Long-Term Survival in Patients With Resting Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy : Comparison of Conservative Versus Invasive Treatment

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the survival of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and resting left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction managed with an invasive versus a conservative strategy.BackgroundIn patients with resting obstructive HCM, clinical benefit can be achieved after invasive septal reduction therapy. However, it remains controversial whether invasive treatment improves long-term survival.MethodsWe studied a consecutive cohort of 649 patients with resting obstructive HCM. Total and HCM-related mortality were compared in 246 patients who were conservatively managed with 403 patients who were invasively managed by surgical myectomy, septal ethanol ablation, or dual-chamber pacing.ResultsMultivariable analyses (with invasive therapy treated as a time-dependent covariate) showed that an invasive intervention was a significant determinant of overall mortality (hazard ratio: 0.6, 95% confidence interval: 0.4 to 0.97, p = 0.04). Overall survival rates were greater in the invasive (99.2% 1-year, 95.7% 5-year, and 87.8% 10-year survival) than in the conservative (97.3% 1-year, 91.1% 5-year, and 75.8% 10-year survival, p = 0.008) cohort. However, invasive therapy was not found to be a significant independent predictor of HCM-related mortality (hazard ratio: 0.7, 95% confidence interval: 0.4 to 1.3, p = 0.3). The HCM-related survival was 99.5% (1 year), 96.3% (5 years), and 90.2% (10 years) in the invasive cohort, and 97.8% (1 year), 94.6% (5 years), and 86.9% (10 years) in the conservative cohort (p = 0.3).ConclusionsPatients treated invasively have an overall survival advantage compared with conservatively treated patients, with the latter group more likely to die from noncardiac causes. The HCM-related mortality is similar, regardless of a conservative versus invasive strategy.