» Articles » PMID: 35558385

Endocardial Radiofrequency Ablation Vs. Septal Myectomy in Patients With Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview
Journal Front Surg
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2022 May 13
PMID 35558385
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Septal myectomy (SM) has been the gold standard therapy for most patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM). Endocardial radiofrequency ablation of septal hypertrophy (ERASH) is a novel treatment for septal reduction. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety between two treatment strategies.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases to identify relevant studies published up to March 2021. Random-effect models were used to calculate standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for resting left ventricular outflow tract gradient (LVOTG) and septal thickness.

Results: Twenty-five studies are included in this review, eighteen studies for SM and seven studies for ERASH. During follow-up, there were significant reductions of the mean resting LVOTG in adults (SM groups: SMD = -3.03, 95% CI [-3.62 to -2.44]; ERASH groups: SMD = -1.95, 95% CI [-2.45 to -1.45]) and children (SM groups: SMD = -2.67, 95% CI [-3.21 to -2.12]; ERASH groups: SMD= -2.37, 95% CI [-3.02 to -1.73]) after the septal reduction therapies. For adults, SM groups contributed to more obvious reduction than ERASH groups in interventricular septal thickness (SM groups: SMD = -1.82, 95% CI [-2.29 to -1.34]; ERASH groups: SMD = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.00 to 0.13]). The improvement of the New York Heart Association class was similar in the two groups (SM groups: 46.4%; ERASH groups: 46.7%). The periprocedural mortality in SM and ERASH were 1.1 and 1.8%, respectively.

Conclusions: This systematic review suggests that SM is superior to ERASH in the treatment of HOCM. But for the patients who are at risk for open cardiac surgeries or prefer a less invasive approach, ERASH might be an optional approach.

Citing Articles

Recent Clinical Updates of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy and Future Therapeutic Strategies.

Zhao M, He X, Min X, Yang H, Wu W, Zhong J Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2025; 26(2):25132.

PMID: 40026515 PMC: 11868910. DOI: 10.31083/RCM25132.


Radiofrequency Catheter Septal Ablation via a Trans-Atrial Septal Approach Guided by Intracardiac Echocardiography in Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy: One-Year Follow-Up.

Li X, Liu T, Cui B, Chen Y, Tang C, Wu G Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 25(2):38.

PMID: 39077341 PMC: 11263162. DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2502038.


Radiofrequency ablation in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Canzi C, do Prado Junior E, Junior A, Rezende A, Botelho S, Santos L Am Heart J Plus. 2024; 24:100229.

PMID: 38560638 PMC: 10978412. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahjo.2022.100229.


A Narrative Review of Emerging Therapies for Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy.

Junior A, de Oliveira A, Maia T, Botelho S Curr Cardiol Rev. 2023; 19(4):e240323214927.

PMID: 36999417 PMC: 10494274. DOI: 10.2174/1573403X19666230324102828.

References
1.
Schleihauf J, Cleuziou J, Pabst von Ohain J, Meierhofer C, Stern H, Shehu N . Clinical long-term outcome of septal myectomy for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in infants. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017; 53(3):538-544. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx369. View

2.
Sigwart U . Non-surgical myocardial reduction for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. Lancet. 1995; 346(8969):211-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)91267-3. View

3.
Maron B . Clinical Course and Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379(7):655-668. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1710575. View

4.
Sterne J, Egger M . Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 54(10):1046-55. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00377-8. View

5.
Nishimura R, Seggewiss H, Schaff H . Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy: Surgical Myectomy and Septal Ablation. Circ Res. 2017; 121(7):771-783. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.309348. View