Vol 29, No 1 (2022)
Original Article
Published online: 2020-03-18

open access

Page views 6220
Article views/downloads 1203
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Does left ventricular reverse remodeling influence long-term outcomes in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy?

Marcelo Arruda Nakazone12, Ana Paula Otaviano3, Maurício Nassau Machado2, Reinaldo Bulgarelli Bestetti14
Pubmed: 32207838
Cardiol J 2022;29(1):44-52.

Abstract

Background: The impact of left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR) on the prognosis of Chagas cardiomyopathy is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine whether the presence of LVRR can predict mortality in these patients.
Methods: From January 2000 to December 2010, the medical charts of 159 patients were reviewed. LVRR was defined as an increase of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and a decrease of left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVDD) by two-dimensional echocardiography. No patient underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy or required mechanical ventricular assistance.
Results: At baseline, median (25th–75th) LVDD was 64 mm (59–70), and median LVEF was 33.2% (26.4–40.1). LVRR was detected in 24.5% of patients in a 40-month (26–64) median follow-up. In the LVRR group, LVDD decreased from 64 mm (59–68) to 60 mm (56–65; p < 0.001), and LVEF increased from 31.3% (24.1–39.0) to 42.5% (32.2–47.7; p < 0.001). However, LVRR was not associated with heart failure hospitalization, cardiogenic shock, heart transplantation, or mortality (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). The Cox proportional hazard model analysis identified only cardiogenic shock (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51–3.85; p < 0.001) and serum sodium level (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.86–0.96; p < 0.001) as independent predictors of all-cause mortality.
Conclusions: Left ventricular reverse remodeling occurs in one quarter of patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy and have no impact on the outcomes of patients with this condition.

clinical cardiology

Original article

Cardiology Journal 2022, Vol. 29, No. 1, 44–52

DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2020.0038 Copyright © 2022 Via Medica

ISSN 1897–5593

eISSN 1898018X

Does left ventricular reverse remodeling influence long-term outcomes in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy?

Marcelo Arruda Nakazone12Ana Paula Otaviano3Maurício Nassau Machado2Reinaldo Bulgarelli Bestetti14
1Postgraduate Division, São José do Rio Preto Medical School, São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil
2Hospital de Base, Fundação Faculdade Regional de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto, São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil
3Hospital das Clínicas, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
4University of Ribeirão Preto, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

Address for correspondence: Marcelo A. Nakazone, MD, PhD, Centro Integrado de Pesquisa, Hospital de Base, São José do Rio Preto Medical School, 5544 Brigadeiro Faria Lima Ave, São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil, Zip Code: 15090-000, tel: +55 17 3201-5054, fax: +55 17 3201-5154, e-mail: manakazone@gmail.com

Received: 26.12.2019 Accepted: 9.03.2020 Early publication date: 18.03.2020

This article is available in open access under Creative Common Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license, allowing to download articles and share them with others as long as they credit the authors and the publisher, but without permission to change them in any way or use them commercially.

Background: The impact of left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR) on the prognosis of Chagas cardiomyopathy is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine whether the presence of LVRR can predict mortality in these patients.
Methods: From January 2000 to December 2010, the medical charts of 159 patients were reviewed. LVRR was defined as an increase of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and a decrease of left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVDD) by two-dimensional echocardiography. No patient underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy or required mechanical ventricular assistance.
Results: At baseline, median (25th–75th) LVDD was 64 mm (59–70), and median LVEF was 33.2% (26.4–40.1). LVRR was detected in 24.5% of patients in a 40-month (26–64) median follow-up. In the LVRR group, LVDD decreased from 64 mm (59–68) to 60 mm (56–65; p < 0.001), and LVEF increased from 31.3% (24.1–39.0) to 42.5% (32.2–47.7; p < 0.001). However, LVRR was not associated with heart failure hospitalization, cardiogenic shock, heart transplantation, or mortality (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). The Cox proportional hazard model analysis identified only cardiogenic shock (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51–3.85; p < 0.001) and serum sodium level (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.86–0.96; p < 0.001) as independent predictors of all-cause mortality.
Conclusions: Left ventricular reverse remodeling occurs in one quarter of patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy and have no impact on the outcomes of patients with this condition. (Cardiol J 2022; 29, 1: 44–52)
Abstract
Key words: left ventricular remodeling, heart failure, Chagas cardiomyopathy, prognosis; mortality

Introduction

In the current era, Chagas disease is still a major health problem in Latin America, where about 10 million individuals are carriers of the disease, and about 10,000 people die as result of the disease each year [1]. In view of international immigration, Chagas disease has spread throughout the world, and the global costs associated with this disease are about 7.2 billion United States Dollars annually, this is higher than that observed in several types of cancer [2].

The disease is caused by Trypanosoma cruzi, a protozoan transmitted to humans through the feces of a sucking bug. Infection usually occurs in infancy. Approximately two decades after infection, about 30% of infected patients develop chronic cardiomyopathy and severe complications, as chronic systolic heart failure, and sudden cardiac death [3].

Chronic heart failure (CHF) secondary to Chagas cardiomyopathy (CC), CC has a poor prognosis compared to patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy [4], hypertensive cardiomyopathy [5], or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy [6, 7]. The histopathological findings in the chronic stage of CC are focal myocarditis that leads to myocyte loss, reparative, and confluent fibrosis throughout the myocardium, ultimately leading to geometric changes and ventricular systolic dysfunction i.e., ventricular remodeling [8].

Left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR) is characterized by a decrease of left ventricular (LV) dimensions, normalization of LV shape and improvement of systolic function [9]. A favorable response to drug therapy with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and aldosterone antagonists has been reported, with almost complete reversal of LV dysfunction [10–12]. Although Chagas heart disease has been extensive and intensively studied over the past 20 years, a limited number of studies have assessed cardiac remodeling quantitatively in long-term follow-up in this setting [13, 14]. Male gender and systemic blood pressure seem to be independent predictors of cardiac remodeling [15].

The ability of treatment for heart failure to decrease left chamber size and to improve left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) can identify CC patients with a modifiable condition and better long-term prognosis. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to determine whether LVRR could predict all-cause mortality in patients with CC in long-term follow up.

Methods

Patients selection

This single-center study retrospectively evaluated the medical charts of patients with two positive serologic tests for Chagas disease (hemagglutination and indirect immunofluorescence staining) according to the World Health Organization recommendation [16]. The clinical diagnosis of heart failure was made by attending physicians based on Framingham Criteria for the diagnosis of CHF [17]. After the clinical diagnosis of CHF, a two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography was used for each patient to confirm the clinical diagnosis, quantify this condition using LVEF, and to guide treatment. Individuals with the clinical diagnosis of CHF, secondary to CC and LVEF < 55% on first 2D echocardiography confirming LV systolic dysfunction were initially screened for this study. Patients with a concomitant disease that could potentially cause heart disease by itself were excluded.

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved through the local Human Research Ethics Committee of São José do Rio Preto Medical School (CAAE — 02716112.6.0000.5415). The need for individual informed consent was waived, as this study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for routine care, and breach of privacy or anonymity did not occur.

Data availability

The data sets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the use of potentially identifying postal codes in the deprivation analysis, as approved by the local Human Research Ethics Committee, but they are available upon reasonable request.

Baseline measurements and 2D echocardiographic conditions

The demographics data, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, heart rate, systemic arterial pressure, medical history, standard laboratory tests, 12-lead resting electrocardiogram and cardiac electronic implantable devices information were obtained upon study entry and retrieved from the medical chart records.

Local specialists in 2D echocardiography did the echocardiographic examination with patients in the left lateral position. Standard parasternal, apical and subcostal views were obtained. Routinely, physicians did place the transducer as far laterally and caudally as possible in the apical windows to maximize LV cavity size and avoid foreshortening during measures. LVEF was measured by the Simpson method in the apical 4-chamber view, which was used for the main analyses, as well as apical 2-chamber view when possible. Wall motion abnormalities analyses, LV end-systolic diameter, LV end-diastolic diameter (LVDD), and right ventricular dimension were measured according to the American Society of Echocardiography recommendations [18].

Although there is lack of standardized definitions for reverse remodeling [19], in the present investigation, LVRR is defined by the simultaneous presence of the following conditions: a) occurrence of an increase of LVEF concomitant with a decrease in LVDD; b) this improvement occurred in the absence of cardiac resynchronization therapy or mechanical ventricular assistance, as also described by Amorim et al. [9]. At the time of the study period, LV volumes were not routinely measured.

Prospective follow-up

The patients were routinely followed from January 02, 2000 to December 30, 2010 at the Cardiomyopathy Outpatient Service, Hospital de Base, São José do Rio Preto Medical School, a public referral center for severe CHF management in the northwest of São Paulo, Brazil. The heart failure medical therapy information was retrieved from a prospectively collected database of patients. All patients received evidence-based treatment for CHF, according to international guidelines at that time. Thus, treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocks and beta-blockers at targeted or maximal tolerated doses was considered for all patients. Those with pitting edema received furosemide, while those in the NYHA class III/IV with a LVEF < 30% were treated with digoxin. Patients usually visited the outpatient service every 4 months, and a senior heart failure specialist supervised the treatment given. Patients were followed until the study was closed; they were also excluded at heart transplantation or death.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistical Package v.21 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY). Variables are presented as absolute numbers and percentages and median and interquartile ranges (25th and 75th percentile) when applicable. Due to the lack of Gaussian distribution, continuous variables were compared using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test. Chi-square or the Fisher exact test was used to compare categorical variables.

The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the ability of LVRR to independently predict all-cause mortality during long-term follow-up. In the multivariable model, variables with a p value < 0.10 in the univariate model, and those with known prognostic significance were entered into the backward stepwise approach to establish independent predictors of death. The Spearman test was used to establish a correlation between continuous variables. The variable which correlated with others and with the highest Wald coefficient remained in the model, whereas the other was ruled out. Thus, each variable entered the multivariable model in a proportion of at least 10 events in an attempt to avoid overfitting. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for predictors.

Cumulative survival graphics (Kaplan-Meier) were constructed to demonstrate differences in event-free survival (mortality from all-causes). P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant (two-tailed).

Results

Potentially 234 patients were screened for taking part in this investigation. However, a total of 75 (32%) individuals did not undergo another comparative 2D echocardiography during the follow-up because they had died before this. Therefore, they were excluded from this investigation. In this context, the study evaluated 159 patients (64.2% male) who had a median age of 57 (47–66) years, and were followed over a period more than 10 years. The baseline characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. These individuals were divided into two groups: with and without LVRR by echocardiographic evaluations. A similarity (p > 0.05) for all variables was observed in the present series.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of 159 patients analyzed for occurrence of left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR).

Baseline characteristics

All patients (n = 159)

LVRR+ (n = 39)

LVRR– (n = 120)

P

Variable:

Age [years]

57 (47–66)

58 (52–67)

56 (45–65)

0.159

Gender (male)

102 (64.2)

23 (59.0)

79 (65.8)

0.438

NYHA classes I and II

118 (74.2)

33 (84.6)

85 (70.8)

0.087

NYHA classes III and IV

41 (25.8)

6 (15.4)

35 (29.2)

0.087

Heart rate [beats/min]

68 (60–78)

68 (60–80)

68 (60–76)

0.681

SBP [mmHg]

110 (100–120)

110 (100–120)

110 (100–120)

0.687

DBP [mmHg]

70 (60–80)

70 (70–80)

70 (60–80)

0.136

Diabetes mellitus

4 (2.5)

2 (5.1)

2 (1.7)

0.252

Laboratory analysis:

Hemoglobin [g/dL]

13.2 (12.0–14.0)

13.8 (12.0–14.1)

13.2 (12.0 -14.0)

0.877

Sodium [mg/dL]

141 (138–144)

141 (137–144)

141 (138–144)

0.794

Potassium [mg/dL]

4.4 (4.1–4.8)

4.4 (3.9–4.8)

4.4 (4.1–4.8)

0.869

Creatinine [mg/dL]

1.2 (1.0–1.4)

1.1 (1.0–1.3)

1.2 (1.0–1.4)

0.157

CKD-EPI [mL/min/1.73 m2]

63.5 (51.1–78.6)

65.3 (52.2–78.6)

63.3 (50.6–79.2)

0.658

Electrocardiography:

Atrial fibrillation

41 (25.8)

12 (30.8)

29 (24.2)

0.413

ICD

23 (14.5)

6 (15.4)

17 (14.2)

0.851

Pacemaker

84 (52.8)

18 (46.2)

66 (55.0)

0.336

LBBB

21 (13.2)

3 (7.7)

18 (15.0)

0.242

RBBB

63 (39.6)

16 (41.0)

47 (39.2)

0.837

LAFB

59 (37.1)

15 (38.5)

44 (36.7)

0.840

Low voltage of QRS

9 (5.7)

1 (2.6)

8 (6.7)

0.455

VPC

71 (44.7)

19 (48.7)

52 (43.3)

0.557

The current study population received maximal tolerated daily doses of medications, considering samples from drug classes with known prognostic impact in ventricular remodeling. LVRR group received mean daily dose (mg/day) of enalapril (15.0 ± 5.8), captopril (106.3 ± 49.6), losartan (44.2 ± 11.0), carvedilol (27.6 ± 21.1), metoprolol succinate (116.7 ± 58.7), spironolactone (33.3 ± 24.3) and non-LVRR group received mean daily dose of enalapril (14.3 ± 8.7; p = 0.357), captopril (75.8 ± 38.0; p = 0.120), losartan (50.0 ± 24.2; p = 0.789), carvedilol (26.3 ± 17.9; p = 0.860), metoprolol succinate (128.1 ± 63.6; p = 0.585), spironolactone (27.5 ± 12.4; p = 0.346), showing no difference between groups for optimized therapy, according to guideline recommendations during the long-term follow-up.

