascular diseaseseducationAgedRetrospective StudiesAged 80 and overeducation.field_of_studyCardiac resynchronization therapyEjection fractionbusiness.industryHazard ratioDilated cardiomyopathyStroke VolumeOriginal ArticlesAmyloidosismedicine.diseaseImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorDefibrillators ImplantablePacemakerTreatment OutcomeCardiac amyloidosisHeart failureRC666-701Cardiologycardiovascular systemOriginal ArticleCardiology and Cardiovascular Medicinebusinesstherapeuticscirculatory and respiratory physiology

description

Abstract Aims Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is highly effective in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) patients with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left bundle block branch. In cardiac amyloidosis (CA) patients, left ventricular dysfunction and conduction defects are common, but the potential of CRT to improve cardiac remodelling and survival in this particular setting remains undefined. We investigated cardiovascular outcomes in CA patients after CRT implantation in terms of CRT echocardiographic response and major cardiovascular events (MACEs). Methods and results Our retrospective study included 47 CA patients implanted with CRT devices from January 2012 to February 2020, in nine French university hospitals (77 ± 6 years old, baseline LVEF 30 ± 8%) compared with propensity‐matched (1:1 for age, LVEF at implantation, and CRT indication) DCM patients with a CRT device. CA patients had lower rates of CRT response (absolute delta LVEF ≥ 10%) compared with DCM patients (36% vs. 70%, P = 0.002). After multivariate Cox analysis, CA was independently associated with MACE (hospitalization for heart failure/cardiovascular death) [hazard ratio (HR) 3.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85–7.54, P < 0.001], along with the absence of CRT response (HR 3.01, 95% CI 1.56–5.79, P = 0.001). The presence of echocardiographic CRT response (absolute delta LVEF ≥ 10%) was the only predictive factor of MACE‐free survival in CA patients (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15–0.86, P = 0.002). Conclusion Compared with a matched cohort of DCM patients, CA patients had a lower rate of CRT response and consequently a worse cardiovascular prognosis after CRT implantation. However, CRT could be beneficial even in CA patients given that CRT response was associated with better cardiac outcomes in this population.

10.1002/ehf2.13663https://doaj.org/article/b418c0329ab4446688f14b88cfeed729