AI Article Synopsis

  • The study investigates factors that indicate the need for pacing device implantation (PDI) in patients with transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM), aiming to determine the role of preventive PDI and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation.
  • It involved analyzing data from 114 wild-type and 50 hereditary ATTR-CM patients who were not implanted with pacing devices at diagnosis, comparing backgrounds of those who needed future PDI and identifying specific conduction disturbances linked to these needs.
  • Findings suggest that bifascicular block is a significant predictor for PDI in both types of ATTR-CM, while first-degree AV block does not necessitate PDI or ICD; the need for larger studies is

Article Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to identify factors for attention leading to future pacing device implantation (PDI) and reveal the necessity of prophylactic PDI or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation in transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) patients.

Methods And Results: This retrospective single-center observational study included consecutive 114 wild-type ATTR-CM (ATTRwt-CM) and 50 hereditary ATTR-CM (ATTRv-CM) patients, neither implanted with a pacing device nor fulfilling indications for PDI at diagnosis. As a study outcome, patient backgrounds were compared with and without future PDI, and the incidence of PDI in each conduction disturbance was examined. Furthermore, appropriate ICD therapies were investigated in all 19 patients with ICD implantation. PR-interval ≥220 msec, interventricular septum (IVS) thickness ≥16.9 mm, and bifascicular block were significantly associated with future PDI in ATTRwt-CM patients, and brain natriuretic peptide ≥35.7 pg/mL, IVS thickness ≥11.3 mm, and bifascicular block in ATTRv-CM patients. The incidence of subsequent PDI in patients with bifascicular block at diagnosis was significantly higher than that of normal atrioventricular (AV) conduction in both ATTRwt-CM [hazard ratio (HR): 13.70, P = 0.019] and ATTRv-CM (HR: 12.94, P = 0.002), whereas that of patients with first-degree AV block was neither (ATTRwt-CM: HR: 2.14, P = 0.511, ATTRv-CM: HR: 1.57, P = 0.701). Regarding ICD, only 2 of 16 ATTRwt-CM and 1 of 3 ATTRv-CM patients received appropriate anti-tachycardia pacing or shock therapy, under the number of intervals to detect for ventricular tachycardia of 16-32.

Conclusions: According to our retrospective single-center observational study, prophylactic PDI did not require first-degree AV block in both ATTRwt-CM and ATTRv-CM patients, and prophylactic ICD implantation was also controversial in both ATTR-CM. Larger prospective, multi-center studies are necessary to confirm these results.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10228612PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad105DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

attrv-cm patients
16
icd implantation
12
bifascicular block
12
patients
9
implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
8
transthyretin amyloid
8
amyloid cardiomyopathy
8
pacing device
8
pdi
8
prophylactic pdi
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!