Thirty-nine patients (24.5%) with CC presented LVRR during their follow-up. Comparing the first and the last 2D echocardiography, this group showed a median of 3.0 mm (1 to 6 mm) for absolute reduction of LVDD, representing a median of 5.1% (1.7 to 10%) reduction. For this group, a median of absolute improvement for LVEF of 7.0% (4.0 to 11.6%) was also detected, representing around 23.6% (12.7 to 39.7%) of improvement. There was a significant difference between this group and the group of individuals with LVRR (p < 0.001) for all previous measures. Right ventricle diameter and wall motion abnormality did not differ between groups (Table 2).

Table 2. Comparison between first and last two-dimensional-echocardiography (2D-ECHO) during follow-up.

Baseline characteristics

All patients (n = 159)

LVRR+ (n = 39)

LVRR– (n = 120)

P

First 2D-ECHO:

LVDD [mm]

64 (59–70)

64 (59–68)

64 (59–71)

0.605

LVSD [mm]

54 (49–60)

56 (50–60)

54 (48–60)

0.440

RVD [mm]

23 (19–28)

24 (20–29)

23 (18–28)

0.272

WMA

54 (34.0)

12 (30.8)

42 (35.0)

0.628

LVEF [%]

33.2 (26.4–40.1)

31.3 (24.1–39.0)

33.5 (27.0–40.8)

0.223

Last 2D-ECHO:

LVDD [mm]

65 (60–72)

60 (56–65)

67 (62–74)

< 0.001

LVSD [mm]

56 (49–63)

49 (42–55)

58 (52–64)

< 0.001

RVD [mm]

25 (20–33)

27 (22–35)

25 (19–32)

0.485

WMA

50 (31.4)

11 (28.2)

39 (32.5)

0.616

LVEF [%]

31.7 (24.8–41.8)

42.2 (32.2–47.7)

30.0 (22.7–36.7)

< 0.001

Comparison LVDD:

Absolute difference [mm]

1.0 (–1.0 to 4.0)

–3.0 (-6.0 to–1.0)

2.0 (0.0 to 5.0)

< 0.001

Relative difference [%]

1.4 (–1.8 to 6.0)

–5.1 (–10.0 to –1.7)

3.2 (0.0 to 8.1)

< 0.001

Comparison LVEF:

Absolute difference [mm]

0 (–7.8 to 6.4)

7.0 (4.0 to 11.6)

–3.1 (–10.6 to 3.2)

< 0.001

Relative difference [mm]

0 (–23.3 to 23.6)

23.6 (12.7 to 39.7)

–8.4 (–28.8 to 12.0)

< 0.001

Standard laboratory tests, 12-lead resting electrocardiographic findings and using cardiac electronic implantable devices observed at study entry were not associated with LVRR occurrence. Moreover, patients with LVRR showed no difference for hospitalization due to acute decompensated heart failure (59.0%), cardiogenic shock (17.9%), and the need to heart transplantation (10.3%) compared to patients without LVRR (65.8%, p = 0.438; 29.2%, p = 0.167; and 8.3%, p = 0.747; respectively).

The Cox proportional hazards model showed a similar situation for late-mortality (over period of more than 10 years) between individuals without LVRR (54.2%) compared to individuals with LVRR (46.2%, p = 0.384). After adjustment, six variables were used in the multivariate model: age (years), gender (male), cardiogenic shock, left anterior fascicular block, serum sodium level, and LVRR. Only two variables were retained as independent predictors of long-term mortality: cardiogenic shock (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.41, 95% CI 1.51–3.85; p < 0.001) and serum sodium level (HR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.86–0.96; p < 0.001; Table 3).

Table 3. Cox proportional hazard model for independent predictors of long-term mortality.

