Why the study?
Does dual-chamber pacing improve symptoms or exercise capacity in symptomatic patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy refractory to drug therapy?
Population
48 symptomatic patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with ≥50 mm Hg basal gradient…
Comparison
Dual-chamber pacing (DDD) for 3 months vs Pacing backup (AAI-30) for 3 months
Design
RCT, Randomized to 3 months each of DDD pacing and pacing backup in a…
Follow-up
12 months
Key result
Dual-chamber pacing showed no significant differences compared to pacing backup for subjective or objective measures of symptoms or exercise capacity in patients with obstructive HCM.
Authors
Loading...
No benefit over backup pacing in obstructive HCM; challenges perceived gains from prior uncontrolled observations.
RCT (n=48)
Double-blind
crossover
Yes
Does dual-chamber pacing improve symptoms or exercise capacity in symptomatic patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy refractory to drug therapy?
p-value: p=NS
Dual-chamber pacing does not provide objective improvement in symptoms or exercise capacity compared to backup pacing in patients with obstructive HCM, suggesting perceived benefits in uncontrolled settings are largely due to a placebo effect.
Maron et al. (1999) conducted an RCT in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) (n=48). Dual-chamber pacing (DDD) vs. pacing backup (AAI-30) was evaluated on subjective or objective measures of symptoms or exercise capacity (NYHA class, quality of life, treadmill time, peak oxygen consumption) (p=NS). Dual-chamber pacing showed no significant differences compared to pacing backup for subjective or objective measures of symptoms or exercise capacity in patients with obstructive HCM.