التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Clinical and prognostic implications of left ventricular dilatation in heart failure. |
| المؤلفون: |
Kasa, Gizem, Teis, Albert, Juncà, Gladys, Aimo, Alberto, Lupón, Josep, Cediel, German, Santiago-Vacas, Evelyn, Codina, Pau, Ferrer-Sistach, Elena, Vallejo-Camazón, Nuria, López-Ayerbe, Jorge, Bayés-Genis, Antoni, Delgado, Victoria |
| المصدر: |
European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging; Jun2024, Vol. 25 Issue 6, p849-856, 8p |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
REFERENCE values, T-test (Statistics), HEART failure, MAGNETIC resonance imaging, RETROSPECTIVE studies, MANN Whitney U Test, CHI-squared test, MULTIVARIATE analysis, DESCRIPTIVE statistics, MEDICAL records, ACQUISITION of data, ONE-way analysis of variance, STATISTICS, CONFIDENCE intervals, DATA analysis software, SURVIVAL analysis (Biometry), LEFT ventricular dysfunction, NONPARAMETRIC statistics, PROPORTIONAL hazards models, REGRESSION analysis |
| مستخلص: |
Aims To assess the agreement between left ventricular end-diastolic diameter index (LVEDDi) and volume index (LVEDVi) to define LV dilatation and to investigate the respective prognostic implications in patients with heart failure (HF). Methods and results Patients with HF symptoms and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% undergoing cardiac magnetic resonance were evaluated retrospectively. LV dilatation was defined as LVEDDi or LVEDVi above the upper normal limit according to published reference values. Patients were followed up for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization during 5 years. A total of 564 patients (median age 64 years; 79% men) were included. LVEDDi had a modest correlation with LVEDVi (r = 0.682, P < 0.001). LV dilatation was noted in 84% of patients using LVEDVi-based definition and in 73% using LVEDDi-based definition, whereas 20% of patients displayed discordant definitions of LV dilatation. During a median follow-up of 2.8 years, patients with both dilated LVEDDi and LVEDVi had the highest cumulative event rate (HR 3.00, 95% CI 1.15–7.81, P = 0.024). Both LVEDDi and LVEDVi were independently associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio 3.29, 95%, P < 0.001 and 2.8, P = 0.009; respectively). Conclusion The majority of patients with HF and LVEF < 50% present both increased LVEDDi and LVEDVi whereas 20% show discordant linear and volumetric definitions of LV dilatation. Patients with increased LVEDDi and LVEDVi have the worst clinical outcomes suggesting that the assessment of these two metrics is needed for better risk stratification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Complementary Index |
Full Text Finder