Comparison of dual-chamber pacing versus septal myectomy for the treatment of patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy1
A comparison of objective hemodynamic and exercise end points
Steve R. Ommen, MD*,
Rick A. Nishimura, MD, FACC*,
Ray W. Squires, PhD*,
Hartzell V. Schaff, MD, FACC ,
Gordon K. Danielson, MD, FACC and
A. Jamil Tajik, MD, FACC*
* Division of Cardiovascular Diseases and Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

View larger version (12K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1 Change in New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification from baseline to follow-up for patients undergoing surgical septal myectomy or dual-chamber (DDD) pacing.
|
|

View larger version (22K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2 Change in Doppler-derived resting left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient from baseline to follow-up assessment. Both groups (surgical myectomy, left; dual-chamber pacing, right) show significant reductions in resting gradient (p < 0.05).
|
|

View larger version (9K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3 Effects of treatment modalities on exercise duration. The surgical myectomy patients show a significant increase (*p < 0.05), whereas the pacing patients do not. Open bars = pretreatment; solid bars = posttreatment.
|
|

View larger version (11K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4 Effects of treatment modalities on peak oxygen consumption (VO2) in patients treated for symptomatic hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (*p < 0.05). Open bars = pretreatment; solid bars = posttreatment.
|
|
|