Why the study?
The role and timing of pacemakers for primary prevention of brady-arrhythmias and the utility of biventricular pacing in patients with cardiac amyloidosis remain uncertain.
Does cardiac pacing improve outcomes in patients with cardiac amyloidosis and conduction abnormalities?
Does cardiac pacing improve outcomes in patients with cardiac amyloidosis and conduction abnormalities?
While pacing in cardiac amyloidosis is generally efficacious when following standard guidelines, significant evidence gaps remain regarding primary prevention and biventricular pacing.
Guideline-directed pacing is effective in cardiac amyloidosis; leaves open primary prevention and biventricular pacing roles.
Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is an increasingly recognized cause of heart failure, characterized by extracellular deposition of insoluble protein fibrils leading to progressive myocardial dysfunction. The most common types of cardiac amyloidosis are immunoglobin light-chain (AL) and transthyretin (ATTR). Conduction abnormalities are commonly encountered among patients with cardiac amyloidosis and are an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Abnormalities range from infra-Hisian intraventricular conduction delay and bundle branch block to complete atrioventricular block. Pacemaker placement in CA patients follows established guidelines, similar to those for patients without CA, with generally good efficacy. The role and appropriate timing of pacemakers for primary prevention of brady-arrhythmias in CA remains uncertain. While biventricular (BiV) pacing has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in patients with systolic heart failure without CA, there are few data examining the utility of BiV pacing in patients with CA. With the advent of effective treatments for AL and ATTR, appropriate application of pacing is important to support patients with CA and conduction disease through therapeutic trials. This systematic review summarizes the current literature examining the utility of pacing in CA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alreshq et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: