6 research outputs found

    Sex-related differences in left ventricular assist device utilization and outcomes : results from the PCHF-VAD registry

    Get PDF
    Aims: Data on sex and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) utilization and outcomes have been conflicting and mostly confined to US studies incorporating older devices. This study aimed to investigate sex-related differences in LVAD utilization and outcomes in a contemporary European LVAD cohort. Methods and results: This analysis is part of the multicentre PCHF-VAD registry studying continuous-flow LVAD patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included ventricular arrhythmias, right ventricular failure, bleeding, thromboembolism, and the haemocompatibility score. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess associations between sex and outcomes. Overall, 457 men (81%) and 105 women (19%) were analysed. At LVAD implant, women were more often in Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile 1 or 2 (55% vs. 41%, P = 0.009) and more often required temporary mechanical circulatory support (39% vs. 23%, P = 0.001). Mean age was comparable (52.1 vs. 53.4 years, P = 0.33), and median follow-up duration was 344 [range 147–823] days for women and 435 [range 190–816] days for men (P = 0.40). No significant sex-related differences were found in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79 for female vs. male sex, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.50–1.27]). Female LVAD patients had a lower risk of ventricular arrhythmias (HR 0.56, 95% CI [0.33–0.95]) but more often experienced right ventricular failure. No significant sex-related differences were found in other outcomes. Conclusions: In this contemporary European cohort of LVAD patients, far fewer women than men underwent LVAD implantation despite similar clinical outcomes. This is important as the proportion of female LVAD patients (19%) was lower than the proportion of females with advanced HF as reported in previous studies, suggesting underutilization. Also, female patients were remarkably more often in INTERMACS profile 1 or 2, suggesting later referral for LVAD therapy. Additional research in female patients is warranted

    Differences between familial and sporadic dilated cardiomyopathy: ESC EORP Cardiomyopathy & Myocarditis registry

    No full text
    Aims: Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a complex disease where genetics interplay with extrinsic factors. This study aims to compare the phenotype, management, and outcome of familial DCM (FDCM) and non-familial (sporadic) DCM (SDCM) across Europe. Methods and results: Patients with DCM that were enrolled in the prospective ESC EORP Cardiomyopathy & Myocarditis Registry were included. Baseline characteristics, genetic testing, genetic yield, and outcome were analysed comparing FDCM and SDCM; 1260 adult patients were studied (238 FDCM, 707 SDCM, and 315 not disclosed). Patients with FDCM were younger (P < 0.01), had less severe disease phenotype at presentation (P < 0.02), more favourable baseline cardiovascular risk profiles (P ≤ 0.007), and less medication use (P ≤ 0.042). Outcome at 1 year was similar and predicted by NYHA class (HR 0.45; 95% CI [0.25–0.81]) and LVEF per % decrease (HR 1.05; 95% CI [1.02–1.08]. Throughout Europe, patients with FDCM received more genetic testing (47% vs. 8%, P < 0.01) and had higher genetic yield (55% vs. 22%, P < 0.01). Conclusions: We observed that FDCM and SDCM have significant differences at baseline but similar short-term prognosis. Whether modification of associated cardiovascular risk factors provide opportunities for treatment remains to be investigated. Our results also show a prevalent role of genetics in FDCM and a non-marginal yield in SDCM although genetic testing is largely neglected in SDCM. Limited genetic testing and heterogeneity in panels provides a scaffold for improvement of guideline adherence

    The Cardiomyopathy Registry of the EURObservational Research Programme of the European Society of Cardiology: Baseline data and contemporary management of adult patients with cardiomyopathies

    No full text
    AIMS: The Cardiomyopathy Registry of the EURObservational Research Programme is a prospective, observational, and multinational registry of consecutive patients with four cardiomyopathy subtypes: hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), and restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM). We report the baseline characteristics and management of adults enrolled in the registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 3208 patients were enrolled by 69 centres in 18 countries [HCM (n\u2009=\u20091739); DCM (n\u2009=\u20091260); ARVC (n\u2009=\u2009143); and RCM (n\u2009=\u200966)]. Differences between cardiomyopathy subtypes (P\u2009<\u20090.001) were observed for age at diagnosis, history of familial disease, history of sustained ventricular arrhythmia, use of magnetic resonance imaging or genetic testing, and implantation of defibrillators. When compared with probands, relatives had a lower age at diagnosis (P\u2009<\u20090.001), but a similar rate of symptoms and defibrillators. When compared with the Long-Term phase, patients of the Pilot phase (enrolled in more expert centres) had a more frequent rate of familial disease (P\u2009<\u20090.001), were more frequently diagnosed with a rare underlying disease (P\u2009<\u20090.001), and more frequently implanted with a defibrillator (P\u2009=\u20090.023). Comparing four geographical areas, patients from Southern Europe had a familial disease more frequently (P\u2009<\u20090.001), were more frequently diagnosed in the context of a family screening (P\u2009<\u20090.001), and more frequently diagnosed with a rare underlying disease (P\u2009<\u20090.001). CONCLUSION: By providing contemporary observational data on characteristics and management of patients with cardiomyopathies, the registry provides a platform for the evaluation of guideline implementation. Potential gaps with existing recommendations are discussed as well as some suggestions for improvement of health care provision in Europe
    corecore