All patients

Univariate

Multivariate

HR

95% CI

P

HR

95% CI

P

Age [years]

1.00

0.98–1.01

0.688

Gender (male)

1.43

0.89–2.30

0.142

LVRR status

0.76

0.45–1.28

0.303

Cardiogenic shock

2.49

1.58–3.91

< 0.001

2.41

1.51–3.85

< 0.001

Left anterior fascicular block

1.72

1.12–2.65

0.014

Serum sodium level

0.91

0.86–0.96

0.001

0.91

0.86–0.96

< 0.001

The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of patients with and without LVRR during follow-up is shown in Figure 1. No difference between either group was observed regarding survival.

167740.png

Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of patients with and without left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling considering reduction of left ventricular end-diastolic diameter and improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction.

Discussion

In this study, LVRR in CC was evaluated as a predictor of long-term mortality. According to available research, this is the first study of a cohort of patients with CHF secondary to CC evaluating the role of LVRR on outcome in an over 10-year follow-up. The present study shows no survival improvement despite of LVRR, thus confirming a dismal prognosis and severity of CHF secondary to CC.

Cardiac reverse remodeling with medical treatment of CHF is well established, with demonstrable decreases in LV diameter and improvement in LV function [20–25]. It should be noted that, although the volumetric measurements seem to provide the most powerful data, LVEF measurements are simpler to obtain and are indeed a marker of the remodeling process. As LV volume increases, there is a tendency for a concomitant and usually parallel decrease in LVEF, which can be used, itself, as a marker of the remodeling process [26]. Interestingly, similar to the results provided by Ramasubbu et al. [27] using the echocardiography database from the ESCAPE trial [28], the current study demonstrated that changes in these parameters were not associated with outcome improvement (long-term mortality) in patients with CC as well. In this context, despite LVRR evidenced by improvement in cardiac chamber size and LV function, factors as persistent neurohormonal activation, increased oxidative stress, and inflammatory/immunological cardiomyocyte damage can be a potential hypothesis to explain the present findings [19, 29].

Only two previous studies which included patients with CC aiming at assessing clinical predictors for long-term cardiac remodeling was previously performed in a similar cohort. In both studies [13, 15], in contrast to the present results, no significant reduction for LVDD was observed during follow-up. It is possible that optimized clinical treatment provided to patients in the current study, including targeted or maximal tolerated doses of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and spironolactone associated to beta-blockers, can account for these discrepant results. Moreover, findings herein are similar to those observed in other populations [30, 31].

The therapeutic agents, mainly angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers, modify the remodeling process and frequently add other clinically relevant benefits in reducing morbidity and mortality in cardiomyopathy patients [32]. Several clinical trials using a variety of beta-blockers have demonstrated improvements in symptoms, ventricular function, functional capacity, and survival in patients with CHF due to ischemic and dilated cardiomyopathies [33–35]. Some studies with beta-blockers that included patients with CC showed similar benefits [36–40].

Experimentally, a recent study designed to evaluate the role of carvedilol in the context of Chagas disease concluded that the drug did not attenuate cardiac remodeling or mortality in a model of CC [41]. This contrasts with other experimental studies in which metoprolol was capable in reverting electrocardiographic abnormalities in a rat model of Chagas disease, was probably because the reversal of catecholamine toxicity in this model [42, 43]. In fact, parasympathetic derangement is believed, along with microvascular dysfunction and autoimmunity, to play a central role in the pathogenesis of chronic Chagas heart disease [44]. Thus, in the present study, optimized pharmacological treatment confirmed its association with LVRR, considering the reduction of LVDD and improvement of LVEF, although it has not positively impacted on survival.

Inotropic support and serum sodium level were independent predictors for mortality in the current investigation. These findings probably reflect the severity of the study population in which about a quarter of individuals showed cardiogenic shock during follow-up. Therefore, this may account, at least in part, for the ability of inotropic support to predict hyponatremia in patients with CC and, consequently, ventricular remodeling [45, 46].

Limitations of the study

There are some limitations to the present study. This work is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected single-center data and thus, carries the inherent disadvantages of retrospective studies. All echocardiographic parameters were not available in all patients, and therefore only parameters that had paired measurements (at baseline and follow-up) were used in the analysis, resulting in a smaller sample size. Unfortunately, LV volumes were not obtained, a finding that could better explain LVRR. It must be emphasized that 32% of patients were excluded from the study because they had died before undergoing comparative echocardiography. This reflects the mortality associated with Chagas disease patients in the real world. Intra- and interobserver variability for the echocardiography lab was not mentioned; therefore, it was difficult to determine whether the mean changes in parameters fell within the measurement variability or reflected true changes. Additionally, multivariate analysis included only those factors available in the documented database. Some factors that have an effect on prognosis might not have been examined. Thus, present results may not be applicable to other specific patient cohorts without further study into the various subgroups. Despite these caveats, it should be emphasized that this study was performed in a cohort followed at a tertiary referral center for heart failure treatment, where patients received the best therapy possible. In addition, the data obtained allowed us to perform an ample statistical analysis, which provided its great reliability. Finally, the investigation reflects the relentless prognosis of CC in the real world, independent of LVRR.

