Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Feb 11;16(2):e0246768. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246768

Assessment of dynamic cardiac repolarization and contractility in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Andrew E Radbill 1,*, Lucy Y Lei 2, Sachin Y Paranjape 3, Daniel J Blackwell 3, Robert L Abraham 4, Derek S Chew 2,¤, Satish R Raj 2,3, Björn C Knollmann 3
Editor: Elena G Tolkacheva5
PMCID: PMC7877626  PMID: 33571287

Abstract

Aims

Arrhythmia mechanisms in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy remain uncertain. Preclinical models suggest hypertrophic cardiomyopathy-linked mutations perturb sarcomere length-dependent activation, alter cardiac repolarization in rate-dependent fashion and potentiate triggered electrical activity. This study was designed to assess rate-dependence of clinical surrogates of contractility and repolarization in humans with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Methods

All participants had a cardiac implantable device capable of atrial pacing. Cases had clinical diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, controls were age-matched. Continuous electrocardiogram and blood pressure were recorded during and immediately after 30 second pacing trains delivered at increasing rates.

Results

Nine hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients and 10 controls were enrolled (47% female, median 55 years), with similar baseline QRS duration, QT interval and blood pressure. Median septal thickness in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients was 18mm; 33% of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients had peak sub-aortic velocity >50mmHg. Ventricular ectopy occurred during or immediately after pacing trains in 4/9 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients and 0/10 controls (P = 0.03). During delivery of steady rate pacing across a range of cycle lengths, the QT-RR relationship was not statistically different between HCM and control groups; no differences were seen in subgroup analysis of patients with or without intact AV node conduction. Similarly, there was no difference between groups in the QT interval of the first post-pause recovery beat after pacing trains. No statistically significant differences were seen in surrogate measures for cardiac contractility.

Conclusion

Rapid pacing trains triggered ventricular ectopy in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients, but not controls. This finding aligns with pre-clinical descriptions of excessive cardiomyocyte calcium loading during rapid pacing, increased post-pause sarcoplasmic reticulum calcium release, and subsequent calcium-triggered activity. Normal contractility at all diastolic intervals argues against clinical significance of altered length-dependent myofilament activation.

Introduction

Patients with familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) are at risk of sudden cardiac death from malignant ventricular arrhythmias [1]. Although advances in clinical management have reduced the mortality associated with HCM to 0.5% per year [2], the mainstay of current therapeutic approaches for ventricular arrhythmias rely on a “reactive” rather than “preventive” paradigm. An opportunity to prevent ventricular arrhythmias would obviate pitfalls of primary prevention strategies, reduce implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) treatment failure, eliminate morbidity associated with ICD and myectomy interventions, and increase potential for generalizability across global health care systems. To move towards prevention of ventricular arrhythmias, the mechanisms underlying arrhythmogenesis in HCM hearts must be better understood. Unfortunately, a gap remains between the well-described myocardial pathology and the underlying cellular processes that trigger the electrical events within that milieu [3]. There has been an increasing appreciation for the role of myofilament calcium sensitization in human HCM. Some data suggests this may be a mutation-independent mechanism that alters length-dependent sarcomere activation and thus effects contractility [4]. From an arrhythmia perspective, preclinical mouse models demonstrate increased intracellular calcium buffering producing cardiomyocyte calcium loading during rapid pacing, increased calcium transients following pauses, and subsequent prolongation of the action potential duration, early afterdepolarizations and triggered beats [5]. Increased cytosolic calcium buffering with subsequent alterations in calcium homeostasis and action potentials were also found in human cardiomyocytes derived from induced pluripotent stem cells carrying a pathogenic HCM mutation in troponin T [6]. However, the expression of disease in animal models and humans often varies greatly due to differences in gene dosage, protein isoform background, and post-translational protein modifications [7]. The current pilot study thus sought to explore whether clinical surrogates of contractility and repolarization are altered in humans with HCM in a manner that is concordant with the growing preclinical understanding.

Materials and methods

Consent

The Institutional Review Board at both Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta at the University of Calgary approved this research protocol as compliant with the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided written informed consent prior to study participation.

Study population

The study was conducted at two sites, Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta at the University of Calgary. Potential participants were identified by screening the clinical patient databases of the device and cardiomyopathy clinics. The case group included patients with: 1) clinical diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; 2) age 18–70 years; 3) permanent implanted pacemaker or defibrillator capable of atrial pacing; and 4) left ventricle ejection fraction >50%. Controls were participants who also met inclusion criteria but did not have a diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Controls were age-matched as a group to the case group (+/-10 years). Exclusion criteria included presence of a cardiac resynchronization device or current use of the following anti-arrhythmic medications: Vaughn-Williams Class I or Class III anti-arrhythmic medications (including disopyramide, sotalol, amiodarone), verapamil or diltiazem. Relevant clinical variables were collected from each participant’s medical history and evaluation as detailed below.

Study protocol

Each participant underwent a single outpatient research visit. The pacing protocol was performed with the participant supine in bed. Each participant was instrumented with EKG electrodes, arm blood pressure cuff, and non-invasive continuous blood pressure recording with a Nexfin device (BMEYE Inc., Amsterdam, The Netherlands). The data were collected digitally onto a laptop computer using an analogue-digital converter for offline analysis. Modelflow waveform analysis was used to estimate stroke volume from the pulse contour. Participants underwent a pacing protocol of steady rate drive trains at increasingly faster cycle lengths (857 msec, down to 462 msec) designed to examine the rate-dependence of cardiac repolarization and contractility in humans with HCM. Specifically, using a pacemaker/defibrillator programmer, pacing was delivered at steady rates for 30 seconds, with pauses allowed after drive trains to test whether the post-pause QT-prolongation and ventricular ectopy observed in preclinical HCM models [5] could also be seen in humans with HCM. A 30 second wait was observed between pacing runs to allow for return to baseline. The protocol specified that pacing runs were to be delivered to all patients at the following cycle lengths: 857 msec (70 beats per minute [bpm]), 750 msec (80 bpm), 667 msec (90 bpm), 600 msec (100 bpm), 545 msec (110 bpm), 500 msec (120 bpm), 462 msec (130 bpm). The fastest drive train (462 msec) was repeated 10 times since action potential changes and triggered ectopy were most evident at fast pacing rates in preclinical models. Pacing runs were delivered as atrioventricular (AV) sequential pacing (DDD mode) if 1) the patient’s baseline rhythm included ventricular pacing or 2) if there was AV node Wenckebach conduction at atrial rates 462 msec or slower (assessed prior to delivery of pacing runs for all patients with baseline intact AV node conduction). Otherwise, pacing runs were delivered as atrial pacing only (AAI mode). In order to standardize the post-pacing pause duration, the pacemaker lower rate limit was temporarily re-reprogrammed at 1000 msec (60 bpm) at the start of testing; the pacing program was returned to baseline at the conclusion of the research visit. Pacing runs were deferred if the patient’s underlying heart rate was higher than the proposed pacing rate. If a patient developed symptoms with drive trains delivered at the faster rates, no additional pacing runs were delivered at that rate or faster; a total of 10 repetitions were performed at the fastest drive train at which the patient remained asymptomatic, as felt appropriate at the discretion of the investigator. Following the final pacing run, the instrumentation was removed and the patient’s participation in the study was complete.

Statistical analysis

Continuous data are reported as mean with standard deviation. Categorical variables are presented as frequencies with percentages. Demographic and study data were analyzed using t-test for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. QT was measured at the end of the drive train (penultimate beat in drive train) as well as on the first post pause recovery beat following each drive train. The relationship of cardiac repolarization duration (QT interval) to either pacing drive train rate or post-pacing pause interval was examined by plotting preceding R-R interval (x-axis) against QT interval (y-axis) for each participant and drive train. To account for patient-patient variability and differences in the number of recorded observations, linear mixed-effects models were used to assess the relationship between drive train and QT interval, or post drive train recovery interval and QT interval. Linear mixed-effects models were performed using the lmer() function from the lme4 package in R.

Results

There were 9 participants in the case group (HCM) and 10 in the control group. Baseline demographics are summarized in Table 1. There was a smaller proportion of females in the HCM cohort as compared to the control group (22% vs. 70%). A similar proportion of participants in each group had AV node disease and required synchronous ventricular pacing (44% HCM, 50% control) during delivery of atrial pacing drive trains (i.e., atrioventricular [AV] sequential pacing). A significantly higher percentage of HCM patients were prescribed maintenance beta-blocker medication (89% vs. 20% in the control group; P = 0.006 by Fisher’s exact). Four HCM patients had clinically performed genotyping: MYBPC3 pathogenic mutation in 3 patients, MYH7 pathogenic mutation in 1 patient. Regarding the HCM patients’ phenotype, mean interventricular septal thickness was 18mm (standard deviation ±6mm), and 3 HCM patients (33%) had a peak sub-aortic velocity of >50mmHg.

Table 1. Baseline demographics.

Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (n = 9) Controls (n = 10)
Female (%) 22 70
Age (yrs) 48 ± 12 53 ± 12
Ventricular pacing at baseline (%) 44 50
Beta-blocker use (%)a 89 20
Variables specific to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy cohort (n = 9):
Interventricular septal thickness (mm) 18 ± 6
Sub-aortic peak velocity >50mmHg (%) 33
History syncope (%) 33
History appropriate ICD therapy (%) 11
Genotyping available (%) 44 (MYBPC3 x 3, MYH7 x 1)
Study day parameters:
QRS duration (msec) 135 ± 37 123 ± 36
QT (msec) 437 ± 28 430 ± 37
Cuff blood pressure at start (mmHg) 115 ± 11/71 ± 9 116 ± 9/69 ± 4
Received all protocol-directed drive trains (%) 67 40

All continuous data are shown as mean with standard deviation.

aFisher exact 0.006; no other comparisons P<0.05.

The groups had comparable baseline QRS duration, QT interval and cuff blood pressure at the start of testing. A greater proportion of HCM patients (67%) than controls (40%; P = 0.37) completed all protocol-directed drive trains. Three participants in each group did not receive the slowest drive trains (667–857 msec) because the intrinsic atrial rate was greater than the prescribed pacing rate. Three additional control patients displayed variable intrinsic AV node conduction over the range of drive train pacing rates, limiting intra-participant comparisons. For instance, in one participant there was very brisk AV node conduction at baseline and 2nd degree AV Wenckebach conduction at faster pacing rates, precluding comparison of the QRS and QT during slow and fast drive trains. All participants tolerated the first pacing train at the fastest cycle length of 462 msec, although 2 participants did experience transient symptoms limiting the number of repetitions delivered: 1 HCM patient reported transient lightheadedness limiting the number of repetitions delivered at 462 msec, and 1 control described transient chest pain with pacing at 462 msec.

Ventricular ectopy occurred early after pacing drive trains in more HCM patients than controls (44% vs. 0%; P = 0.03) (Fig 1). This ectopy was observed in 4 patients with HCM a total of 5 times, with 4 of 5 occurring following the first post-pacing QRS and 1 of 5 occurring after the sixth post-pacing QRS. In addition, one patient with HCM and post-pacing ventricular ectopy also displayed frequent ventricular ectopy during the drive trains (n = 15); a second HCM patient had a single premature ventricular contraction during a pacing drive train in addition to post-pacing ectopy. None of the 4 HCM patients with triggered PVCs displayed any baseline ventricular ectopy during 5 minutes observation at the start of the study or in the 10 seconds preceding each pacing drive train. There was no difference between HCM patients with ventricular ectopy and those patients without ventricular ectopy (HCM and control) in regard to age, baseline QRS duration, baseline QT interval, baseline blood pressure, sex, ventricular pacing or beta-blocker use. Likewise, no difference in these covariates was seen between HCM patients with and without ventricular ectopy. Additionally, septal wall thickness and peak sub-aortic gradient were similar when comparing HCM patients with and without ventricular ectopy (19 mm vs 17 mm, P = 0.66; 36 mmHg vs 21 mmHg, P = 0.39).

Fig 1. Following completion of drive train, two examples of triggered ventricular ectopy (premature ventricular contraction [PVC], arrow) in participants with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Fig 1

The QT interval was analyzed both during drive train delivery as well as on the first post-pause recovery beat following the drive train. During delivery of steady rate pacing across the range of cycle lengths, the QT-RR relationship was similar amongst HCM and control groups (Fig 2). No differences were seen in subgroup analysis of patients with or without intact AV node conduction (latter group requiring AV sequential pacing rather than atrial pacing only). Similarly, there was no significant difference between groups in QT interval on the first post-pause recovery beat following delivery of the drive trains (Fig 3).

Fig 2. The QT-RR relationship in control and HCM patients.

Fig 2

Data is shown separately for those patients with intact AV node conduction (atrial pacing only) and those receiving atrioventricular sequential pacing due to absent/inadequate AV node conduction. The QT-RR relationship was similar amongst patients with or without intact AV node conduction in both groups (HCM vs control). Slope for each group: Control = 0.181 [95% CI 0.166, 0.195]; HCM = 0.193 [95% CI 0.177, 0.210]. There were 127 observations from 10 patients in the control group and 74 observations from 8 patients in the HCM group.

Fig 3. No significant difference was seen between groups in QT interval on the first post-pause recovery beat following delivery of the drive trains.

Fig 3

Slope for each group: Control = 0.0626 [95% CI 0.0109, 0.115]; HCM = 0.0887 [95% CI 0.0403, 0.136]. There were 127 observations from 10 patients in the control group and 74 observations from 8 patients in the HCM group. Note that in some instances the post-drive train recovery interval was >1000 msec; these instances occurred prior to protocol standardization specifying temporary re-programming of device lower rate limit to 1000 msec.

Regarding surrogate markers of contractility, there was no difference between groups at faster pacing rates in pulse pressure, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure or calculated stroke volume (Table 2), even when those measurements were normalized to pre-pacing baseline or measurements obtained at slowest pacing rates. Following the fastest tolerated drive trains, controls displayed a non-significant trend towards a greater increase in systolic blood pressure on the post-pacing recovery beat than HCM patients. The only statistically significant difference between cohorts in the contractility analysis included a mildly narrower pulse pressure in the HCM patients at pre-pacing baseline as well as during slowest pacing rates. Of note, there was also no difference between HCM and control groups in the rate of change in contractility measures following increasingly faster drive trains.

Table 2. Summary of contractility assessment during delivery of slowest and fastest drive trains.

Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Control P value
Prior to start of pacing:
Pulse pressure (mmHg)a 51 (9) 66 (10) 0.01
Early drive train (5th beat):
Pulse pressure (mmHg)
  Drive train 857 mseca 51 (9) 65 (10) 0.02
  750 msec 51 (12) 54 (13) 0.67
  500 msec 33 (14) 42 (14) 0.21
  462 msec 30 (12) 35 (10) 0.4
Late drive train (penultimate beat):
Pulse pressure (mmHg)
  Drive train 857 msec 46 (10) 61 (13) 0.05
  750 msec 51 (7) 57 (13) 0.25
  500 msec 36 (12) 42 (9) 0.2
  462 msec 31 (13) 36 (8) 0.35
Stroke volume (milliliters)
  Drive train 857 msec 98 (14) 86 (16) 0.23
  750 msec 93 (12) 85 (16) 0.38
  500 msec 72 (14) 66 (13) 0.45
  462 msec 65 (8) 58 (12) 0.2
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)
  Drive train 857 msec 114 (11) 132 (19) 0.08
  750 msec 120 (13) 128 (16) 0.37
  500 msec 114 (26) 118 (10) 0.71
  462 msec 107 (12) 110 (15) 0.75
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)
  Drive train 857 msec 65 (5) 70 (9) 0.28
  750 msec 68 (6) 72 (7) 0.37
  500 msec 72 (12) 74 (9) 0.78
  462 msec 71 (7) 72 (8) 0.86
Recovery beat after fastest tolerated drive train:
Change in systolic blood pressure (mmHg) +1 (13) +13 (13) 0.06

Standard deviation shown in parentheses. All comparisons are performed by t-test.

aThe only statistically significant finding was a mildly narrower pulse pressure in the HCM patients at pre-pacing baseline as well as during slowest pacing rates. Following the fastest tolerated drive train, control participants displayed a non-significant trend towards a greater increase in systolic blood pressure on the post-pacing recovery beat than HCM patients.

Discussion

The mechanisms of sudden death in familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) have remained elusive. For this reason, predictive algorithms seeking to identify individuals at high risk of ventricular arrhythmia remain imperfect, and interventions are non-specific and rely on a “reactive” rather than “preventive” paradigm. Early studies identified an association between phenotypic observations of myocyte disarray [8] or ventricular hypertrophy [9], but the pathophysiology triggering the arrhythmias remained unclear. More recently, there has been a growing number of preclinical studies indicating the role of increased myofilament calcium sensitivity [10]. Although this may be a direct effect of the HCM-causing mutation (such as troponin T mutations), increased myofilament calcium sensitivity may also act independent of the underlying HCM mutation, secondary to reduced phosphorylation of myofilament proteins such as protein kinase A targets [4]. From a contractile perspective, this may alter length-dependent sarcomere activation, with implications for contractility and relaxation [4]. This framework conceptually aligns with the clinical observation of diastolic dysfunction in HCM patients. Regarding arrhythmogenesis, myofilament calcium sensitization in pre-clinical mouse models has been shown to lead to an increase in cytosolic Ca2+ binding, prolongation of the action potential duration, and triggered arrhythmia [5]. Here, we sought for the first time to systematically, non-invasively compare dynamic cardiac contractility and repolarization of patients with HCM to that of age-matched controls using a pacing protocol designed to test the effect of increasing pacing rates and pauses.

The most striking finding in our study was that triggered ventricular ectopy was elicited in 44% of HCM patients compared to none of the controls (P = 0.03) during or immediately following the pacing drive trains. In mice carrying an HCM mutation, such ectopy was often observed following the first sinus beat after a pause [5]. Intriguingly, this was also the case in humans with HCM (Fig 1). Based on the experimental work in mice and in human cardiomyocytes derived from induced pluripotent stem cells [6], the underlying mechanism has been ascribed to excessive cardiomyocyte calcium buffering as a result of the increased myofilament calcium sensitivity. This is a near universal finding in HCM regardless of the underlying mutation [11]. In murine models, the enhanced cytosolic calcium buffering leads to cardiomyocyte calcium loading, especially during a fast drive train. During the pause following completion of the drive train, the excess calcium is stored in the sarcoplasmic reticulum and becomes available for release with the subsequent recovery beat. The resulting large calcium transient in the post-pause beat causes excessive action potential prolongation and early afterdepolarizations that trigger ventricular ectopy. Accordingly, rapid supraventricular rhythms and increased physical activity have been noted to frequently precede ventricular arrhythmia in HCM patients [12]. Likewise, there has been recent clinical report that atrial fibrillation may predict ventricular arrhythmias in HCM [13].

In vitro studies in HCM animal models and in human myocardium from HCM patients have convincingly demonstrated that the length-dependent activation of the contractile filaments is significantly blunted in HCM regardless of the causative mutation [4]. The sarcomere length-dependent activation of force development is the major mechanism responsible for the Frank-Starling effect and hence the beat-to-beat autoregulation of cardiac output [14]. During slow heart rates, the diastolic interval is longer, venous return increased and the end-diastolic sarcomere length increased, enabling a stronger contractile force required to eject the larger blood volume. Given that Frank-Starling mechanism is thought to be impaired in HCM, we had expected to find major differences in contractile measurements at the different pacing rates examined in our study. Surprisingly, no significant differences were identified between HCM and control groups in surrogate non-invasive measures of contractility at any pacing rate, or on the post-pacing recovery beats. The only possible indication for an impaired length dependence in the HCM group was a non-significant trend toward a larger increase in the systolic blood pressure generated by the post-pause beat in the control compared to the HCM group after the last rapid pacing train (Table 2).

Several limitations in this pilot work should be acknowledged. Preclinical work investigating length-dependent activation has demonstrated substantial variance according to the affected gene as well as location and type of mutation in the affected protein [4]. A pilot study with 9 HCM patients (4 genotyped) could thus be underpowered, particularly in light of the fact that the control population by definition also had non-HCM cardiac disease requiring cardiac implantable device. Also, contractility assessment may be confounded by varying degrees of outflow tract obstruction in the cases, as continuous but non-invasive peripheral blood pressure was used as the primary contractility endpoint. Additionally, the use of beta-blockers in the large majority of HCM patients may confound results: calcium sensitivity and myofilament protein phosphorylation are linked, with the latter driven by beta-adrenergic mediated phosphorylation [6]. Although patients receiving sodium or potassium channel blockers were excluded, this study was not designed to identify or control other factors influencing sodium and potassium currents, with consequent influence on repolarization duration. Females have longer QT interval, and had greater relative representation in the control group (7/10 versus 2/9 in the HCM group). Although this may have made it more difficult to detect significant QT prolongation in our HCM cohort, it should be noted that a post-hoc analysis did not show any effect of sex on the slope of the relationship between post-pacing QT and RR interval. Other possible explanations for the absence of differences between groups include non-uniform distribution of additional factors contributing to QT measurement (left ventricular hypertrophy, autonomic influence), use of pacing rates that were not as rapid as those used in pre-clinical studies, insensitivity of the measurement tools, incomplete delivery of the pacing drive trains, and finally challenges in some patients with ensuring consistent QRS (ventricular depolarization pattern) across all drive trains when variable degrees of intrinsic AV conduction were present. Lastly, there are other potential explanations for the observed triggered ventricular ectopy in the HCM patients which may not be primarily related to calcium handling abnormalities, such as transient cellular ischemia.

Conclusions

In summary, there has been recent growing preclinical evidence that human HCM myofilaments display calcium hypersensitivity that may be independent of the primary mutation and may underpin much of the clinical pathophysiology. This pilot study compared dynamic cardiac contractility and repolarization in HCM patients to controls both while receiving pacing drive trains as well as immediately afterwards. Triggered ventricular ectopy was elicited in a significant proportion of HCM patients but not in control participants. These findings align with preclinical descriptions in HCM of excessive calcium loading of the sarcoplasmic reticulum during long diastolic intervals, increased post-pause calcium release, and subsequent early afterdepolarizations and triggered activity [5]. The QT-RR relationship was similar amongst HCM and control groups both during pacing drive trains across varying cycle lengths as well as on the post-pacing recovery beat. The finding of normal contractility at all diastolic intervals argues against clinical significance of altered length-dependent myofilament activation in HCM.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Holly Waldrop, BS for research logistical support and James Leathers, MD, Jessica Delaney, MD and Susan D. Smith, BSN for help with participant enrollment.

