Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces mortality and morbidity in chronic heart failure symptomatic patients with broad QRS who are already undergoing optimal medical treatment. However, approximately one-third of implanted patients do not show any benefit from this treatment. Right ventricle (RV) dysfunction leads to a worse outcome in patients with heart failure, but its role in predicting the response to CRT has shown conflicting results. The purpose of our study was to investigate how the RV function, assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), could influence the outcome of heart failure patients treated with CRT.

We retrospectively enrolled 72 heart failure patients, 38 affected by dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and 34 by ischemic dysfunction, with left bundle branch block, QRS greater than 120 ms and standard indications to CRT. We defined the response to CRT as an improvement of at least 10% of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) or at least one of the NYHA functional classes. We stratified the population into two groups based on the right ventricle ejection fraction (RVEF) at CMR: group 1 RVEF at least 55% (n = 32), group 2 RVEF less than 55% (n = 40). After a mean follow-up of 38 ± 12 months, 44 patients (61%) were considered responders whereas 28 (39%) did not show any benefit. Patients in group 1 had a higher rate of response to CRT (75 vs. 50%, P = 0.03). At the univariate analysis RVEF [54 vs. 43%; confidence interval (CI) = 0.907–0.980; hazard ratio = 0.943; P = 0.003], RV end-systolic volume (56 vs. 84 ml; CI = 1.005–1.034; hazard ratio = 1.019; P = 0.008) and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (16.4 vs. 14 mm; CI 0.745–0.976; heart rate = 0.853; P = 0.021) were the parameters most strongly associated with the response to CRT. Male sex, atrial fibrillation, and older age also negatively influenced the outcome. At a multivariate model, RVEF and older age remained significant.

In our experience, patients with RV dysfunction less likely benefited from CRT. RV assessment, studied with CMR, appears to be a good predictor of the response to biventricular stimulation.

Colchicine has an emerging role in the cardiovascular field, although, concerns for side effects, especially gastrointestinal, limit its prescription. We aimed at evaluating reported side effects of colchicine for cardiovascular indications.

We performed a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials on colchicine for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to assess the risk of adverse events and drug withdrawal. Publication bias was assessed using the Egger test, and meta-regression was performed to assess sources of heterogeneity.

Among 14 188 patients, 7136 patients received colchicine while the other 7052 received placebo. The occurrence of any adverse event with colchicine was reported in 15.3 vs. 13.9% patients [relative risk (RR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96–1.64, P = 0.09]. Gastrointestinal events were reported in 16.1 vs. 12.2% (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.50–3.12, P < 0.001), while diarrhea was reported in 12.5 vs. 8.1% (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.55–4.94, P < 0.001). The risk of gastrointestinal events increased with daily dose and shorter treatment duration. Myalgias were observed in 21 vs. 18% patients (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02–1.32, P = 0.03). Other adverse events such as myotoxicity, hepatic adverse events, hematologic adverse events, cutaneous adverse events, infection or death were not increased by colchicine treatment. Colchicine discontinuation was reported in 4.8 vs. 3.4% patients (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.20–1.99, P < 0.001).

Colchicine is associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal events and myalgias, but not of other adverse events. The risk of gastrointestinal events may be avoided with lower dose (0.5 mg/daily) and is inversely related to treatment duration, possibly due to early drug discontinuation or drug tolerance.