4.4 Article

Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia: A double-blind, multicenter, prospective, randomized, genotype-driven study (BRAVE study)

期刊

CLINICAL CARDIOLOGY
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 300-306

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/clc.22884

关键词

Arrhythmia; All; Cardiomyopathy; Remodeling; Cardiovascular; Sudden Death

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia (ARVD) is a rare cardiomyopathy characterized by the progressive replacement of cardiomyocytes by fatty and fibrous tissue in the right ventricle (RV). These infiltrations lead to cardiac electrical instability and ventricular arrhythmia. Current treatment for ARVD is empirical and essentially based on treatment of arrhythmia. Thus, there is no validated treatment that will prevent the deterioration of RV function in patients with ARVD. The aim of the BRAVE study is to evaluate the effect of ramipril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, on ventricular myocardial remodeling and arrhythmia burden in patients with ARVD. Despite the fact that myocardial fibrosis is one of the structural hallmarks of ARVD, no study has tested an antifibrotic drug in ARVD patients. The trial is a double-blind, parallel, multicenter, prospective, randomized, phase 4 drug study. Patients will be randomized into 2 groups, ramipril or placebo. The 120 patients (60 per group) will be enrolled by 26 centers in France. Patients will be followed up every 6months for 3years. The 2 co-primary endpoints are defined as the difference of telediastolic RV volume measured by magnetic resonance imaging between baseline and 3years of follow-up, and the change in arrhythmia burden during the 3years of follow-up. A decrease in RV and/or left ventricular deterioration and in arrhythmia burden are expected in ARVD patients treated with ramipril. This reduction will improve quality of life of patients and will reduce the number of hospitalizations and the risk of terminal heart failure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据