scholarly journals The effect of the "CorCap Cardiac Support Device" on left ventricular remodeling: one-year follow-up of the first IKEM patient

Cor et Vasa ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 51 (10) ◽  
pp. 717-719
Author(s):  
Ondrej Szárszoi ◽  
Ivan Netuka ◽  
Jiří Malý ◽  
Josef Bešík ◽  
Ivo Skalský ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 340-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Otaviano da Silva Júnior ◽  
Paula Mayumi Maeda ◽  
Maria Cândida Calzada Borges ◽  
Celso Salgado de Melo ◽  
Dalmo Correia

INTRODUCTION: The septal position is an alternative site for cardiac pacing (CP) that is potentially less harmful to cardiac function. METHODS: Patients with Chagas disease without heart failure submitted to permanent pacemaker (PP) implantation at the Clinics Hospital of the Triângulo Mineiro Federal University (UFTM), were selected from February 2009 to February 2010. The parameters analyzed were ventricular remodeling, the degree of electromechanical dyssynchrony (DEM), exercise time and VO2 max during exercise testing (ET) and functional class (NYHA). Echocardiography was performed 24 to 48h following implantation and after one year follow-up. The patients were submitted to ET one month postprocedure and at the end of one year. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included. Patient mean age was 59±13 years-old. Indication for PP implantation was complete atrioventricular (AV) block in 22 (73.3%) patients and 2nd degree AV block in the other eight (26.7%). All patients were in NYHA I and no changes occurred in the ET parameters. No variations were detected in echocardiographic remodeling measurements. Intraventricular dyssynchrony was observed in 46.6% of cases and interventricular dyssynchrony in 33.3% of patients after one year. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this work suggest that there is not significant morphological and functional cardiac change following pacemaker implantation in septal position in chagasic patients with normal left ventricular function after one year follow-up. Thus, patients may remain asymptomatic, presenting maintenance of functional capacity and no left ventricular remodeling.


2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Zhang ◽  
X Xie ◽  
C He ◽  
X Lin ◽  
M Luo ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Late left ventricular remodeling (LLVR) after the index acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a common complication, and is associated with poor outcome. However, the optimal definition of LLVR has been debated because of its different incidence and influence on prognosis. At present, there are limited data regarding the influence of different LLVR definitions on long-term outcomes in AMI patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Purpose To explore the impact of different definitions of LLVR on long-term mortality, re-hospitalization or an urgent visit for heart failure, and identify which definition was more suitable for predicting long-term outcomes in AMI patients undergoing PCI. Methods We prospectively observed 460 consenting first-time AMI patients undergoing PCI from January 2012 to December 2018. LLVR was defined as a ≥20% increase in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), or a >15% increase in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) from the initial presentation to the 3–12 months follow-up, or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% at follow up. These parameters of the cardiac structure and function were measuring through the thoracic echocardiography. The association of LLVR with long-term prognosis was investigated by Cox regression analysis. Results The incidence rate of LLVR was 38.1% (n=171). The occurrence of LLVR according to LVESV, LVEDV and LVEF definition were 26.6% (n=117), 31.9% (n=142) and 11.5% (n=51), respectively. During a median follow-up of 2 years, after adjusting other potential risk factors, multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed LLVR of LVESV definition [hazard ratio (HR): 2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.19–5.22, P=0.015], LLVR of LVEF definition (HR: 16.46, 95% CI: 6.96–38.92, P<0.001) and LLVR of Mix definition (HR: 5.86, 95% CI: 2.45–14.04, P<0.001) were risk factors for long-term mortality, re-hospitalization or an urgent visit for heart failure. But only LLVR of LVEF definition was a risk predictor for long-term mortality (HR: 6.84, 95% CI: 1.98–23.65, P=0.002). Conclusions LLVR defined by LVESV or LVEF may be more suitable for predicting long-term mortality, re-hospitalization or an urgent visit for heart failure in AMI patients undergoing PCI. However, only LLVR defined by LVEF could be used for predicting long-term mortality. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Association Between LLVR and outcomes Kaplan-Meier Estimates of the Mortality


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document