Mortality, Morbidity, and Complications in 3,344 Patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators:

ICDs are the therapy of choice in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Mortality, morbidity, and complication rates including appropriate and inappropriate therapies are unknown when ICDs are used in routine medical care and not in well-defined patients included in multicenter trials. Therefore, the data of 3,344 patients (   61.1 ± 12.1  years   ; 80.2% men; CAD 64.6%, dilated cardiomyopathy 18.9%; NYHA Class I–III: 19.1%, 54.3%, 20.1%, respectively;   LVEF > 0.50   : 0.234, LVEF 0.30–0.50: 0.472,   LVEF < 0.30   : 0.293, respectively) implanted in 62 German hospitals between January 1998 and October 2000 were prospectively collected and analyzed as a part of the European Registry of Implantable Defibrillators (EURID Germany). The 1-year survival rate was 93.5%. Patients in NYHA Class III and a   LVEF < 0.30   had a lower survival rate than patients in NYHA Class I and a preserved LVEF (0.852 vs 0.975,   P = 0.0001   ). Including the 1-year follow-up, 49.5% of patients had an intervention by the ICD, 39.8% had appropriate ICD therapies, 16.2% had inappropriate therapies. Overall, 1,691 hospital readmissions were recorded. The main causes for hospital readmissions were ventricular arrhythmias (61.3%) and congestive heart failure symptoms (12.9%). Thus, demographic data and mortality of patients treated with an ICD in conditions of standard medical care seems to be comparable and based on, or congruent with, the large secondary preventions trials. When ICDs are used in standard medical care, the 1-year survival rate is high, especially in patients with NYHA Class I and preserved LVEF. However, nearly half of all patients suffer from ICD intervention. (PACE 2003; 26[Pt. I]:1511–1518)     

Treatment of Heart Failure with Normal Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Underlying causes and precipitating causes of heart failure (HF) should be treated when possible. Persons with HF and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) should have maintenance of sinus rhythm, treatment of hypertension, myocardial ischemia, dyslipidemia, and anemia, slowing of the ventricular rate below 90 bpm, and reduction of salt overload. First-line drug treatment in the management of these persons is the use of loop diuretics combined with beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. If persons are unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors because of cough, angioneurotic edema, rash, or altered taste sensation, angiotensin II type I receptor antagonists (ARBs) should be given. If HF persists despite diuretics, beta blockers, and ACE inhibitors or ARBs, isosorbide dinitrate plus hydralazine should be administered. Beta blockers, verapamil, diltiazem, and digoxin may be used to slow a rapid ventricular rate in persons with supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Digoxin should not be used in persons with HF in sinus rhythm with normal LVEF. Exercise training should be encouraged in persons with mild to moderate HF to improve functional status and to decrease symptoms.     

Heart failure

Survival of patients with heart failure has improved over the past decade due to advances in medical therapy. However, sudden cardiac death continues to cause 35 to 65% of death. Ventricular arrhythmias are important causes of sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure. The risks of antiarrhythmic drugs are increased in patients with heart failure. Therefore, in the absence of a clear indication, antiarrhythmic drug therapy should be avoided. A number of recent randomized trials have provided evidence that beta-adrenergic blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme(ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers(ARB) significantly reduces the risk of sudden death in patients with chronic congestive heart failure. For patients who have a history of sustained ventricular tachycardia(VT) or ventricular fibrillation(VF) amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator(ICD) should be considered, and these therapy may benefit some high risk patients who have nonsustained VT.     

Beta blockers for CHF. Adrenergic blockade dramatically reduces morbidity and mortality

Several large clinical trials have shown that beta blockers can reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with CHF. Therefore, current guidelines for treatment of CHF now include beta blockers as standard therapy for patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction < or = 40%) and mild to moderate heart failure. Beta-blocker therapy for CHF should be started cautiously and increased gradually to avoid exacerbating symptoms of heart failure. At this time, data for therapy in patients with NYHA class I or IV symptoms are limited, and it is unclear whether all beta blockers confer benefit or whether some are better than others. Several trials are under way to answer these questions. Until more evidence is available, only those agents that have proved beneficial in mortality trials should be used to manage CHF.     

