These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Assessment of permanent dual-chamber pacing as a treatment for drug-refractory symptomatic patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. A randomized, double-blind, crossover study (M-PATHY).
    Author: Maron BJ, Nishimura RA, McKenna WJ, Rakowski H, Josephson ME, Kieval RS.
    Journal: Circulation; 1999 Jun 08; 99(22):2927-33. PubMed ID: 10359738.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Dual-chamber pacing (DDD) has been proposed as a treatment alternative to surgery for severely symptomatic patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), based largely on uncontrolled studies. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective, multicenter trial assessed pacing in 48 symptomatic HCM patients with >/=50 mm Hg basal gradient, refractory to drug therapy. Patients were randomized to 3 months each of DDD pacing and pacing backup (AAI-30) in a double-blind, crossover study design, followed by an uncontrolled and unblinded 6-month pacing trial. With randomization, no significant differences were evident between pacing and no pacing for subjective or objective measures of symptoms or exercise capacity, including NYHA functional class, quality of life score, treadmill exercise time or peak oxygen consumption. After 6 additional months of unblinded pacing, functional class and quality of life score were improved compared with baseline (P<0.01), but peak oxygen consumption was unchanged. Outflow gradient decreased 40%, 82+/-32 mm Hg to 48+/-32 mm Hg (P<0. 001), and was reduced in 57% of patients but showed no change or an increase in 43%. At 12 months, 6 individual patients (12%) showed improved functional capacity; each was 65 to 75 years of age. Left ventricular wall thicknesses in the overall study group showed no remodeling between baseline (22+/-5 mm) and 12 months (21+/-5 mm; P=NS). CONCLUSIONS: (1) Pacing cannot be regarded as a primary treatment for obstructive HCM; (2) with randomization, perceived symptomatic improvement was most consistent with a substantial placebo effect; (3) longer, uncontrolled pacing periods were associated with some subjective benefit but unaccompanied by objective improvement in cardiovascular performance and should be interpreted cautiously; (4) modest reduction in outflow gradient was achieved in most patients; and (5) a small subset (12%) >/= 65 years of age showed a clinical response, suggesting that DDD pacing could be a therapeutic option for some elderly patients.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]