4.7 Article

Sustained improvement in left ventricular diastolic function after alcohol septal ablation for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 27, 期 15, 页码 1805-1810

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehl106

关键词

echocardiography; hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy; diastolic dysfunction; alcohol septal ablation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Impaired diastolic function is responsible for many of the clinical features of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. In patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM) whose symptoms are refractory to medical therapy, alcohol septal. ablation (ASA) reduces left ventricular (W) outflow tract gradient, with short-term improvement in LV diastolic function. Little is known about the longer term impact of ASA on diastolic function. Methods and results We evaluated LV diastolic function at baseline and 1- and 2-year follow-up after successful ASA. In 30 patients (58 +/- 15 years, 22 men) who underwent successful ASA, New York Heart Association class was tower at 1-year follow-up compared with baseline (3.0 +/- 0.5 to 1.5 +/- 0.7; P < 0.0001). LV outflow tract gradient (76 +/- 37 to 19 +/- 12; P < 0.0001), interventricular septal. thickness (19 +/- 2 to 14 +/- 2; P < 0.0001), and left atrial. volume (26 +/- 5 to 20 +/- 4; P < 0.0001) were decreased. Significant improvement in E-wave deceleration time, isovolumic relaxation time, early diastolic mitral lateral annular velocity (E), mitral inflow propagation velocity (V-p), ratio of transmitral early LV fitting velocity (E) to early diastolic Doppler tissue imaging of the mitral annulus (E/E'), and E/V-p were observed at I year following successful ASA. These changes persisted in the subset cohort (n = 21) for whom 2-year data were available. Conclusion Successful ASA for HOCM leads to significant and sustained improvement in echocardiographic measures of diastolic function, which may contribute to improved functional status after successful ASA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据