Endocardial radiofrequency ablation for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy: acute results and 6 months' follow-up in 19 patients.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of endocardial radiofrequency ablation of septal hypertrophy (ERASH) for left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient reduction in hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM). BACKGROUND: Anatomic variability of the vessels supplying the obstructing septal bulge can limit the efficacy of transcoronary ablation of septal hypertrophy in HOCM. Previous studies showed that inducing a local contraction disorder without reducing septal mass results in effective gradient reduction. We examined an alternative endocardial approach to transcoronary ablation of septal hypertrophy by using ERASH. METHODS: Nineteen patients with HOCM were enrolled; in 9 patients, the left ventricular septum was ablated, and in 10 patients, the right ventricular septum was ablated. Follow-up examinations (echocardiography, 6-min walk test, bicycle ergometry) were performed 3 days and 6 months after ERASH. RESULTS: After 31.2 ± 10 radiofrequency pulses, a significant and sustained LVOT gradient reduction could be achieved (62% reduction of resting gradients and 60% reduction of provoked gradients, p = 0.0001). The 6-min walking distance increased significantly from 412.9 ± 129 m to 471.2 ± 139 m after 6 months, p = 0.019); and New York Heart Association functional class was improved from 3.0 ± 0.0 to 1.6 ± 0.7 (p = 0.0001). Complete atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacemaker implantation occurred in 4 patients (21%); 1 patient had cardiac tamponade. CONCLUSIONS: ERASH is a new therapeutic option in the treatment of HOCM, allowing significant and sustained reduction of the LVOT gradient as well as symptomatic improvement with acceptable safety by inducing a discrete septal contraction disorder. It may be suitable for patients not amenable to transcoronary ablation of septal hypertrophy or myectomy.

[Indication for myocardial biopsy in myocarditis and dilated cardiomyopathy]. / Indikation der Herzmuskelbiopsie bei Myokarditis und dilatativer Kardiomyopathie.

This review may serve as a basis for evaluating publications on the topic "myocardial biopsy for myocarditis and dilated cardiomyopathy" in the clinical practice. The literature is particularly analyzed to answer the question, whether an endomyocardial catheter biopsy is indicated in patients with these myocardial disorders in the clinical routine besides its unequivocal scientific value. The judgment of the biopsy samples has been based on the classically histological and for years on the additional immunohistochemical and molecular biological-virological examination. The analysis of the literature data shows that outside scientific studies there is no indication to perform myocardial biopsy, or in other words, this procedure is not suitable for diagnosis, therapy, detection of early stages or prognostic evaluation in the disease spectrum "myocarditis, inflammatory heart disease, dilated cardiomyopathy". Reasons are the subjectivity in the judgment and interpretation of bioptic findings resulting in considerable interobserver variability, a missing standardization in biopsy performance, methods of examination and diagnostic criteria, the bioptic sampling error, missing therapeutic and prognostic consequences and potentially severe complications in performing myocardial biopsies. So far, the specificity of inflammatory changes in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy has not been proven in controlled blinded studies. The bioptic changes could be understood also as an unspecific inflammatory process in front of increasing pathophysiological evidence for myocardial inflammation in any form of heart failure. In addition, regarding the specific etiology of dilated cardiomyopathy, primarily a genetic, noninfectious or autoimmunologic origin plays an increasing role. The favorable clinical course and the very good prognosis of the acute, clinically diagnosed or supposed viral myocarditis should also be taken into account for the evaluation of myocardial biopsy. It should also be considered that the proof of causality between acute myocarditis and dilated cardiomyopathy is still lacking. Regarding the diagnosis "inflammatory cardiomyopathy" and multiple inflammatory subsets among patients with dilated cardiomyopathy or unclear regional contraction disorder, there is no adequate clinical validation of different diagnostic methods, criteria and interpretations so far. It is missleading to replace the well-established clinical diagnosis myocarditis by the bioptic diagnosis "inflammatory cardiomyopathy". However, endomyocardial catheter biopsy is clearly indicated in rare patients with fulminant myocarditis, giant-cell myocarditis and myocardial storage disease. Its probably underestimated role in sarcoid heart disease still needs to be clarified by systematic studies.

Transcoronary ablation of septal hypertrophy does not alter ICD intervention rates in high risk patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy.

INTRODUCTION: Transcoronary ablation of septal hypertrophy (TASH) is safe and effectively reduces the intraventricular gradient in patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM). To analyze the potential of anti- and proarrhythmic effects of TASH, we studied the discharge rates of implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in patients with HOCM who are at a high risk for sudden cardiac death. METHODS: ICD and TASH were performed in 15 patients. Indications for ICD-implantation were secondary prevention in nine patients after resuscitation from cardiac arrest with documented ventricular fibrillation (n = 7) or sustained ventricular tachycardia (n = 2) and primary prevention in 6 patients with a family history of sudden deaths, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, and/or syncope. All the patients had severe symptoms due to HOCM (NYHA functional class = 2.9). RESULTS: During a mean follow-up time of 41 +/- 22.7 months following the TASH procedure, 4 patients had episodes of appropriate discharges (8% per year). The discharge rate in the secondary prevention group was 10% per year and 5% in the group with primary prophylactic implants. Three patients died during follow-up (one each of pulmonary embolism, stroke, and sudden death). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, on the basis of ICD-discharge rates in HOCM-patients at high risk for sudden death, there is no evidence for an unfavorable arrhythmogenic effect of TASH. The efficacy of ICD treatment for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in HOCM could be confirmed, however, mortality is high in this cohort of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients.