CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Dynamic Myocardial Ultrasound Localization Angiography Effects of Aspirin for Primary Prevention in Persons with Diabetes Mellitus Randomized Comparison Between Radial and Femoral Large-Bore Access for Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest without ST-Segment Elevation Post-Stroke Cardiovascular Complications and Neurogenic Cardiac Injury: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Management of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Complications: Algorithms From the 2018 and 2019 Seattle Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Complications Conference European Bifurcation Club White Paper on Stenting Techniques for Patients With Bifurcated Coronary Artery Lesions Predicting Major Adverse Events in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromboembolic Disease: Implications for Prevention, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Follow-up Hemodynamic Response to Nitroprusside in Patients With Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Original Research25 April 2019

JOURNAL:Eur Heart J. Article Link

Frequency, predictors, and prognosis of ejection fraction improvement in heart failure: an echocardiogram-based registry study

A Ghimire, N Fine, FA McAlister et al. Keywords: echocardiography; epidemiology; heart failure; ejection fraction; HFrecEF

ABSTRACT


AIMS - To identify variables predicting ejection fraction (EF) recovery and characterize prognosis of heart failure (HF) patients with EF recovery (HFrecEF).


METHODS AND RESULTS - RETROSPECTIVE study of adults referred for 2 echocardiograms separated by 6 months between 2008 and 2016 at the two largest echocardiography centres in Alberta who also had physician-assigned diagnosis of HF. Of 10 641 patients, 3124 had heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (EF40%) at baseline: while mean EF declined from 30.2% on initial echocardiogram to 28.6% on the second echocardiogram in those patients with persistent HFrEF (defined by <10% improvement in EF), it improved from 26.1% to 46.4% in the 1174 patients (37.6%) with HFrecEF (defined by EF absolute improvement 10%). On multivariate analysis, female sex [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.401.96], younger age (aOR per decade 1.16, 95% CI 1.091.23), atrial fibrillation (aOR 2.00, 95% CI 1.682.38), cancer (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.032.26), hypertension (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.181.62), lower baseline ejection fraction (aOR per 1% decrease 1.07 (1.061.08), and using hydralazine (aOR 1.69, 95% CI 1.192.40) were associated with EF improvements 10%. HFrecEF patients demonstrated lower rates per 1000 patient years of mortality (106 vs. 164, adjusted hazard ratio, aHR 0.70 [0.620.79]), all-cause hospitalizations (300 vs. 428, aHR 0.87 [0.790.95]), all-cause emergency room (ER) visits (569 vs. 799, aHR 0.88 [0.810.95]), and cardiac transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation (2 vs. 10, aHR 0.21 [0.100.45]) compared to patients with persistent HFrEF. Females with HFrEF exhibited lower mortality risk (aHR 0.94 [0.880.99]) than males after adjusting for age, time between echocardiograms, clinical comorbidities, medications, and whether their EF improved or not during follow-up.


CONCLUSION - HFrecEF patients tended to be younger, female, and were more likely to have hypertension, atrial fibrillation, or cancer. HFrecEF patients have a substantially better prognosis compared to those with persistent HFrEF, even after multivariable adjustment, and female patients exhibit lower mortality risk than men within each subgroup (HFrecEF and persistent HFrEF) even after multivariable adjustment.