Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Jun 16;7(12):e008843. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.008843.
Prior studies have shown a close link between exercise and development of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. How much exercise restriction reduces ventricular arrhythmia (VA), how genotype modifies its benefit, and whether it reduces risk sufficiently to defer implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy are unknown.
We interviewed 129 arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy patients (age: 34.0±14.8 years; male: 60%) with ICDs (36% primary prevention) about exercise participation. Exercise change was defined as annual exercise duration and dose in the 3 years before clinical presentation minus that after presentation. The primary outcome was appropriate ICD therapy for VA. During the 5.1 years (interquartile range: 2.7-10.8 years) after presentation, 74% (95/129) patients reduced exercise dose and 85 (66%) patients experienced the primary outcome. In multivariate analyses, top tertile reduction in exercise duration and dose were both associated with less VA (duration: hazard ratio: 0.23 [95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.81]; dose: hazard ratio: 0.14 [95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.44]). Greater reduction in exercise dose conferred greater reduction in VA (=0.01 for trend). Patients without desmosomal mutations and those with primary-prevention ICDs benefited more from exercise reduction (=0.16 and =0.06 for interaction); however, 58% (18/31) of athletes who reduced exercise dose by >80% still experienced VA.
Exercise restriction should be recommended to all arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy patients with ICDs. Patients who are "gene-elusive" and those with primary-prevention devices may particularly benefit. Exercise reduction is unlikely to reduce arrhythmia sufficiently in high-risk patients to alter decision-making regarding ICD implantation.
先前的研究表明,运动与致心律失常性右心室心肌病的发生之间存在密切联系。运动限制能在多大程度上减少室性心律失常(VA),基因型对其益处有何影响,以及它是否能充分降低风险,从而推迟致心律失常性右心室心肌病患者植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)的放置,这些都是未知的。
我们对 129 例携带 ICD 的致心律失常性右心室心肌病患者(年龄:34.0±14.8 岁;男性:60%)进行了访谈,了解他们的运动参与情况。运动变化定义为临床发病前 3 年和发病后每年的运动时间和运动量。主要结局是 VA 的适当 ICD 治疗。在发病后 5.1 年(四分位间距:2.7-10.8 年)期间,74%(95/129)的患者减少了运动剂量,85 例(66%)患者出现了主要结局。多变量分析显示,运动时间和剂量的前三分位减少均与 VA 减少相关(时间:风险比:0.23[95%置信区间,0.07-0.81];剂量:风险比:0.14[95%置信区间,0.04-0.44])。运动量减少越多,VA 减少越多(趋势=0.01)。无桥粒蛋白基因突变的患者和接受一级预防 ICD 的患者从运动减少中获益更多(=0.16 和 =0.06 交互作用);然而,58%(18/31)的减少运动剂量超过 80%的运动员仍出现 VA。
应向所有携带 ICD 的致心律失常性右心室心肌病患者推荐限制运动。“基因逃避”的患者和接受一级预防设备的患者可能会特别受益。减少运动不太可能充分减少心律失常,从而改变对 ICD 植入的决策。