RESUMO
Abstract Cardiac masses represent a heterogeneous group, including secondary malignancies as the most common ones, followed by primary tumors, vegetations, and thrombi. Cardiac imaging techniques are essential for the non-invasive diagnosis of cardiac masses. Thrombi in a transplanted heart, especially in atria, are very common, but when they appear as multiple, they could be an early sign of rejection. We present the case of a cardiac transplant patient who presented with masses in both atria and the left ventricle, as well as symptoms of right heart failure. Various image techniques were useful in establishing the differential diagnoses and appropriate treatment.
Resumen Las masas intracardíacas representan un grupo variado, que incluye metástasis como las más frecuentes, seguidas de tumores primarios, vegetaciones y trombos. Los trombos intracavitarios en un paciente trasplantado, especialmente en la aurícula, son muy frecuentes, pero, si aparecen como masas múltiples, pueden ser un dato precoz de un posible rechazo. Se expone el caso de un paciente trasplantado cardíaco que se presenta con masas intracavitarias en ambas aurículas y en el ventrículo izquierdo y datos de insuficiencia cardíaca de predominio derecho. Gracias al uso de varias técnicas de imagen se estableció el diagnóstico diferencial de las mismas, y se instauró el tratamiento adecuado.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) is the only definitive therapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Conventional transvenous ICDs can provide cardiac pacing unlike new subcutaneous ICD, but the usefulness of cardiac pacing in HCM patients is not well defined. We sought to assess the usefulness of ICD pacing in HCM. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 93 HCM patients who had undergone ICD implantation at our center. Usefulness of pacing was defined as follows: 1) need of pacing due to bradycardia or AV conduction disturbances, 2) improvement of LV outflow tract obstruction by sequential AV pacing, 3) need for CRT pacing, or 4) successful antitachycardia pacing without a subsequent shock. Independent predictors of useful pacing were investigated by multivariable analysis. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 91.3 ± 5.5 months, 43 patients (46.2%) reached the composite endpoint. Independent predictors of pacing usefulness were older age (HR 1.36; 95%CI: 1.088-1.709; p=0.007) and NYHA functional class ≥ II (HR 2.15; 95%CI: 1.083-4.301; p=0.029). Twenty-eight (30.1%) patients had appropriate ICD interventions, triggered by a monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (MVT) in 22 of them (78.5%). In 17 individuals with MVT (77%), antitachycardia pacing successfully treated MVT. CONCLUSIONS: In our HCM series of patients with ICD, 46% of individuals benefitted from cardiac pacing. MVT were documented in nearly 80% of the patients with ventricular arrhythmias and antitachycardia pacing successfully treated them in 77% of cases.