Abbreviations

AV

atrioventricular

HCM

hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

ICD

implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

PVC

premature ventricular contraction

Data Availability

Data are available from Dryad: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.cjsxksn4k.

Funding Statement

This work was supported in part by the Vanderbilt Clinical and Translational Science Award grant (AER) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences/National Institutes of Health [UL1 TR000445]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external or internal funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.O’Mahony C, Elliott P, McKenna W. Sudden cardiac death in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2013;6:443–451. 10.1161/CIRCEP.111.962043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Maron BJ. Clinical Course and Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:655–668. 10.1056/NEJMra1710575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Moolman JC, Corfield VA, Posen B, et al. Sudden death due to troponin T mutations. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;29:549–555. 10.1016/s0735-1097(96)00530-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sequeira V, Wijnker PJ, Nijenkamp LL, et al. Perturbed length-dependent activation in human hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with missense sarcomeric gene mutations Circ Res. 2013;113:e87 Corrected and republished from: Circ Res. 2013;112:1491–1505. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.111.300436 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Schober T, Huke S, Venkataraman R, et al. Myofilament Ca sensitization increases cytosolic Ca binding affinity, alters intracellular Ca homeostasis, and causes pause-dependent Ca-triggered arrhythmia. Circ Res. 2012;111:170–179. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.112.270041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wang L, Kim K, Parikh S, et al. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy-linked mutation in troponin T causes myofibrillar disarray and pro-arrhythmic action potential changes in human iPSC cardiomyocytes. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2018;114:320–327. 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2017.12.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.van der Velden J, Ho CY, Tardiff JC, Olivotto I, Knollmann BC, Carrier L. Research priorities in sarcomeric cardiomyopathies. Cardiovasc Res. 2015;105:449–456. 10.1093/cvr/cvv019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Varnava AM, Elliott PM, Baboonian C, Davison F, Davies MJ, McKenna WJ. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: histopathological features of sudden death in cardiac troponin T disease. Circulation. 2001;104:1380–1384. 10.1161/hc3701.095952 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wolf CM, Moskowitz IP, Arno S, et al. Somatic events modify hypertrophic cardiomyopathy pathology and link hypertrophy to arrhythmia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:18123–18128. 10.1073/pnas.0509145102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Baudenbacher F, Schober T, Pinto JR, et al. Myofilament Ca2+ sensitization causes susceptibility to cardiac arrhythmia in mice. J Clin Invest. 2008;118:3893–3903. 10.1172/JCI36642 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Huke S, Knollmann BC. Increased myofilament Ca2+-sensitivity and arrhythmia susceptibility. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2010;48:824–833. 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2010.01.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Link MS, Bockstall K, Weinstock J, et al. Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy and Defibrillators: Triggers, Treatment, and Implications. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2017;28:531–537. 10.1111/jce.13194 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Weissler-Snir A, Dorian P, Rakowski H, Care M, Spears D. Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy-Are there predictors of appropriate therapy? Heart Rhythm. 2020;S1547-5271(20)30764–5. Epub 2020 Aug 12. 10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.08.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.de Tombe PP, Mateja RD, Tachampa K, et al. Myofilament length dependent activation. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2010;48:851–858. 10.1016/j.yjmcc.2009.12.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Elena G Tolkacheva

26 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-31816

Assessment of dynamic cardiac repolarization and contractility in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Radbill,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address comments indicated by the Reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 10 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Elena G. Tolkacheva, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a valuable, well executed study of an important question in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy induced arrhythmias. The findings advance understanding of the role of Ca buffering and the Frank-Starling relation.

Reviewer #2: In this study, the authors investigate the heart rate dependence of repolarization and contraction in patients with HCM compared to normal. This is an interesting study because it is a clinical follow-up to a similar study performed in animals by the same group (ref 5). Moreover, clinical studies are valuable, but difficult to control. The authors are excellent and very capable of performing this study.

An important general concern is that most of the results do not exhibit striking differences. For example, the main results do not reach statistical significance (e.g. Fig 2 and Fig 3). Variability seems high and real physiologically differences seem small. Methods to reduce variability such as including more patients and the suggestions below may be helpful. Finally, there is no difference in contractility between groups.

The analysis of PVC rate dependence is problematic. Including PVCs during the drive train in the analysis is not ideal because these are not well controlled. For example, the number of beats preceding the PVC and, thus, calcium loading will be variable. Furthermore, PVCs during the drive-train will change the drive-train rate and, thus, calcium loading. Since this mostly happened in one patient, the simplest approach may be to remove this patient from the PVC analysis. For the same reasons, including PVCs many beats after the drive train ends (up to 15) is also problematic (lines 148-149). The number and rate of the non-drive train beats preceding the PVC will be unknown and, so will calcium load. Ideally, only PVCs that occur on the first beat after a clean drive-train should be included in the analysis. This is important for any rate dependent phenomena and it may reduce variability in the reported results.

For the data shown in Figure 2, is QT during the drive train included with QT post pause? If so, this may be problematic as it represents two different protocols to measure the rate dependance of repolarization (e.g. standard versus dynamic restitution protocols). This could introduce extra variability. The authors should consider plotting these data separately. What QT interval was used for the drive train – all the beats? The last beat? Or an average of the QT intervals? It should be the last beat or an average. Including QT from multiple beats in a single drive train should be avoided.

For the post pause QT interval data, the description of the results is not very clear. When all drive trains are included, there is no statistical differences. However, when only fast drive trains were included (110-130) there was a statistical difference. This is supposedly shown in Figure 3; however, I don’t see any difference between the groups shown in figure 3. How were the fast rates chosen? When post drive train QTs were normalized to QT drive train, the differences were not significant. In sum, what is the result? It seems to me that drive train had no effect on post pause QT interval.

Regarding the mechanism of ectopy. Could the mechanism of some ectopic beats (e.g. during drive train) be due to triggered activity from DADs? These are pacing and calcium load dependent as well. EADs, on the other hand, are more brady/pause dependent. How were these two mechanisms distinguished? This should be discussed.

Throughout the manuscript, it would be clearer to use bpm or cycle length not both (e.g. figures vs. text).

Could differences in beta-blocker medication between groups explain why some of the results were not different (e.g. contraction). This seems like an important limitation that can significantly affect the results. Acknowledging this, unfortunatly, does not make it go away.

Was HR different between groups? If so, QTc should be used when appropriate.

Reviewer #3: This is a well-written article that describes an important and useful clinical study. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is attracting a large amount of attention at the moment and this manuscript adds some interesting observations. The suggestion that mutations (including to MyBP-C and beta myosin heavy chain) are not producing a clinically meaningful change in contractility is interesting, and in full disclosure, surprising to this reviewer.

The only substantive comment relates to the statistical analysis of the regression plots. It is not very clear from the methods how this was performed and more details should be provided. Was ANCOVA used, for example? I am also intrigued by the clustering in the control group for the low drive-train values. Can 2 sets of control patients be distinguished? Finally, given the different number of samples at x value, some points have very high leverage. Was this taken into account?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 11;16(2):e0246768. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246768.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Jan 2021

January 10, 2021

Elena G. Tolkacheva, PhD

Academic Editor, PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tolkacheva,

Thank you for the thoughtful review of our manuscript entitled "Assessment of Dynamic Cardiac Repolarization and Contractility in Patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy" (PONE-D-20-31816). We appreciate the comments of the reviewers, and have addressed the questions raised as follows:

Reviewer #2:

The analysis of PVC rate dependence is problematic. Including PVCs during the drive train in the analysis is not ideal because these are not well controlled. For example, the number of beats preceding the PVC and, thus, calcium loading will be variable. Furthermore, PVCs during the drive-train will change the drive-train rate and, thus, calcium loading. Since this mostly happened in one patient, the simplest approach may be to remove this patient from the PVC analysis. For the same reasons, including PVCs many beats after the drive train ends (up to 15) is also problematic (lines 148-149). The number and rate of the non-drive train beats preceding the PVC will be unknown and, so will calcium load. Ideally, only PVCs that occur on the first beat after a clean drive-train should be included in the analysis.

• We have revised the PVC analysis, now limited to only PVCs that occur early after a clean drive-train. This occurred in the same 4 patients with HCM a total of 5 times, with 4 of 5 occurring following the first post-pacing QRS and 1 of 5 occurring after the sixth post-pacing QRS. We did include a qualitative description of the ectopy seen during the drive trains.

For the data shown in Figure 2, is QT during the drive train included with QT post pause? What QT interval was used for the drive train – all the beats? The last beat? Or an average of the QT intervals?

• QT analysis during the drive train included a single measurement at the end of the drive train (penultimate paced beat). The QT post pause was analyzed separately from the QT during the drive train, and is not included in the data shown in Fig 2. This is clarified with additional text in the Methods section.