A study of the efficacy and safety of irbesartan in combination with conventional therapy, including ACE inhibitors, in heart failure. Irbesartan Heart Failure Group

Because heart failure therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors may not be optimal, owing to persistent levels of angiotensin II occurring through incomplete blockade and alternate pathways, the benefit of adding irbesartan, an angiotensin receptor antagonist, to conventional therapy, including ACE inhibitors, was examined. In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 109 patients with heart failure (New York Heart Association functional class II and III) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < or = 40% received stable doses of ACE inhibitors and diuretics before and throughout the study. Irbesartan was titrated as tolerated to 150 mg once daily in all patients. Exercise tolerance time (ETT), LVEF and clinical status were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks. Compared with placebo, irbesartan in combination with conventional therapy, including ACE inhibitors, produced favourable trends in ETT and LVEF and was well tolerated in patients with mild to moderate heart failure.     

Titration of beta-blockers in heart failure. How to maximize benefit while minimizing adverse events

Data from large clinical trials indicate that beta-blocker therapy can be successfully initiated and adjusted upward in most patients with stable chronic heart failure who already take standard heart failure therapy. Such therapy typically includes ACE inhibitors, diuretics, and digoxin. With optimal titration and maintenance strategies, beta-blockers are effective and well tolerated in these patients. It is recommened that all patients with clinically stable mild to moderate chronic heart failure (NYHA class II or III), no contraindications to beta-blocker use, and an LVEF less than 40% should be treated with beta-blockers. Based on the results of recent clinical trials on heart failure, beta-blocker therapy should be initiated at a low dose and slowly tirtrated upward as tolerated. A patient's heart failure should be stable for at least 2 weeks before the dose is adjusted upward. Slow titration facilitates maximal tolerability. In primary care practice, physicians should apply titration strategies and target dosed that have been demonstrated to reduce morbidity and mortality in clinical trials. Although worsening heart failure or other adverse events occur in a minority of patients who take beta-blockers, these effects can be managed by adjusting the dose of ACE inhibitor or diuretic, or both, or by temporarily withholding the beta-clocker. Currently, professional treatment guidelines recommend beta-blocker therapy in combination with ACE inhibitors an diuretics as the standard of care in the treatment of heart failure.     

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Absence of ACE Inhibitor/Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Predicts Appropriate Defibrillator Therapy in the Primary Prevention Population

Introduction: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) significantly reduce mortality in patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. However, little is known of the predictors of appropriate device activation in the primary prevention population. The aim of the present study was to determine predictors of appropriate device therapy in patients receiving ICDs for primary prevention. Methods & Results: One hundred twenty‐six patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of < 35% and no prior documented ventricular arrhythmias underwent ICD implantation. The ICD implanted was single chamber in 60 (48%), dual chamber in 10 (8%), and biventricular in 56 (44%) patients and programmed with a single ventricular fibrillation (VF) zone at >180 beats per minute. Mean age was 58 ± 13 years and mean LVEF was 23 ± 7%. Fifty‐two percent had ischemic cardiomyopathy and 66% were New York Heart Association heart failure class II/III. During a mean follow‐up period of 589 ± 353 days, 17 (13%) patients received appropriate device therapy and three (4%) received inappropriate shocks. Appropriate ICD therapy was associated with reduced LVEF (mean 19.9% vs 23.7%, P = 0.02) and the patients were less likely to have received angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (AIIRB) (65% vs 90%, P = 0.04). Multivariate analysis revealed lack of ACEI/AIIRB (odds ratio [OR]= 0.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]= 0.01–0.37, P = <0.01) and lower LVEF (OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.79–0.98, P = 0.02) predicted appropriate device activation. There was no difference in transplant‐free survival between the appropriate therapy and no/inappropriate therapy groups, LVEF <20% and LVEF >20% group, and lack of ACEI/AIIRB and ACEI/AIIRB group. Conclusion: Appropriate device activation occurred in 13% of patients in a primary prevention population. LVEF and absence of ACEI/AIIRB predicted appropriate ICD therapy. (PACE 2010; 33:696–704)     

