RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Distal Ventricular Pacing for Drug-Refractory Mid-Cavity Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Personalized Pacing
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.12.18.23300178
DO 10.1101/2023.12.18.23300178
A1 Malcolmson, James W
A1 Hughes, Rebecca K
A1 Husselbury, Tim
A1 Khan, Kamran
A1 Learoyd, Annastazia E
A1 Lees, Martin
A1 Wicks, Eleanor C
A1 Smith, Jamie
A1 Simms, Alexander
A1 Moon, James
A1 Lopes, Luis
A1 O’Mahony, Constantinos
A1 Sekhri, Neha
A1 Elliott, Perry
A1 Petersen, Steffen E.
A1 Dhinoja, Mehul
A1 Mohiddin, Saidi A
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/20/2023.12.18.23300178.abstract
AB Background Patients with refractory symptomatic left ventricular (LV) mid-cavity obstructive (LVMCO) hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) have few therapeutic options. Right ventricular (RV) pacing is associated with modest hemodynamic and symptomatic improvement, and LV pacing pilot data suggest therapeutic potential. We hypothesized site-specific-pacing would reduce LVMCO gradients and improve symptoms.Methods Patients with symptomatic-drug-refractory LVMCO were recruited for a randomized blinded trial of personalized prescription of pacing (PPoP). Multiple LV and apical RV pacing sites were assessed during invasive hemodynamic study of multisite pacing. Patient-specific pacing-site and atrioventricular (AV) delays, defining PPoP, were selected on basis of LVMCO gradient reduction and acceptable pacing parameters. Patients were randomized to 6-months of active PPoP or back-up pacing in a cross-over design. The primary outcome examined invasive gradient change with best-site pacing. Secondary outcomes assessed quality of life and exercise following randomization to PPoP.Results A total of 17 patients were recruited; 16 of whom met primary endpoints. Baseline NYHA was 3±0.6 despite optimal medical therapy. Hemodynamic effects were assessed during pacing at the RV apex and at a mean of 8 LV sites. The gradients in all 16 patients fell with pacing, with maximum gradient reduction achieved via LV pacing in 14 (88%) patients and RV apex in 2. The mean baseline gradient of 80±29 mmHg, fell to 31±21 mmHg with best-site pacing, a 60% reduction (p<0.0001). One cardiac vein perforation occurred in one case, and 15 subjects entered cross-over; 2 withdrawals occurred during cross-over. Of the 13 completing cross-over, 9 (69%) chose active pacing in PPoP configuration as preferred setting. PPoP was associated with improved 6-minute walking test performance (328.5±99.9 vs 285.8±105.5 meters, p=0.018); other outcome measures also indicated benefit with PPoP.Conclusions In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, LV pacing reduces obstruction and improves exercise performance in severely symptomatic LVMCO patients.Registration NCT03450252.What is Known?Patients with refractory, symptomatic LVMCO present a significant challenge for clinical management, with very few treatment options.Data on the use of right ventricular (RV) pacing in patients with refractory, symptomatic LVMCO indicate suboptimal therapeutic responses whilst pilot data indicate a potential therapeutic role for LV pacing.What the Study Adds?Personalized prescription of pacing (PPoP) therapy guided by invasive hemodynamics significantly reduced LVMCO gradients and improved exercise performance in the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial in symptomatic LVMCO.This study provides the basis for a multicenter trial of PPoP for LVMCO and for the use of site-specific pacing in managing other forms of HCM.Competing Interest StatementSEP provides Consultancy to Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc., Calgary, Alberta, Canada. LL has received speaker fees from Sanofi, Alnylam and Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS); and received a grant from BMS.Clinical TrialNCT03450252Funding StatementJ.W. Malcolmson is funded by a National Institute for Health and Care Research Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship (ICACDRF-2016-02-068). R.K. Hughes is supported by the British Heart Foundation (grant number FS/17/82/33222). This work acknowledges the support of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Barts Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203330); a delivery partnership of Barts Health NHS Trust, Queen Mary University of London, St George?s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and St George?s University of London.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval was granted by the National Research Ethics Service, City Road and Hampstead, London (Reference: 17/LO/1725).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData is available on reasonable request to corresponding authorAEAdverse EventASAAlcohol septal ablationAFAtrial fibrillationAVAtrioventricularCPETCardiopulmonary exercise testCIsConfidence intervalsCMRCardiac magnetic resonanceCVCTUCardiovascular Clinical Trials UnitECGElectrocardiogrameGFREstimated glomerular filtration rateESCEuropean Society of CardiologyGAGeneral anesthesiaHCMHypertrophic cardiomyopathyHTNHypertensionICDImplantable cardioverter defibrillatorIQRInterquartile rangeISRCTNInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trials NumberKCCQKansas City Cardiomyopathy QuestionnaireLALeft atrialLGELate gadolinium enhancementLVLeft ventricleLVAALeft ventricular apical aneurysmLVEFLeft ventricular ejection fractionLVMCOLeft ventricular mid cavity obstructionLVOTOLeft ventricular outflow tract obstructionLVWTLeft ventricular wall thicknessMCVMiddle cardiac veinMIMyocardial infarctionNIHRNational Institute of Health and Care ResearchNSVTNon-sustained ventricular tachycardiaNT-proBNPN-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptideNYHANew York Heart AssociationPPMPermanent pacemakerPPoPPersonalized prescription of pacingRVRight ventricularSCDSudden cardiac death riskSDStandard deviationSF-36Short form 36 questionnaire6MWT6-minute walk test