Konstantinou Dimitrios M, Efthimiadis Georgios K, Vassilikos Vassilios, Paraskevaidis Stylianos, Pagourelias Efstathios, Maron Barry J, Karvounis Haralambos
aFirst Cardiology Department, AHEPA University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece bHypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Center, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2016 Jun;17(6):433-9. doi: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000000333.
Sudden cardiac death (SCD) may complicate hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) natural course. Patient selection for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in the primary prevention setting is still a challenge.
Thirty-seven HCM patients with a primary prevention ICD were included. All patients underwent preimplantation SCD risk assessment and semi-annual device interrogation during follow-up. Primary end point was the time to first appropriate ICD intervention including antitachycardia pacing or shock. Inappropriately delivered ICD therapies served as secondary end point.
During a median follow-up of 3.1 years, 10 (27%) patients received one or more appropriate ICD therapies. First appropriate ICD intervention rate was 7.2%/year (95% CI: 3.4-13.2) with a 5-year cumulative probability of 29.2 ± 7.4%. No SCD risk marker was significantly associated with the primary end point, whereas event rates were comparable among patients with one, two or three or more SCD risk markers (log-rank P = 0.58). Patients with a history of SCD in first-degree relatives with HCM were at 3.8 times higher risk of experiencing an ICD intervention compared with those with no family history of SCD (HR: 3.8; 95% CI: 1.0-14.1, P = 0.05). Seven (18.9%) patients experienced one or more inappropriate ICD therapies; beta-blocker therapy was associated with 75% fewer inappropriate ICD interventions (HR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.03-0.89).
Current criteria identify a subgroup of patients with HCM at increased risk of major arrhythmic events as indicated by high ICD intervention rates. However, no individual risk marker demonstrated superior predictive ability over the others, whereas simple arithmetic summing of risk markers was not associated with increased ICD intervention rates.
心源性猝死(SCD)可能使肥厚型心肌病(HCM)的自然病程复杂化。在一级预防中选择植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD)治疗的患者仍然是一项挑战。
纳入37例接受一级预防ICD治疗的HCM患者。所有患者在植入前均接受SCD风险评估,并在随访期间每半年进行一次设备问询。主要终点是首次适当的ICD干预时间,包括抗心动过速起搏或电击。不适当的ICD治疗作为次要终点。
在中位随访3.1年期间,10例(27%)患者接受了一次或多次适当的ICD治疗。首次适当的ICD干预率为7.2%/年(95%CI:3.4-13.2),5年累积概率为29.2±7.4%。没有SCD风险标志物与主要终点显著相关,而有一个、两个或三个或更多SCD风险标志物的患者的事件发生率相当(对数秩检验P=0.58)。与无SCD家族史的患者相比,HCM一级亲属有SCD病史的患者接受ICD干预的风险高3.8倍(HR:3.8;95%CI:1.0-14.1,P=0.05)。7例(18.9%)患者经历了一次或多次不适当的ICD治疗;β受体阻滞剂治疗使不适当的ICD干预减少75%(HR:0.15;95%CI:0.03-0.89)。
目前的标准确定了一组HCM患者,其主要心律失常事件风险增加,ICD干预率高表明了这一点。然而,没有单个风险标志物显示出比其他标志物更好的预测能力,而风险标志物的简单算术求和与ICD干预率增加无关。