Effect of deferiprone or deferoxamine on right ventricular function in thalassemia major patients with myocardial iron overload

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Thalassaemia major (TM) patients need regular blood transfusions that lead to accumulation of iron and death from heart failure. Deferiprone has been reported to be superior to deferoxamine for the removal of cardiac iron and improvement in left ventricular (LV) function but little is known of their relative effects on the right ventricle (RV), which is being increasingly recognised as an important prognostic factor in cardiomyopathy. Therefore data from a prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing these chelators was retrospectively analysed to assess the RV responses to these drugs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In the RCT, 61 TM patients were randomised to receive either deferiprone or deferoxamine monotherapy, and CMR scans for T2* and cardiac function were obtained. Data were re-analysed for RV volumes and function at baseline, and after 6 and 12 months of treatment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From baseline to 12 months, deferiprone reduced RV end systolic volume (ESV) from 37.7 to 34.2 mL (p = 0.008), whilst RV ejection fraction (EF) increased from 69.6 to 72.2% (p = 0.001). This was associated with a 27% increase in T2* (p < 0.001) and 3.1% increase in LVEF (p < 0.001). By contrast, deferoxamine showed no change in RVESV (38.1 to 39.1 mL, p = 0.38), or RVEF (70.0 to 69.9%, p = 0.93) whereas the T2* increased by 13% (p < 0.001), but with no change in LVEF (0.32%; p = 0.66). Analysis of between drugs treatment effects, showed significant improvements favouring deferiprone with a mean effect on RVESV of -1.82 mL (p = 0.014) and 1.16% for RVEF (p = 0.009). Using regression analysis the improvement in RVEF at 12 months was shown to be greater in patients with lower baseline EF values (p < 0.001), with a significant difference in RVEF of 3.5% favouring deferiprone over deferoxamine (p = 0.012).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this retrospective analysis of a prospective RCT, deferiprone monotherapy was superior to deferoxamine for improvement in RVEF and end-systolic volume. This improvement in the RV volumes and function may contribute to the improved cardiac outcomes seen with deferiprone.</p

Troponin release following endurance exercise: is inflammation the cause? a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study

Background: The aetiology and clinical significance of troponin release following endurance exercise is unclear but may be due to transient myocardial inflammation. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) affords us the opportunity to evaluate the presence of myocardial inflammation and focal fibrosis and is the ideal imaging modality to study this hypothesis. We sought to correlate the relationship between acute bouts of ultra endurance exercise leading to cardiac biomarkers elevation and the presence of myocardial inflammation and fibrosis using CMR.Methods: 17 recreation athletes (33.5 +/- 6.5 years) were studied before and after a marathon run with troponin, NTproBNP, and CMR. Specific imaging parameters to look for inflammation included T2 weighted images, and T1 weighted spin-echo images before and after an intravenous gadolinium-DTPA to detect myocardial hyperemia secondary to inflammation. Late gadolinium imaging was performed (LGE) to detect any focal regions of replacement fibrosis.Results: Eleven of the 17 participant had elevations of TnI above levels of cut off for myocardial infarction 6 hrs after the marathon (0.075 +/- 0.02, p = 0.007). Left ventricular volumes were reduced post marathon and a small increase in ejection fraction was noted (64 +/- 1% pre, 67 +/- 1.2% post, P = 0.014). Right ventricular volumes, stroke volume, and ejection fraction were unchanged post marathon. No athlete fulfilled criteria for myocardial inflammation based on current criteria. No regions of focal fibrosis were seen in any of the participants.Conclusion: Exercise induced cardiac biomarker release is not associated with any functional changes by CMR or any detectable myocardial inflammation or fibrosis

Committee of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging Association

(EACVI

Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices

Abstract Aims Many cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators are not approved by regulators for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Even following generator exchange to an approved magnetic resonance (MR)-conditional model, many systems remain classified ‘non-MR conditional’ due to the leads. This classification makes patient access to MRI challenging, but there is no evidence of increased clinical risk. We compared the effect of MRI on non-MR conditional and MR-conditional pacemaker and defibrillator leads. Methods and results Patients undergoing clinical 1.5T MRI with pacemakers and defibrillators in three centres over 5 years were included. Magnetic resonance imaging protocols were similar for MR-conditional and non-MR conditional systems. Devices were interrogated pre- and immediately post-scan, and at follow-up, and adverse clinical events recorded. Lead parameter changes peri-scan were stratified by MR-conditional labelling. A total of 1148 MRI examinations were performed in 970 patients (54% non-MR conditional systems, 39% defibrillators, 15% pacing-dependent) with 2268 leads. There were no lead-related adverse clinical events, and no clinically significant immediate or late lead parameter changes following MRI in either MR-conditional or non-MR conditional leads. Small reductions in atrial and right ventricular sensed amplitudes and impedances were similar between groups, with no difference in the proportion of leads with parameter changes greater than pre-defined thresholds (7.1%, 95% confidence interval: 6.1–8.3). Conclusions There was no increased risk of MRI in patients with non-MR conditional pacemaker or defibrillator leads when following recommended protocols. Standardizing MR conditions for all leads would significantly improve access to MRI by enabling patients to be scanned in non-specialist centres, with no discernible incremental risk. </jats:sec