Comparative Influences of Beta blockers and Verapamil on Cardiac Outcomes in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI:10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.10.029
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.

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
倍他受体阻滞剂和维拉帕米对肥厚型心肌病患者心脏预后影响的比较
指南建议将倍他受体阻滞剂作为有症状的肥厚型心肌病患者的一线疗法,而将非二氢吡啶类钙通道阻滞剂(尤其是维拉帕米)作为二线疗法,尽管这两种药物之间缺乏对比试验。据报道,维拉帕米在这种情况下会产生有害影响,因此本分析旨在评估肥厚型心肌病患者队列中的受体阻滞剂和维拉帕米对预后的影响。我们从法国肥厚型心肌病前瞻性观察登记处(REMY)收录的全国范围内 1434 名确诊为肥厚型心肌病的患者队列中,回顾性分析了三大中心收录的、接受过倍他受体阻滞剂或维拉帕米治疗的肉芽肿型肥厚型心肌病患者。使用心脏除颤器或心脏起搏器或接受过心房颤动或房间隔消融术的患者不包括在内。主要终点是心血管死亡、心力衰竭住院和心房颤动住院的综合结果。在600名肥厚型心肌病患者中,544人(91%)接受了倍他受体阻滞剂治疗,56人(9%)接受了维拉帕米治疗。在纳入时,两组患者在梗阻存在/程度和心脏性猝死风险因素方面具有可比性。在长达 8 年的随访中(中位数为 3.9 年,IQR 为 2.1-5.8),未观察到主要终点有显著差异(使用倍他受体阻滞剂或维拉帕米的患者分别为 132 [24%] 对 10 [18%],HR=1.84,95% CI=0.94-3.63)。总之,在肥厚型心肌病低风险患者的真实世界队列中,维拉帕米疗法与倍他受体阻滞剂疗法相比,不良事件发生率并不高。
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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
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