The Effect of Medical Therapy on Reducing the Risk of Pacing Induced Cardiomyopathy

Mahdi S Agha, Christopher L Schaich, Rishi Rikhi, Krupal Hari, George M Bodziock, Prashant D Bhave
{"title":"The Effect of Medical Therapy on Reducing the Risk of Pacing Induced Cardiomyopathy","authors":"Mahdi S Agha, Christopher L Schaich, Rishi Rikhi, Krupal Hari, George M Bodziock, Prashant D Bhave","doi":"10.1101/2024.07.10.24310243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: High right ventricular (RV) pacing burden can result in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Objectives: To investigate whether ACE inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), and beta blockers (BB) reduce the risk of PICM in patients with high RV pacing burden. Methods: This was a single center, retrospective study which included patients with normal ejection fraction (EF) and complete heart block who underwent pacemaker implantation between 1992 and 2013. The medical therapy group included patients who received ACEI/ARB, BB, or combination of these classes. The control group received neither ACEI/ARB nor BB. The primary endpoint was PICM, defined as upgrade to a biventricular device or reduction in EF to ?40% without another etiology identified. Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models accounting for death as a competing risk were used to determine the relationship between medical therapy (ACEI/ARB, BB, or combination) and cumulative incidence of PICM. Results: The study included 642 patients (mean [SD] age 71 [14] years; 51% women). Over 10 years of follow-up, 76 (11.8%) patients received ACEI/ARB therapy only; 49 (7.6%) received BB therapy only; and 86 (13.4%) were exposed to both. PICM occurred in 10 of 211 patients in the medical therapy group (4.7%) and in 30 of 431 in the control group (7.0%). In adjusted analyses weighted for group-switching, the risk of PICM was significantly lower in the medical therapy group compared to the control group (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 - 0.77). Patients exposed to combination therapy had the lowest risk (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.69). Conclusion: In patients with high RV pacing burden, BB therapy alone or in combination with ACEI/ARBs appears to reduce the risk of PICM within 10 years of pacemaker implantation.","PeriodicalId":501297,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.10.24310243","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: High right ventricular (RV) pacing burden can result in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Objectives: To investigate whether ACE inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), and beta blockers (BB) reduce the risk of PICM in patients with high RV pacing burden. Methods: This was a single center, retrospective study which included patients with normal ejection fraction (EF) and complete heart block who underwent pacemaker implantation between 1992 and 2013. The medical therapy group included patients who received ACEI/ARB, BB, or combination of these classes. The control group received neither ACEI/ARB nor BB. The primary endpoint was PICM, defined as upgrade to a biventricular device or reduction in EF to ?40% without another etiology identified. Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models accounting for death as a competing risk were used to determine the relationship between medical therapy (ACEI/ARB, BB, or combination) and cumulative incidence of PICM. Results: The study included 642 patients (mean [SD] age 71 [14] years; 51% women). Over 10 years of follow-up, 76 (11.8%) patients received ACEI/ARB therapy only; 49 (7.6%) received BB therapy only; and 86 (13.4%) were exposed to both. PICM occurred in 10 of 211 patients in the medical therapy group (4.7%) and in 30 of 431 in the control group (7.0%). In adjusted analyses weighted for group-switching, the risk of PICM was significantly lower in the medical therapy group compared to the control group (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 - 0.77). Patients exposed to combination therapy had the lowest risk (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.69). Conclusion: In patients with high RV pacing burden, BB therapy alone or in combination with ACEI/ARBs appears to reduce the risk of PICM within 10 years of pacemaker implantation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
药物疗法对降低起搏诱发心肌病风险的影响
背景:右心室(RV)起搏负担过重会导致起搏诱发心肌病(PICM)。研究目的研究 ACE 抑制剂 (ACEI)、血管紧张素受体阻滞剂 (ARB) 和 β 受体阻滞剂 (BB) 是否能降低高右心室起搏负荷患者发生 PICM 的风险。方法:这是一项单中心回顾性研究,研究对象包括射血分数(EF)正常、完全性心脏传导阻滞且在 1992 年至 2013 年期间接受起搏器植入术的患者。药物治疗组包括接受 ACEI/ARB、BB 或这几类药物组合治疗的患者。对照组既不接受 ACEI/ARB 也不接受 BB。主要终点是PICM,定义为升级为双心室装置或EF降至40%以下,且未发现其他病因。细-格雷亚分布危险模型考虑了死亡这一竞争风险,用于确定药物治疗(ACEI/ARB、BB 或联合治疗)与 PICM 累积发生率之间的关系。研究结果研究共纳入 642 名患者(平均 [SD] 年龄 71 [14] 岁;51% 为女性)。在 10 年的随访中,76 例(11.8%)患者仅接受了 ACEI/ARB 治疗;49 例(7.6%)患者仅接受了 BB 治疗;86 例(13.4%)患者同时接受了两种治疗。在药物治疗组的 211 名患者中,有 10 人(4.7%)发生了 PICM;在对照组的 431 名患者中,有 30 人(7.0%)发生了 PICM。根据组别转换进行加权调整分析后发现,与对照组相比,药物治疗组发生 PICM 的风险显著降低(HR 0.59,95% CI 0.45 - 0.77)。接受综合疗法的患者风险最低(HR 0.46,95% CI 0.31 - 0.69)。结论对于 RV 起搏负担较重的患者,单独使用 BB 或与 ACEI/ARBs 联合使用似乎可以降低起搏器植入后 10 年内发生 PICM 的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Where Adults with Heart Failure Die: Insights from the CDC-WONDER Database A longitudinal study of depressive symptom trajectories and risk factors in congestive heart failure Right Ventricular Work and Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Association Between Life's Essential 8 and Atherogenic Index of Plasma in Adults: Insights from NHANES 2007-2018 Efficacy and Safety of Nicorandil for Prevention of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy in Patients Undergoing Coronary Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1