For the post pause QT interval data, the description of the results is not very clear. When all drive trains are included, there is no statistical differences. However, when only fast drive trains were included (110-130) there was a statistical difference. This is supposedly shown in Figure 3; however, I don’t see any difference between the groups shown in figure 3. How were the fast rates chosen? When post drive train QTs were normalized to QT drive train, the differences were not significant. In sum, what is the result?

• Fig 3 shows the primary analysis of post-pacing QT, with no difference between groups in post-pacing QT following all drive trains across the full range of post-pacing pauses. As described below, we have reanalyzed the data using a linear mixed-effects model that better accommodates the characteristics of this data set. No difference was observed in post-pause QT between groups in this model, and the previously performed sub-analysis has been removed.

Could the mechanism of some ectopic beats (e.g. during drive train) be due to triggered activity from DADs? These are pacing and calcium load dependent as well. EADs, on the other hand, are more brady/pause dependent. How were these two mechanisms distinguished?

• The limitations and confounding variables potentially influencing PVCs that occurred during the drive train have been noted above, and we have thus re-focused the PVC analysis on the observed post-pacing ectopy. This pause-dependent ectopy occurs in a fashion that is most consistent with EADs, which are discussed in the text.

Throughout the manuscript, it would be clearer to use bpm or cycle length not both.

• This has been standardized to consistently use cycle length in msec.

Was HR different between groups? If so, QTc should be used when appropriate.

• Because all QT measurements were made during pre-specified heart rates (either during steady rate drive trains or on the first post pause recovery beat after drive trains), it was felt to be most appropriate to measure and report uncorrected QT intervals as plotted against the drive train R-R interval or post-drive train recovery interval.

An important general concern is that most of the results do not exhibit striking differences. For example, the main results do not reach statistical significance (e.g. Fig 2 and Fig 3). Variability seems high and real physiologically differences seem small. Methods to reduce variability such as including more patients and the suggestions below may be helpful… Could differences in beta-blocker medication between groups explain why some of the results were not different (e.g. contraction). This seems like an important limitation that can significantly affect the results.

• The authors agree that enrolling more patients and excluding patients on beta-blocker medication may increase ability to identify potential differences between groups. However, the combination of multiple other exclusion criteria (ie, no calcium channel blocker medication) together with the relatively low number of eligible patients willing to participate in a research study constrained recruitment. In post-hoc analysis, the effect of sex on post-pacing QT interval was examined, but had no effect on the slope of the relationship between QT and RR.

Reviewer #3:

It is not very clear from the methods how this was performed and more details should be provided. Was ANCOVA used, for example?

• Thank you for your suggestions. We went back and reanalyzed the data using a linear mixed-effects model. We have updated the methods to clearly state the assumptions and approach. The revised Figure 2 and Figure 3 reflect this new analysis. It should also be pointed out that because no difference was seen in this model between patients with and without intact AV node conduction, the revised Figure 2 now includes data from all patients in each cohort (both those with AV sequential pacing and atrial pacing only, not just AV sequential pacing only).

I am also intrigued by the clustering in the control group for the low drive-train values. Can 2 sets of control patients be distinguished?

• Our data are indeed clustered by patient. For example, in the original Figure 2, two control patients comprise the upper (>350) cluster and the other two control patients comprise the entirety of the lower (<350) cluster at the fastest drive trains. The analysis using a linear mixed-effects model accounts for the patient-to-patient variability and differences in the number of recorded observations for each individual. Please see separately uploaded response to the reviewers letter for the figure that further illustrates this point (only includes control patients with AV sequential pacing).

Finally, given the different number of samples at x value, some points have very high leverage. Was this taken into account?

• This is now accounted for in the revised model. No leverage is evident on an individual patient basis and the data are homoscedastic. As seen in the reviewer-only figure, the linear mixed-effects model (black dashes) does not skew (previous fit, gray dotted line) away from the patients with missing data at drive train rates > 800 ms.

Thank you for your consideration of this revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Andrew E. Radbill, MD

Assistant Professor of Pediatrics

Division of Cardiology

Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reponse to reviewers Repol contractility HCM pacing.docx

Decision Letter 1

Elena G Tolkacheva

26 Jan 2021

Assessment of dynamic cardiac repolarization and contractility in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

PONE-D-20-31816R1

Dear Dr. Radbill,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Elena G. Tolkacheva, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed. The statistical analysis is improved and linear mixed models seem appropriate for the experimental design.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Kenneth S Campbell

Acceptance letter

Elena G Tolkacheva

2 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-31816R1

Assessment of dynamic cardiac repolarization and contractility in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Dear Dr. Radbill:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Elena G. Tolkacheva

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reponse to reviewers Repol contractility HCM pacing.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data are available from Dryad: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.cjsxksn4k.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES