Background
Tachycardia and heart rate irregularity are proposed triggers of premature ventricular contraction–induced cardiomyopathy (PVC-cardiomyopathy). Bigeminal premature atrial and ventricular contractions (PACs and PVCs) increase heart rate and result in rhythm irregularities but differ in their effects on ventricular synchrony. Comparing chronic bigeminal PACs with PVCs would provide insights into mechanisms of PVC-cardiomyopathy.
Objective
To compare the impact of chronic PACs and PVCs on ventricular hemodynamics, structure, and function.
Methods
Pacemakers were implanted in 27 canines to reproduce atrial (PACs, n = 7) or ventricular bigeminy (PVCs, n = 11) for 12 weeks, and compared to sham-operated animals (n = 9). Four additional animals were exposed to long-term bigeminal PVCs (48 weeks). Hemodynamic changes were assessed using a pressure-transducing catheter at baseline and 12 weeks. Cardiac remodeling was monitored by transthoracic echocardiography throughout the 12- and 48-week protocols in the respective groups.
Results
PVC group demonstrated a significant decrease in left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction and contractility (max dP/dt), impaired LV lusitropy (min dP/dt), and increase in LV dimensions and LV mass at 12 weeks without further deterioration beyond 16 weeks. Despite increased LV mass, relative wall thickness decreased, consistent with eccentric hypertrophy. No significant cardiac remodeling was noted in either sham or PAC groups at 12 weeks.
Conclusion
In contrast to bigeminal PACs, PVCs result in a cardiomyopathy characterized by reduced LV ejection fraction, LV dilation, and eccentric hypertrophy that plateaus between 12 and 16 weeks. The lack of remodeling in chronic PACs suggests that tachycardia and heart rate irregularity do not play a significant role on the development of PVC-cardiomyopathy.
Introduction: Vasodilator stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a powerful diagnostic modality, but data toward its use in patients with permanent pacemakers (PPMs) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is limited.
Methods andResults: Patients with ICDs (>1% pacing) or PPMs who underwent regadenoson single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and all patients with ICDs or PPMs who underwent stress CMR were retrospectively identified. SPECT tests were analyzed for hemodynamic responses and new pacing requirements; CMR studies were examined for safety, device characteristics and programming, hemodynamic responses, and image quality. Changes from baseline were evaluated with the Related-Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. Of 67 patients (median age 65 [IQR 58-72] years, 31 [46%] female, 31 [46%] Black), 47 underwent SPECT and 20 CMR. With regadenoson SPECT, 89% of patients experienced tachycardic responses above resting heart rates (+19 [13-32] beats per minute, p < .01). During stress CMR, 10 (50%) devices were asynchronously paced approximately 10 beats per minute above resting rates, and the remaining were temporarily deactivated. Those with asynchronous pacing had no changes in heart rates, whereas patients with deactivated devices had near uniform heart rate accelerations. Image quality was diagnostic in the majority of stress CMR sequences, with nonconditional ICDs contributing 40 of 57 (70%) of nondiagnostic segments. Conclusion: This data supports the safety of vasodilator stress CMR with promising diagnostic quality images in patients with CMR conditional ICDs and PPMs. Despite a near uniform tachycardic response to regadenoson in the SPECT environment, high rates of asynchronous pacing during vasodilator stress CMR did not result in competitive pacing or adverse arrhythmic events. Further studies are needed to
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.