Giuseppe Pinto, Mauro Chiarito, Tania Puscas, Anne Bacher, Erwan Donal, Patricia Reant, Gianluigi Condorelli, Albert Hagège
{"title":"Comparative Influences of Beta blockers and Verapamil on Cardiac Outcomes in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.","authors":"Giuseppe Pinto, Mauro Chiarito, Tania Puscas, Anne Bacher, Erwan Donal, Patricia Reant, Gianluigi Condorelli, Albert Hagège","doi":"10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.10.029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Guidelines recommend β blockers (BBs) as first-line therapy in symptomatic patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, particularly, verapamil, as the second-line therapy, despite the absence of comparison trials between those 2 drugs. Because deleterious effects of verapamil have been reported in this setting, the present analysis aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of BBs and verapamil in a cohort of patients with HCM. From a nationwide cohort of 1,434 patients with a diagnosis of HCM included in the French prospective observational REgistry of hypertrophic cardioMYopathy (REMY), we retrospectively analyzed patients with sarcomeric HCM included in the 3 largest centers and treated either with BBs or verapamil. Patients with a cardiac defibrillator or a pacemaker or who underwent a procedure of atrial fibrillation or septal ablation were excluded. The primary end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for atrial fibrillation. Of 600 patients with HCM, 544 (91%) were treated with BBs and 56 (9%) with verapamil. At inclusion, the 2 groups were comparable concerning the presence/amplitude of obstruction and sudden cardiac death risk factors. At up to 8 years of follow-up (median 3.9 years, interquartile range 2.1 to 5.8), no significant differences were observed in the primary end point (132 [24%] vs 10 [18%] under BBs or verapamil, respectively, hazard ratio 1.84, 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 3.63). In conclusion, in a real-world cohort of low-risk patients with HCM, verapamil therapy was not associated with a higher incidence of adverse events than β-blocker therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.10.029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Guidelines recommend β blockers (BBs) as first-line therapy in symptomatic patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, particularly, verapamil, as the second-line therapy, despite the absence of comparison trials between those 2 drugs. Because deleterious effects of verapamil have been reported in this setting, the present analysis aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of BBs and verapamil in a cohort of patients with HCM. From a nationwide cohort of 1,434 patients with a diagnosis of HCM included in the French prospective observational REgistry of hypertrophic cardioMYopathy (REMY), we retrospectively analyzed patients with sarcomeric HCM included in the 3 largest centers and treated either with BBs or verapamil. Patients with a cardiac defibrillator or a pacemaker or who underwent a procedure of atrial fibrillation or septal ablation were excluded. The primary end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for atrial fibrillation. Of 600 patients with HCM, 544 (91%) were treated with BBs and 56 (9%) with verapamil. At inclusion, the 2 groups were comparable concerning the presence/amplitude of obstruction and sudden cardiac death risk factors. At up to 8 years of follow-up (median 3.9 years, interquartile range 2.1 to 5.8), no significant differences were observed in the primary end point (132 [24%] vs 10 [18%] under BBs or verapamil, respectively, hazard ratio 1.84, 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 3.63). In conclusion, in a real-world cohort of low-risk patients with HCM, verapamil therapy was not associated with a higher incidence of adverse events than β-blocker therapy.