4.3 Article

Left ventricular geometry, risk factors, and outcomes of hospitalized patients with diastolic heart failure in Japan

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 101-107

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2009.04.015

关键词

Relative wall thickness; Left ventricular mass index; Concentric hypertrophy; Eccentric hypertrophy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Studies of the characteristics, risk factors, prognostic factors, and outcomes of diastolic heart failure (DHF) have yielded inconsistent findings. Moreover, few epidemiological studies of DHF have been performed in Japan. Methods and results: We studied patients with heart failure who were admitted consecutively to Yokohama City University Hospital from 2000 through 2003. Heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of >= 50% was classified as DHF (n = 67), and that with an LVEF of <= 35% was classified as systolic heart failure (SHF; n = 72). Relative wall thickness (RWT) (0.61 vs. 0.34, p < 0.0001) and left ventricular mass index (210.3 vs. 152.1, p<0.0001) were greater in DHF than in SHE Age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.068, 95% CI = 1.020-1.119; p = 0.006) and RWT (OR = 17.945, CI = 5.883-54.745; p < 0.0001) were positive risk factors for DHF. A history of myocardial infarction was a negative risk factor for DHF (OR = 0.053, CI = 0.008-0.342; p = 0.002). Left ventricular mass index was slightly but not significantly related to DHF (OR = 1.010, CI = 1.000-1.019; p = 0.053). Survival did not differ significantly between patients with DHF and those with SHE Advancing age and a greater RWT were positive risk factors for DHF. Conclusion: LV geometry of DHF and SHF are quite different. DHF is characterized by concentric hypertrophy of the left ventricle, whereas SHF is characterized by eccentric hypertrophy. Age and RWT were positive risk factors for DHF. Survival is similar in DHF and SHE (C) 2008 Japanese College of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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