Suppr超能文献

评估永久性双腔起搏作为药物难治性梗阻性肥厚型心肌病有症状患者的一种治疗方法。一项随机、双盲、交叉研究(M-PATHY)。

Assessment of permanent dual-chamber pacing as a treatment for drug-refractory symptomatic patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. A randomized, double-blind, crossover study (M-PATHY).

作者信息

Maron B J, Nishimura R A, McKenna W J, Rakowski H, Josephson M E, Kieval R S

机构信息

Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, Minneapolis, MN 55407, USA.

出版信息

Circulation. 1999 Jun 8;99(22):2927-33. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.99.22.2927.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Dual-chamber pacing (DDD) has been proposed as a treatment alternative to surgery for severely symptomatic patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), based largely on uncontrolled studies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This prospective, multicenter trial assessed pacing in 48 symptomatic HCM patients with >/=50 mm Hg basal gradient, refractory to drug therapy. Patients were randomized to 3 months each of DDD pacing and pacing backup (AAI-30) in a double-blind, crossover study design, followed by an uncontrolled and unblinded 6-month pacing trial. With randomization, no significant differences were evident between pacing and no pacing for subjective or objective measures of symptoms or exercise capacity, including NYHA functional class, quality of life score, treadmill exercise time or peak oxygen consumption. After 6 additional months of unblinded pacing, functional class and quality of life score were improved compared with baseline (P<0.01), but peak oxygen consumption was unchanged. Outflow gradient decreased 40%, 82+/-32 mm Hg to 48+/-32 mm Hg (P<0. 001), and was reduced in 57% of patients but showed no change or an increase in 43%. At 12 months, 6 individual patients (12%) showed improved functional capacity; each was 65 to 75 years of age. Left ventricular wall thicknesses in the overall study group showed no remodeling between baseline (22+/-5 mm) and 12 months (21+/-5 mm; P=NS).

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Pacing cannot be regarded as a primary treatment for obstructive HCM; (2) with randomization, perceived symptomatic improvement was most consistent with a substantial placebo effect; (3) longer, uncontrolled pacing periods were associated with some subjective benefit but unaccompanied by objective improvement in cardiovascular performance and should be interpreted cautiously; (4) modest reduction in outflow gradient was achieved in most patients; and (5) a small subset (12%) >/= 65 years of age showed a clinical response, suggesting that DDD pacing could be a therapeutic option for some elderly patients.

摘要

背景

双腔起搏(DDD)已被提议作为严重症状性梗阻性肥厚型心肌病(HCM)患者手术治疗的替代方案,这主要基于非对照研究。

方法与结果

这项前瞻性多中心试验评估了48例症状性HCM患者的起搏情况,这些患者基础压差≥50 mmHg,药物治疗无效。在一项双盲交叉研究设计中,患者被随机分为接受3个月的DDD起搏和起搏备用(AAI-30),随后进行为期6个月的非对照、非盲法起搏试验。随机分组后,对于症状或运动能力的主观或客观测量指标,包括纽约心脏协会(NYHA)心功能分级、生活质量评分、跑步机运动时间或峰值耗氧量,起搏与不起搏之间无明显差异。在额外6个月的非盲法起搏后,与基线相比,心功能分级和生活质量评分有所改善(P<0.01),但峰值耗氧量未改变。流出道压差降低了40%,从82±32 mmHg降至48±32 mmHg(P<0.001),57%的患者压差降低,但43%的患者压差无变化或升高。12个月时,6例个体患者(12%)心功能改善;每例患者年龄在65至75岁之间。整个研究组的左心室壁厚度在基线时(22±5 mm)和12个月时(21±5 mm;P=无显著性差异)未显示重塑。

结论

(1)起搏不能被视为梗阻性HCM的主要治疗方法;(2)随机分组后,感觉到的症状改善最符合显著的安慰剂效应;(3)更长时间的非对照起搏期与一些主观益处相关,但心血管性能无客观改善,对此应谨慎解读;(4)大多数患者流出道压差适度降低;(5)一小部分(12%)年龄≥65岁的患者有临床反应,提示DDD起搏可能是一些老年患者的治疗选择。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验