Variability of Holter electrocardiographic findings in patients fulfilling the noninvasive MADIT criteria. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial

In the MADIT study, a selected group of postinfarction patients with asymptomatic nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) has been shown to benefit from prophylactic ICD treatment. The present study analyzed the variability of NSVT in a patient population fulfilling the non-invasive MADIT criteria. Three consecutive Holter ECGs were performed in weekly intervals in 68 postinfarction patients with an LVEF < or = 0.35. Patients with NSVT underwent programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS); patients were implanted with an ICD if sustained VT or VF was inducible. If NSVT was found in at least two recordings, the arrhythmia was defined as reproducible. In 28 (41%) of the 68 patients, NSVT was found in at least one recording. Seventeen patients revealed NSVT in the first, the remaining 11 in the second registration; no patient had NSVT only in the third Holter. Of the patients with NSVT, 50% had only one, 39% had two, and 11% had three positive recordings. Thus, reproducible NSVT was found in only 50% of the patients with NSVT. Predictors for reproducibility were LVEF > 0.27, NYHA Class I, absence of digitalis therapy, and > 2 NSVT per 24-hour period. Reproducible NSVT was not associated with risk factors such as elevated mean heart rate, reduced heart rate variability, late potentials, or inducibility of sustained VT during PVS. During 17 +/- 9 months of follow-up, seven (10%) patients experienced arrhythmic events: two without and five with previously documented NSVT. In the latter patients, first occurrence of NSVT was consistently in the first Holter; only two of them had reproducible NSVT. In postinfarction patients, the risk factor NSVT exhibits marked spontaneous variability, especially in those with a low number of NSVT per 24-hour period, LVEF < 0.27 or NYHA III, which limits its clinical value as a selection criterion for PVS. Reproducibility of NSVT itself does not seem to be an independent risk factor.     

Poster Session 2–3: Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Monday, April 3, 2006, 4:00–5:30pm

Dr. Gabe Bleeker ¹ , Martin Schalij ¹ , Eduard Holman ¹ , Paul Steendijk ¹ , Ernst van der Wall ¹ , Jeroen Bax ^{1   1} Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is beneficial in selected patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure (New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV). Patients with mildly symptomatic heart failure (NYHA class II) are currently not eligible for CRT and potential beneficial effects in these patients are not well studied. Methods: Fifty consecutive patients with NYHA class II heart failure and 50 consecutive NYHA class III/IV patients (control group) were prospectively included. All patients had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and QRS duration >120 ms. The effects of CRT in NYHA class II patients were compared to results obtained in the control group. Results: The severity of baseline LV dyssynchrony was comparable between patients in NYHA class II vs NYHA class III/IV (83 ± 49 ms vs 96 ± 51 ms, ns), and resynchronization was achieved in both groups. NYHA class II patients showed a significant improvement in LVEF (from 25 ± 7% to 33 ± 10%, P < 0.001) and reduction in LV end-systolic volume (from 168 ± 55 ml to 132 ± 51 ml, P < 0.001) following CRT, similar to patients in NYHA class III/IV. In addition, only 8% of NYHA class II patients showed progression in heart failure symptoms. Conclusions: CRT has comparable effects in patients with NYHA class II and NYHA class III/IV heart failure in terms of LV resynchronization, improvement in LVEF, and LV reverse remodeling.     