Conclusions

The present study suggests that LVRR does not predict a reduction in long-term all-cause mortality in patients with CC. This is the first study to show that the severity of disease progression seems to dissipate the potential benefit of LVRR in patients with CC. Further research, however, with larger sample sizes, should be conducted to confirm these findings.

Conflict of interest: None declared

References

  1. Chagas disease (American trypanosomiasis) – fact sheet (revised in August 2012). Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2012; 87(51/52): 519–522, indexed in Pubmed: 23311009.
  2. Lee BY, Bacon KM, Bottazzi ME, et al. Global economic burden of Chagas disease: a computational simulation model. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013; 13(4): 342–348, doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70002-1, indexed in Pubmed: 23395248.
  3. Bestetti RB, Cardinalli-Neto A. Sudden cardiac death in Chagas’ heart disease in the contemporary era. Int J Cardiol. 2008; 131(1): 9–17, doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2008.05.024, indexed in Pubmed: 18692919.
  4. Vilas Boas LGC, Bestetti RB, Otaviano AP, et al. Outcome of Chagas cardiomyopathy in comparison to ischemic cardiomyopathy. Int J Cardiol. 2013; 167(2): 486–490, doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.01.033, indexed in Pubmed: 22365646.
  5. Bestetti RB, Otaviano AP, Fantini JP, et al. Prognosis of patients with chronic systolic heart failure: Chagas disease versus systemic arterial hypertension. Int J Cardiol. 2013; 168(3): 2990–2991, doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.04.015, indexed in Pubmed: 23642596.
  6. Pereira Nunes MC, Barbosa MM, Ribeiro AL, et al. Predictors of mortality in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy: relevance of chagas disease as an etiological factor. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2010; 63(7): 788–797, doi: 10.1016/s1885-5857(10)70163-8, indexed in Pubmed: 20609312.
  7. Barbosa AP, Cardinalli Neto A, Otaviano AP, et al. Comparison of outcome between Chagas cardiomyopathy and idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2011; 97(6): 517–525, doi: 10.1590/s0066-782x2011005000112, indexed in Pubmed: 22030565.
  8. Bestetti RB, Rossi MA. A rationale approach for mortality risk stratification in Chagas’ heart disease. Int J Cardiol. 1997; 58(3): 199–209, doi: 10.1016/s0167-5273(96)02877-x, indexed in Pubmed: 9076546.
  9. Amorim S, Rodrigues J, Campelo M, et al. Left ventricular reverse remodeling in dilated cardiomyopathy- maintained subclinical myocardial systolic and diastolic dysfunction. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017; 33(5): 605–613, doi: 10.1007/s10554-016-1042-6, indexed in Pubmed: 28013418.
  10. Arnold RH, Kotlyar E, Hayward C, et al. Relation between heart rate, heart rhythm, and reverse left ventricular remodelling in response to carvedilol in patients with chronic heart failure: a single centre, observational study. Heart. 2003; 89(3): 293–298, doi: 10.1136/heart.89.3.293, indexed in Pubmed: 12591834.
  11. Greenberg B, Quinones MA, Koilpillai C, et al. Effects of long-term enalapril therapy on cardiac structure and function in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Results of the SOLVD echocardiography substudy. Circulation. 1995; 91(10): 2573–2581, doi: 10.1161/01.cir.91.10.2573, indexed in Pubmed: 7743619.
  12. Boccanelli A, Mureddu GF, Cacciatore G, et al. AREA IN-CHF Investigators. Anti-remodelling effect of canrenone in patients with mild chronic heart failure (AREA IN-CHF study): final results. Eur J Heart Fail. 2009; 11(1): 68–76, doi: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfn015, indexed in Pubmed: 19147459.
  13. Benchimol-Barbosa PR. Cardiac remodeling and predictors for cardiac death in long-term follow-up of subjects with chronic Chagas’ heart disease: a mathematical model for progression of myocardial damage. Int J Cardiol. 2009; 131(3): 435–438, doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2007.07.151, indexed in Pubmed: 18053595.
  14. Dávila DF, Rossell O, de Bellabarba GA. Pathogenesis of chronic chagas heart disease: parasite persistence and autoimmune responses versus cardiac remodelling and neurohormonal activation. Int J Parasitol. 2002; 32(1): 107–109, doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(01)00311-3, indexed in Pubmed: 11796128.
