Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine (K.C.M., M.H.D., A.P., J.L.G.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, North Texas VA Medical Center, Dallas (K.C.M.).
Circ Heart Fail. 2020 Dec;13(12):e007931. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.120.007931. Epub 2020 Nov 9.
Many patients with amyloid cardiomyopathy (ACM) develop advanced heart failure, and durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may be a consideration. However, data describing clinical outcomes after MCS in this population are limited.
Adult patients in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM, n=19 921), nonamyloid restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM, n=248), or ACM (n=46) between 2005 and 2017 were included. Patient and device characteristics were compared between cardiomyopathy groups. The primary end point was the cumulative incidence of death with heart transplantation as a competing risk.
Patients with ACM (n=46) were older (61 years [interquartile range, 55-69 years] versus 58 years [interquartile range, 49-66 years] for DCM and 55 years [interquartile range, 46-62 years] for nonamyloid RCM, <0.001) and were more commonly Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profile 1 (30.4% versus 17.9% for DCM and 21.0% for nonamyloid RCM, =0.04) at device implantation. Use of biventricular support (biventricular assist device or total artificial heart) was the highest for patients with ACM (41.3% versus 6.7% and 19.4% for patients with DCM and nonamyloid RCM, respectively, =0.014). The cumulative incidence of death was highest for patients with ACM relative to those with DCM or nonamyloid RCM (<0.001) but did not differ significantly between groups for those who required biventricular MCS.
Compared with patients with DCM or nonamyloid RCM who received durable MCS, those with ACM experienced the highest use of biventricular support and the worst survival. These data highlight concerns with the use of durable MCS for patients with ACM.
许多淀粉样变性心肌病(ACM)患者发展为晚期心力衰竭,可能需要持久的机械循环支持(MCS)。然而,关于该人群接受 MCS 后的临床结局的数据有限。
纳入 2005 年至 2017 年期间在机械循环辅助国际注册研究(Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support)中患有扩张型心肌病(DCM,n=19921)、非淀粉样限制性心肌病(RCM,n=248)或 ACM(n=46)的成年患者。比较心肌病组间患者和设备特征。主要终点是心脏移植作为竞争风险的累积死亡率。
ACM 患者(n=46)年龄较大(61 岁[四分位距,55-69 岁]比 DCM 患者 58 岁[四分位距,49-66 岁]和非淀粉样 RCM 患者 55 岁[四分位距,46-62 岁],<0.001),在设备植入时更常为国际注册研究机械循环辅助 profile 1(30.4%比 DCM 患者 17.9%和非淀粉样 RCM 患者 21.0%,=0.04)。ACM 患者中使用双心室支持(双心室辅助装置或全人工心脏)的比例最高(41.3%比 DCM 患者 6.7%和非淀粉样 RCM 患者 19.4%,=0.014)。ACM 患者的死亡率最高,与 DCM 或非淀粉样 RCM 患者相比(<0.001),但需要双心室 MCS 的患者之间无显著差异。
与接受持久 MCS 的 DCM 或非淀粉样 RCM 患者相比,ACM 患者使用双心室支持的比例最高,生存率最差。这些数据突出了对 ACM 患者使用持久 MCS 的担忧。