Value of Heart Rate Variability to Predict Ventricular Arrhythmias in Recipients of Prophylactic Defibrillators with Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy

GRIMM, W., et al. : Value of Heart Rate Variability to Predict Ventricular Arrhythmias in Recipients of Prophylactic Defibrillators with Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy. This study investigated the relation between heart rate variability (HRV) measured as standard deviation of normal to normal RR intervals (SDNN) on baseline 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiogram (ECG) and subsequent appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) interventions in 70 patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDC) in whom ICDs were implanted prophylactically in the presence of a low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). During   43 ± 26   months of follow-up, 26 of 70 (37%) study patients with IDC received one or more appropriate ICD interventions for sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) documented by electrograms stored in the ICD. Mean SDNN at ICD implant was   94 ± 33 ms   . No difference was found between patients with   (90 ± 25 ms)   versus without   (96 ± 37 ms)   appropriate ICD interventions for VT or VF during follow-up. Multivariate Cox regression analysis of baseline clinical characteristics including age, gender, LVEF, NYHA functional class, nonsustained VT on Holter, history of syncope, left bundle branch block, baseline medication and HRV revealed LVEF as the only significant predictor of arrhythmia. These findings do not support the use of HRV measured as SDNN on 24-hour ambulatory ECG to select patients with IDC for prophylactic ICD therapy. (PACE 2003; 26[Pt. II]:411–415)     

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction as Criterion for Implantation of an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Heart Failure Patients Undergoing Surgical Left Ventricular Reconstruction

Background: Besides implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), a proportion of patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction due to ischemic cardiomyopathy are potential candidates for surgical LV reconstruction (Dor procedure), which changes LV ejection fraction (LVEF) considerably. In these patients, LVEF as selection criterium for ICD implantation may be difficult. This study aimed to determine the value of LVEF as criterium for ICD implantation in heart failure patients undergoing surgical LV reconstruction.
Methods: Consecutive patients with end-stage heart failure who underwent ICD implantation and LV reconstruction were evaluated. During admission, two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography (LV volumes and LVEF) was performed before surgery and was repeated at 3 months after surgery. Over a median follow-up of 18 months, the incidence of ICD therapy was evaluated.
Results: The study population consisted of 37 patients (59 ± 11 years). At baseline, mean LVEF was 23 ± 5%. Mean left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) were 175 ± 73 mL and 225 ± 88 mL, respectively. At 3-month follow-up, mean LVEF was 41 ± 9% (P < 0.0001 vs. baseline), and mean LVESV and LVEDV were 108 ± 65 mL and 176 ± 73 mL, respectively (P < 0.0001 vs. baseline). During 18-month follow-up, 12 (32%) patients had ventricular arrhythmias, resulting in appropriate ICD therapy. No significant relations existed between baseline LVEF (P = 0.77), LVEF at 3-month follow-up (P = 0.34), change in LVEF from baseline to 3-month follow-up (P = 0.28), and the occurrence of ICD therapy during 18-month follow-up.
Conclusion: LVEF before and after surgical LV reconstruction is of limited use as criterium for ICD implantation in patients with end-stage heart failure.     

Aldosterone as a target in congestive heart failure

Based upon the results of the RALES trial and accumulating evidence about the role of aldosterone and aldosterone receptor antagonism in various disease states, the authors anticipate that aldosterone receptor antagonists will become standard therapy, along with ACE inhibitors and beta-adrenergic receptor blocking agents, in patients with heart failure that is caused by systolic left ventricular dysfunction. Furthermore, the prospect of the use of these agents in other disease states that have implicated an activated rennin-angiotensin-aldosterone cascade, such as diastolic dysfunction, aging, and atherosclerosis, remains to be tested. Until further data from well-designed, prospective, randomized trials are available, the use of aldosterone receptor antagonists should be restricted to patients with severe or progressive heart failure caused by systolic left ventricular dysfunction in whom serum creatinine level is < or = 2.0 mg/dL and serum potassium levels are < 5.0 meq/L at baseline.     