  15. Bestetti RB. Predictors of unfavourable prognosis in chronic Chagas’ disease. Trop Med Int Health. 2001; 6(6): 476–483, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3156.2001.00726.x, indexed in Pubmed: 11422962.
  16. WHO Expert Committee. Control of Chagas disease. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 2002; 905(i-vi): 1–109, indexed in Pubmed: 12092045.
  17. Ho KK, Anderson KM, Kannel WB, et al. Survival after the onset of congestive heart failure in Framingham Heart Study subjects. Circulation. 1993; 88(1): 107–115, doi: 10.1161/01.cir.88.1.107, indexed in Pubmed: 8319323.
  18. Schiller NB, Shah PM, Crawford M, et al. Recommendations for quantitation of the left ventricle by two-dimensional echocardiography. American Society of Echocardiography Committee on Standards, Subcommittee on Quantitation of Two-Dimensional Echocardiograms. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1989; 2(5): 358–367, doi: 10.1016/s0894-7317(89)80014-8, indexed in Pubmed: 2698218.
  19. Aimo A, Gaggin HK, Barison A, et al. Imaging, biomarker, and clinical predictors of cardiac remodeling in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. JACC Heart Fail. 2019; 7(9): 782–794, doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.06.004, indexed in Pubmed: 31401101.
  20. Cintron G, Johnson G, Francis G, et al. Prognostic significance of serial changes in left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with congestive heart failure. The V-HeFT VA Cooperative Studies Group. Circulation. 1993; 87(6 Suppl): VI17–VI23, indexed in Pubmed: 8500235.
  21. Yusuf S, Pitt B, Davis CE, et al. SOLVD Investigators, SOLVD Investigators. Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1991; 325(5): 293–302, doi: 10.1056/NEJM199108013250501, indexed in Pubmed: 2057034.
  22. Wong M, Staszewsky L, Latini R, et al. Val-HeFT Heart Failure Trial Investigators. Valsartan benefits left ventricular structure and function in heart failure: Val-HeFT echocardiographic study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 40(5): 970–975, doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(02)02063-6, indexed in Pubmed: 12225725.
  23. Firth B, Dehmer G, Markham R, et al. Assessment of vasodilator therapy in patients with severe congestive heart failure: Limitations of measurements of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes. Am J Cardiol. 1982; 50(5): 954–959, doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(82)90401-5.
  24. Massie B, Kramer BL, Topic N, et al. Hemodynamic and radionuclide effects of acute captopril therapy for heart failure: changes in left and right ventricular volumes and function at rest and during exercise. Circulation. 1982; 65(7): 1374–1381, doi: 10.1161/01.cir.65.7.1374, indexed in Pubmed: 6280890.
  25. Shah PK, Abdulla A, Pichler M, et al. Effects of nitroprusside-induced reduction of elevated preload and afterload on global and regional ventricular function in acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 1983; 105(4): 531–542, doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(83)90474-x, indexed in Pubmed: 6837407.
  26. Udelson JE. Ventricular remodeling in heart failure and the effect of beta-blockade. Am J Cardiol. 2004; 93(9A): 43B–8B, doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.01.025, indexed in Pubmed: 15144937.
  27. Ramasubbu K, Deswal A, Chan W, et al. Echocardiographic changes during treatment of acute decompensated heart failure: insights from the ESCAPE trial. J Card Fail. 2012; 18(10): 792–798, doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2012.08.358, indexed in Pubmed: 23040115.
  28. Binanay C, Califf RM, Hasselblad V, et al. ESCAPE Investigators and ESCAPE Study Coordinators. Evaluation study of congestive heart failure and pulmonary artery catheterization effectiveness: the ESCAPE trial. JAMA. 2005; 294(13): 1625–1633, doi: 10.1001/jama.294.13.1625, indexed in Pubmed: 16204662.
  29. Bocchi EA, Bestetti RB, Scanavacca MI, et al. Chronic Chagas heart disease management: from etiology to cardiomyopathy treatment. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70(12): 1510–1524, doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.08.004, indexed in Pubmed: 28911515.
  30. Cohn J, Fowler M, Bristow M, et al. Safety and efficacy of carvedilol in severe heart failure. J Card Fail. 1997; 3(3): 173–179, doi: 10.1016/s1071-9164(97)90013-0.
