Clinical effects of metoprolol in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (TEMPO). A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover trial
Abstract Background Treatment with beta blockers (BB) has been used for symptomatic relief in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) for decades. Even so, the guideline recommendation for the use of BB rests on expert opinions and observational cohort studies. Providing comprehe...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European heart journal 2021-10, Vol.42 (Supplement_1) |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Abstract
Background
Treatment with beta blockers (BB) has been used for symptomatic relief in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) for decades. Even so, the guideline recommendation for the use of BB rests on expert opinions and observational cohort studies. Providing comprehensive high-quality data on the effects of BB in obstructive HCM is essential, especially in the context of newly developed pharmacological treatment strategies specifically targeting this disease (1).
Purpose
The study aimed to investigate the effects of metoprolol on left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, symptoms, and exercise capacity in patients with obstructive HCM.
Methods
This double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized crossover trial enrolled 30 patients with obstructive HCM and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class ≥ II symptoms from 1 May 2018 to 1 September 2020. Patients received metoprolol or placebo for two consecutive two-week periods in random order. The effect parameters were LVOT gradients, NYHA class, Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) grading angina class, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS), and cardiopulmonary exercise testing.
Results
Compared with placebo, the LVOT gradient during metoprolol was lower at rest (25 [15–58] mmHg versus 72 [28–87] mmHg; p=0.007), at peak exercise (28 [18–40] mmHg versus 62 [31–113] mmHg; p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0195-668X 1522-9645 |
DOI: | 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.1769 |