In-hospital outcomes of septal myectomy vs. alcohol septal ablation for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with outflow tract obstruction: An update and insights from the national inpatient sample from 2011 to 2019

Le résumé fourni par la source

Septal Myectomy (SM) and Alcohol Septal Ablation (ASA) improve symptoms in patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy with outflow tract obstruction (oHCM). However, outcomes data in this population is predominantly from specialized centers. The National Inpatient Database was queried from 2011 to 2019 for relevant international classification of diseases (ICD)-9 and -10 diagnostic and procedural codes. We compared baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients with oHCM who underwent SM vs ASA. A p-value < 0.001 was considered statistically significant. We identified 15,119 patients with oHCM who underwent septal reduction therapies, of whom 57.4% underwent SM, and 42.6% underwent ASA. Patients who underwent SM had higher all-cause mortality (OR: 1.8 (1.3-2.5)), post-procedure ischemic stroke (OR: 2.3 (1.7-3.2)), acute kidney injury (OR: 1.4 (1.2-1.7)), vascular complications (OR: 3.6 (2.3-5.3)), ventricular septal defect (OR: 4.4 (3.2-6.1)), cardiogenic shock (OR: 1.7 (1.3-2.3)), sepsis (OR: 3.2 (1.9-5.4)), and left bundle branch block (OR: 3.5 (3-4)), compared to ASA. Patients who underwent ASA had higher post-procedure complete heart block (OR: 1.3 (1.1-1.4)), right bundle branch block (OR: 6.3 (5-7.7)), ventricular tachycardia (OR: 2.2 (1.9-2.6)), supraventricular tachycardia (OR: 1.6 (1.4-2)), and more commonly required pacemaker insertion (OR: 1.4 (1.3-1.7)) (p < 0.001 for all) compared to SM. This nationwide analysis evidenced that patients undergoing SM had higher in-hospital mortality and periprocedural complications than ASA; however, those undergoing ASA had more post-procedure conduction abnormalities and pacemaker implantation. The implications of these findings warrant further investigation regarding patient selection strategies for these therapies.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.