  31. Packer M, Colucci WS, Sackner-Bernstein JD, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effects of carvedilol in patients with moderate to severe heart failure. The PRECISE Trial. Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Carvedilol on Symptoms and Exercise. Circulation. 1996; 94(11): 2793–2799, doi: 10.1161/01.cir.94.11.2793, indexed in Pubmed: 8941104.
  32. Cohn JN, Ferrari R, Sharpe N. Cardiac remodeling-concepts and clinical implications: a consensus paper from an international forum on cardiac remodeling. Behalf of an International Forum on Cardiac Remodeling. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 35(3): 569–582, doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00630-0, indexed in Pubmed: 10716457.
  33. Packer M, Bristow MR, Cohn JN, et al. The effect of carvedilol on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure. U.S. Carvedilol Heart Failure Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334(21): 1349–1355, doi: 10.1056/NEJM199605233342101, indexed in Pubmed: 8614419.
  34. The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II): a randomised trial. Lancet. 1999; 353(9146): 9–13, indexed in Pubmed: 10023943.
  35. Batty JA, Hall AS, White HL, et al. MERIT-HF Study Group. Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR/XL Randomised Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF). Lancet. 1999; 353(9169): 2001–2007, indexed in Pubmed: 10376614.
  36. Botoni FA, Poole-Wilson PA, Ribeiro ALP, et al. A randomized trial of carvedilol after renin-angiotensin system inhibition in chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy. Am Heart J. 2007; 153(4): 544.e1–544.e8, doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.12.017, indexed in Pubmed: 17383291.
  37. Dávila DF, Angel F, Arata de Bellabarba G, et al. Effects of metoprolol in chagasic patients with severe congestive heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2002; 85(2-3): 255–260, doi: 10.1016/s0167-5273(02)00181-x, indexed in Pubmed: 12208592.
  38. Bestetti RB, Otaviano AP, Cardinalli-Neto A, et al. Effects of B-Blockers on outcome of patients with Chagas’ cardiomyopathy with chronic heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2011; 151(2): 205–208, doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.05.033, indexed in Pubmed: 20591516.
  39. Issa VS, Amaral AF, Cruz FD, et al. Beta-blocker therapy and mortality of patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy: a subanalysis of the REMADHE prospective trial. Circ Heart Fail. 2010; 3(1): 82–88, doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.109.882035, indexed in Pubmed: 19933408.
  40. Theodoropoulos TAD, Bestetti RB, Otaviano AP, et al. Predictors of all-cause mortality in chronic Chagas’ heart disease in the current era of heart failure therapy. Int J Cardiol. 2008; 128(1): 22–29, doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2007.11.057, indexed in Pubmed: 18258318.
  41. Pimentel Wd, Ramires FJ, Lanni BM, et al. The effect of beta-blockade on myocardial remodelling in Chagas’ cardiomyopathy. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012; 67(9): 1063–1069, doi: 10.6061/clinics/2012(09)14, indexed in Pubmed: 23018305.
  42. Bestetti RB, Sales-Neto VN, Pinto LZ, et al. Effects of long term metoprolol administration on the electrocardiogram of rats infected with T cruzi. Cardiovasc Res. 1990; 24(7): 521–527, doi: 10.1093/cvr/24.7.521, indexed in Pubmed: 2208204.
  43. Bestetti RB, Ramos CP, Figuerêdo-Silva J, et al. Ability of the electrocardiogram to detect myocardial lesions in isoproterenol induced rat cardiomyopathy. Cardiovasc Res. 1987; 21(12): 916–921, doi: 10.1093/cvr/21.12.916, indexed in Pubmed: 3331969.
  44. Bestetti RB. Role of parasites in the pathogenesis of Chagas’ cardiomyopathy. Lancet. 1996; 347(9005): 913–914, doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(96)91403-8, indexed in Pubmed: 8622441.
  45. Bestetti R, Cardinalli-Neto A, Otaviano A, et al. Hyponatremia in Chagas disease heart failure: Prevalence, clinical characteristics, and prognostic importance. Clinical Trials and Regulatory Science in Cardiology. 2015; 11: 6–9, doi: 10.1016/j.ctrsc.2015.09.003.
  46. Bristow M. The adrenergic nervous system in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1984; 311(13): 850–851, doi: 10.1056/nejm198409273111310.