Digoxin remains useful in the management of chronic heart failure

Despite the introduction of a variety of new classes of drugs for the management of heart failure, digoxin continues to have an important role in long-term outpatient management. A wide variety of placebo-controlled clinical trials have unequivocally shown that treatment with digoxin can improve symptoms, quality of life, and exercise tolerance in patients with mild, moderate, or severe heart failure. These benefits are evident regardless of the underlying rhythm (normal sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation), etiology of the heart failure, or concomitant therapy (eg. ACE inhibitors). Unlike other agents with positive inotropic properties, digoxin does not increase all-cause mortality and has a substantial benefit in reducing heart failure hospitalizations. Consensus guidelines have recently been published by the Heart Failure Society of America and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, and they contain the following recommendations for digoxin treatment: 1. Digoxin should be considered for the outpatient treatment of all patients who have persistent symptoms of heart failure (NYHA class II-IV) despite conventional pharmacologic therapy with diuretics, ACE inhibitors, and a beta-blocker when the heart failure is caused by systolic dysfunction (the strength of evidence = A for NYHA class II and III; strength of evidence = C for NYHA class IV). 2. Digoxin is not indicated as primary treatment for the stabilization of patients with acutely decompensated heart failure. (Strength of evidence = B). Digoxin may be initiated after emergent treatment of heart failure has been completed in an effort to establish a long-term treatment strategy. 3. Digoxin should not be administered to patients who have significant sinus or atrioventricular block, unless the block has been treated with a permanent pacemaker (strength of evidence = B). The drug should be used cautiously in patients who receive other agents known to depress sinus or atrioventricular nodal function (such as amiodarone or a beta-blocker) (strength of evidence = B). 4. The dosage of digoxin should be 0.125-0.25 mg daily in the majority of patients (strength of evidence = C). The lower dose should be used in patients over 70 years of age, those with impaired renal function, or those with a low lean body mass. Higher doses (eg, digoxin 0.375-0.50 mg daily) are rarely needed. Loading doses of digoxin are not necessary during initiation of therapy for patients with chronic heart failure. 5. Serial assessment of serum digoxin levels is unnecessary in most patients. The radioimmunoassay was developed to assist in the evaluation of toxicity, not the efficacy of the drug. There appears to be little relationship between serum digoxin concentration and the drug's therapeutic effects. 6. Digoxin toxicity is commonly associated with serum levels >2 ng/mL but may occur with lower digoxin levels if hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, or hypothyroidism coexist. Likewise, the concomitant use of agents such as quinidine, verapamil, spironolactone, flecainide, and amiodarone can increase serum digoxin levels and increase the likelihood of digoxin toxicity. 7. For patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation with a rapid ventricular response, the administration of high doses of digoxin (>0.25 mg daily) for the purpose of rate control is not recommended. When necessary, additional rate control should be achieved by the addition of beta-blocker therapy or amiodarone (strength of evidence = C). If amiodarone is added, the dose of digoxin should be reduced. Digitalis preparations are now entering their fourth century of clinical use for the treatment of chronic heart failure symptoms. Its clinical efficacy can no longer be doubted and its safety has been verified by the multicenter DIG trial. Future advances in pharmacogenetics should facilitate identification of those patients most likely to benefit from its pharmacologic effects.     

Device therapy in Chagas disease heart failure

Chagas disease is the principal cause of chronic heart failure in areas where the disease is endemic. The medical treatment is the same recommended for non-Chagas disease patients. There is no evidence-based medicine support for device therapy in Chagas disease heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is recommended for Chagas disease heart failure patients with intraventricular conduction disturbances, mainly for those with left bundle branch block, and in advanced congestive heart failure refractory to targeted medical treatment, although this therapy is still polemic in Chagas disease heart failure. Implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) therapy is indicated to Chagas disease patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <30% for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. ICD therapy is offered to patients for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Patients with moderate left ventricular dysfunction and inducible arrhythmia at electrophysiological testing should receive ICD therapy.     

