Cargando…

Continuous Electrical Monitoring in Patients with Arrhythmic Myocarditis: Insights from a Referral Center

Background. The incidence and burden of arrhythmias in myocarditis are under-reported. Objective. We aimed to assess the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of continuous arrhythmia monitoring (CAM) in patients with arrhythmic myocarditis. Methods. We enrolled consecutive adult patients (n = 104; 7...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peretto, Giovanni, Mazzone, Patrizio, Paglino, Gabriele, Marzi, Alessandra, Tsitsinakis, Georgios, Rizzo, Stefania, Basso, Cristina, Della Bella, Paolo, Sala, Simone
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8584651/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34768662
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10215142
_version_ 1784597501255352320
author Peretto, Giovanni
Mazzone, Patrizio
Paglino, Gabriele
Marzi, Alessandra
Tsitsinakis, Georgios
Rizzo, Stefania
Basso, Cristina
Della Bella, Paolo
Sala, Simone
author_facet Peretto, Giovanni
Mazzone, Patrizio
Paglino, Gabriele
Marzi, Alessandra
Tsitsinakis, Georgios
Rizzo, Stefania
Basso, Cristina
Della Bella, Paolo
Sala, Simone
author_sort Peretto, Giovanni
collection PubMed
description Background. The incidence and burden of arrhythmias in myocarditis are under-reported. Objective. We aimed to assess the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of continuous arrhythmia monitoring (CAM) in patients with arrhythmic myocarditis. Methods. We enrolled consecutive adult patients (n = 104; 71% males, age 47 ± 11 year, mean LVEF 50 ± 13%) with biopsy-proven active myocarditis and de novo ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). All patients underwent prospective monitoring by both sequential 24-h Holter ECGs and CAM, including either ICD (n = 62; 60%) or loop recorder (n = 42; 40%). Results. By 3.7 ± 1.6 year follow up, 45 patients (43%) had VT, 67 (64%) NSVT and 102 (98%) premature ventricular complexes (PVC). As compared to the Holter ECG (average 9.5 exams per patient), CAM identified more patients with VA (VT: 45 vs. 4; NSVT: 64 vs. 45; both p < 0.001), more VA episodes (VT: 100 vs. 4%; NSVT: 91 vs. 12%) and earlier NSVT timing (median 6 vs. 24 months, p < 0.001). The extensive ICD implantation strategy was proven beneficial in 80% of the population. Histological signs of chronically active myocarditis (n = 73, 70%) and anteroseptal late gadolinium enhancement (n = 26, 25%) were significantly associated with the occurrence of VTs during follow up, even in the primary prevention subgroup. Conclusion. In patients with arrhythmic myocarditis, CAM allowed accurate arrhythmia detection and showed a considerable clinical impact.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8584651
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85846512021-11-12 Continuous Electrical Monitoring in Patients with Arrhythmic Myocarditis: Insights from a Referral Center Peretto, Giovanni Mazzone, Patrizio Paglino, Gabriele Marzi, Alessandra Tsitsinakis, Georgios Rizzo, Stefania Basso, Cristina Della Bella, Paolo Sala, Simone J Clin Med Article Background. The incidence and burden of arrhythmias in myocarditis are under-reported. Objective. We aimed to assess the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of continuous arrhythmia monitoring (CAM) in patients with arrhythmic myocarditis. Methods. We enrolled consecutive adult patients (n = 104; 71% males, age 47 ± 11 year, mean LVEF 50 ± 13%) with biopsy-proven active myocarditis and de novo ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). All patients underwent prospective monitoring by both sequential 24-h Holter ECGs and CAM, including either ICD (n = 62; 60%) or loop recorder (n = 42; 40%). Results. By 3.7 ± 1.6 year follow up, 45 patients (43%) had VT, 67 (64%) NSVT and 102 (98%) premature ventricular complexes (PVC). As compared to the Holter ECG (average 9.5 exams per patient), CAM identified more patients with VA (VT: 45 vs. 4; NSVT: 64 vs. 45; both p < 0.001), more VA episodes (VT: 100 vs. 4%; NSVT: 91 vs. 12%) and earlier NSVT timing (median 6 vs. 24 months, p < 0.001). The extensive ICD implantation strategy was proven beneficial in 80% of the population. Histological signs of chronically active myocarditis (n = 73, 70%) and anteroseptal late gadolinium enhancement (n = 26, 25%) were significantly associated with the occurrence of VTs during follow up, even in the primary prevention subgroup. Conclusion. In patients with arrhythmic myocarditis, CAM allowed accurate arrhythmia detection and showed a considerable clinical impact. MDPI 2021-11-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8584651/ /pubmed/34768662 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10215142 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Peretto, Giovanni
Mazzone, Patrizio
Paglino, Gabriele
Marzi, Alessandra
Tsitsinakis, Georgios
Rizzo, Stefania
Basso, Cristina
Della Bella, Paolo
Sala, Simone
Continuous Electrical Monitoring in Patients with Arrhythmic Myocarditis: Insights from a Referral Center
title Continuous Electrical Monitoring in Patients with Arrhythmic Myocarditis: Insights from a Referral Center
title_full Continuous Electrical Monitoring in Patients with Arrhythmic Myocarditis: Insights from a Referral Center
title_fullStr Continuous Electrical Monitoring in Patients with Arrhythmic Myocarditis: Insights from a Referral Center
title_full_unstemmed Continuous Electrical Monitoring in Patients with Arrhythmic Myocarditis: Insights from a Referral Center
title_short Continuous Electrical Monitoring in Patients with Arrhythmic Myocarditis: Insights from a Referral Center
title_sort continuous electrical monitoring in patients with arrhythmic myocarditis: insights from a referral center
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8584651/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34768662
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10215142
work_keys_str_mv AT perettogiovanni continuouselectricalmonitoringinpatientswitharrhythmicmyocarditisinsightsfromareferralcenter
AT mazzonepatrizio continuouselectricalmonitoringinpatientswitharrhythmicmyocarditisinsightsfromareferralcenter
AT paglinogabriele continuouselectricalmonitoringinpatientswitharrhythmicmyocarditisinsightsfromareferralcenter
AT marzialessandra continuouselectricalmonitoringinpatientswitharrhythmicmyocarditisinsightsfromareferralcenter
AT tsitsinakisgeorgios continuouselectricalmonitoringinpatientswitharrhythmicmyocarditisinsightsfromareferralcenter
AT rizzostefania continuouselectricalmonitoringinpatientswitharrhythmicmyocarditisinsightsfromareferralcenter
AT bassocristina continuouselectricalmonitoringinpatientswitharrhythmicmyocarditisinsightsfromareferralcenter
AT dellabellapaolo continuouselectricalmonitoringinpatientswitharrhythmicmyocarditisinsightsfromareferralcenter
AT salasimone continuouselectricalmonitoringinpatientswitharrhythmicmyocarditisinsightsfromareferralcenter