Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy patients did not significantly improve indexed left ventricular volume after treatment (60 to 56 mL/m2, P=ns) compared with controls (67 to 52 mL/m2, P<0.001).
Observational (n=238)
Does the echocardiographic pattern of left ventricular function recovery differ between patients with tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy and other forms of cardiomyopathy?
Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy is associated with a distinct recovery pattern involving persistent left atrial and ventricular remodeling and more frequent persistent heart failure symptoms compared to other cardiomyopathies.
Abstract Aims Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (TCM) represents a partially reversible type of cardiomyopathy (CM) that is often underdiagnosed and cardiac chamber remodelling in TCM remains incompletely understood. We aim to explore differences in the dimensions of the left ventricle and functional recovery in patients with TCM compared with patients with other forms of CM. Methods and results We identified patients with reduced ejection fraction (≤50%) and/or atrial fibrillation or flutter with a left ventricular ejection fraction that improved from baseline (≥15% in left ventricular ejection fraction at follow-up or normalization of cardiac function with at least 10% improvement). Patients were then divided into two groups: (A) TCM patients and (B) patients with other forms of CM (controls). Two hundred thirty-eight patients were included (31% female, 70 years median age), 127 patients had TCM, and 111 had other forms of CM. Patients with TCM did not significantly improve indexed left ventricular volume (LVEDVI) after treatment (60 45, 84 mL/m2 versus 56 45, 70 mL/m2, P = ns) compared with controls (67 54, 81 mL/m2 versus 52 42, 69 mL/m2, P 0.001). Patients with TCM patients had significantly worse fractional shortening at baseline than controls (15.5 12, 23 vs. 20 13, 30, P = 0.01) and higher indexed left atrial volume (LAVI) at baseline than controls (48 37, 58 vs. 41 33, 51, P = 0.01) that remained dilated at follow-up (follow-up LAVI 41 33, 52 mL/m2). Good predictors of TCM were: normal LVEDVI (LVEDVI 58 mL/m2 (M) and 52 mL/m2 (F)) (odds ratio OR 5.2; 95% confidence interval CI 2.2–13.3, P 0.001), fractional shortening 30% (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4–9.2, P = 0.009), LAVI 40 mL/m2 (OR 3.4; 95% CI 1.6–7.3, P = 0.001) and normal wall thickness left ventricle (OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.4–7.8, P = 0.008). 54% of patients with TCM demonstrated diastolic dysfunction at follow-up, without differences from controls (54% vs. 43%, P = ns). 21% of patients with TCM showed persistent heart failure symptoms at follow-up compared with 4.5% of controls, P = 0.004. Conclusions TCM patients have a specific pattern of functional recovery with persistent remodelling of the left atria and left ventricle. Several echocardiographic parameters might help identify TCM before treatment.
Serban et al. (Mon,) conducted a observational in Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (n=238). Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy vs. Other forms of cardiomyopathy was evaluated on Improvement in indexed left ventricular volume (LVEDVI) after treatment. Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy patients did not significantly improve indexed left ventricular volume after treatment (60 to 56 mL/m2, P=ns) compared with controls (67 to 52 mL/m2, P<0.001).