Left ventricular diastolic heart failure with normal left ventricular systolic function in older persons

Underlying causes and precipitating causes of congestive heart failure (CHF) should be treated when possible. Older persons with CHF and normal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction should have maintenance of sinus rhythm, treatment of hypertension and myocardial ischemia, slowing of the ventricular rate below 90 beats/minute, and reduction of salt overload. First-line drug treatment in the management of these persons is the use of loop diuretics combined with beta blockers as tolerated. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors should be administered if CHF persists despite diuretics and beta blockers. If persons are unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors because of cough, rash, or altered taste sensation, angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists should be given. If CHF persists despite diuretics, beta blockers, and ACE inhibitors or the person is unable to tolerate beta blockers, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists, isosorbide dinitrate plus hydralazine should be administered. Calcium channel blockers should be used if CHF persists despite administration of diuretics and the person is unable to tolerate beta blockers, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists, and isosorbide dinitrate plus hydralazine. Digoxin, beta blockers, verapamil, and diltiazem may be used to slow a rapid ventricular rate in persons with supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Digoxin should not be used in persons with CHF in sinus rhythm with normal LV ejection fraction.     

沙库巴曲缬沙坦钠治疗慢性心衰合并肾功能不全的效果

[摘要] 目的：观察常规抗心衰药物基础上换用沙库巴曲缬沙坦钠（Sacubitril/Valsartan，LCZ696）对慢性心力衰竭合并肾功能不全患者的临床疗效。方法：回顾性分析2018年9月至2020年9月在复旦大学附属闵行医院心内科治疗的射血分数降低型心力衰竭（HFrEF）合并肾功能不全患者196例，所有患者均接受指南导向药物治疗(GDMT),患者在抗心衰标准药物治疗基础上将ACEI/ARB替换为LCZ696治疗，平均观察（9.3±3.6）个月。比较患者治疗前后纽约心功能分级（NYHA），生活质量评分的变化，左心室射血分数（LVEF）、左心室舒张末内径（LVEDD）、血浆N-端脑钠肽前体（NT-proBNP）水平、eGFR及血钾的变化。结果：治疗后LVEF较治疗前显著升高，LVEDD较治疗前明显降低（P＜0.001），NYHA分级明显改善（P＜0.001）； NT-ProBNP较治疗前明显降低（P＜0.001）。治疗后躯体、情绪、其他领域及总分均较治疗前明显降低（P＜0.05）。诊室日间收缩压和家庭自测夜间收缩压与治疗前相比均显著降低（P＜0.05；P＜0.01），eGFR较治疗前明显升高（P＜0.01），血钾无明显变化（P＞0.05）。结论：HFrEF合并肾功能不全患者在标准抗心衰药物治疗基础上换用LCZ696能明显改善NYHA分级、肾功能和生活质量评分，降低NT-ProBNP，对血钾无明显影响。符合适应症的慢性心衰合并肾功能不全患者应用沙库巴曲缬沙坦钠安全有效。     

Serial Changes in Right Ventricular Apical Pacing Lead Impedance Predict Changes in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Functional Class in Heart Failure Patients

Pacing impedance has been proposed to monitor the clinical status of patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). This study examined whether changes in right ventricular (RV) pacing impedance correlate with changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class during long-term follow-up in pacemaker recipients with CHF. The study included 67 patients, 70 ± 12 years of age, in NYHA class II or III, and with a mean LVEF = 29 ± 8% at implant. LVEF, NYHA class, and bipolar pacing impedance at the RV outflow tract (RVOT) and apex (RVA) were measured at implant and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of follow-up. At implant, impedance was similar in RVOT (548 ± 115 Ω) and RVA (571 ± 174 Ω). Between implant and 3 months, mean impedance decreased (P < 0.0001) at both the RVOT (472 ± 62 Ω) and RVA (488 ± 86 Ω), LVEF increased (43 ± 14%, P < 0.0001), and the NYHA class decreased from 2.4 ± 0.5 to 2.1 ± 0.6 (P = 0.0001). Changes in RVA impedance correlated with changes in LVEF (r = 0.45, P = 0.002). A 50 Ω decrease in RVA impedance corresponded to a 3% decrease in LVEF. RVA impedance decreased significantly as NYHA class increased from I to IV (P = 0.04). There was no correlation between impedance measured at the RVOT and LVEF or NYHA class. A decrease in bipolar pacing impedance at the RVA was associated with worsening LVEF and the NYHA class. The use of pacing impedance to monitor the clinical status in CHF is dependent on the RV pacing site.     

Medical management of stable coronary artery disease

All patients with stable coronary artery disease require medical therapy to prevent disease progression and recurrent cardiovascular events. Three classes of medication are essential to therapy: lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, and antiplatelet agents. Lipid-lowering therapy is necessary to decrease low-density lipoprotein cholesterol to a target level of less than 100 mg per dL, and physicians should consider a goal of less than 70 mg per dL for very high-risk patients. Statins have demonstrated clear benefits in morbidity and mortality in the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease; other medications that can be used in addition to statins to lower cholesterol include ezetimibe, fibrates, and nicotinic acid. Blood pressure therapy for patients with coronary artery disease should start with beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. If these medications are not tolerated, calcium channel blockers or angiotensin receptor blockers are acceptable alternatives. Aspirin is the first-line antiplatelet agent except in patients who have recently had a myocardial infarction or undergone stent placement, in which case clopidogrel is recommended. Anginal symptoms of coronary artery disease can be treated with beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, nitrates, or any combination of these. Familiarity with these medications and with the evidence supporting their use is essential to reducing morbidity and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease.     

踝臂指数与心力衰竭患者左心功能关系的研究

目的研究踝臂指数与心力衰竭患者左心功能的关系。方法选取左心功能不全患者95例,按纽约心功能分级分为三组:心功能Ⅱ级组、心功能Ⅲ级组、心功能Ⅳ级组。测量患者的踝臂指数(ABI)、左室射血分数(LVEF)、左室舒张末期内径(LVEDD)、抽静脉血查B型脑钠肽(BNP)等,并研究左心功能与上述指标之间的关系。结果随着心功能分级的增加,患者血浆BNP、LVEDD逐渐增加,LVEF逐渐减低,ABI也随着心功能分级的增加而逐渐减低(P0.05)。心功能Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ级组间资料比较,上述各指标的差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。且ABI与LVEF呈明显正相关,与BNP、LVEDD呈明显负相关,相关系数分别为0.332、-0,328、-0.229(P0.05)。结论 ABI与左心功能不全程度密切相关,与传统反映心功能不全的指标具有很好的相关性,能较好的反应心力衰竭患者的左室功能,为左心功能不全的诊断及治疗提供依据。     

The effect of a repeated immunoadsorption in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy after recurrence of severe heart failure symptoms

Background : In patients suffering from dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), immunoadsorption with subsequent IgG substitution (IA/IgG) leads to an acute and prolonged improvement of hemodynamics and heart failure symptoms. However, some patients receiving IA/IgG experience recurrence of heart failure after an initial benefit. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a second IA/IgG treatment episode improves left ventricular systolic function and further mitigates heart failure symptoms in these patients. Methods : We retrospectively analyzed 15 DCM patients who experienced a significant improvement of LVEF (≥ 5% absolute or ≥ 20% relative) and heart failure symptoms (≥ 1 NYHA functional class) but a subsequent deterioration (decline in LVEF ≥ 5% absolute or ≥ 20% relative and NYHA worsening ≥1 class) after the first IA/IgG. These patients underwent a second IA/IgG treatment 41.7 ± 27.4 months after the first cycle. Follow up data were acquired 3–6 months after both IA/IgG treatments. Results : The first IA/IgG induced an improvement of LVEF from 33 ± 6.4% to 43.2 ± 7.9% (P < 0.001) and of mean NYHA functional class from 2.9 ± 0.26 to 1.8 ± 0.56 (P < 0.001). The second treatment was associated with a significant improvement in LVEF (from 29.7 ± 4.6% to 34.9 ± 8.3%, P = 0.013) and NYHA functional class (2.87 ± 0.64 to 2.33 ± 0.72; P = 0.02). This improvement was less pronounced compared to the first treatment with respect to both, LVEF (P = 0.09) and NYHA improvement (P = 0.04). Conclusion: In DCM patients, who experience a significant improvement of LVEF and heart failure symptoms after IA/IgG but a subsequent relapse during follow up, repeated IA/IgG may be considered. J. Clin. Apheresis 30:217–223, 2015. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.