4.5 Article

Importance of combined left atrial size and estimated pulmonary pressure for clinical outcome in patients presenting with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jex005

关键词

heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; echocardiography; estimated pulmonary pressures; tricuspid regurgitation

资金

  1. Medtronic Europe
  2. France and Sweden
  3. French Federation of Cardiology (FFC)
  4. French Society of Cardiology (SFC)
  5. Swedish society of Cardiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a complex syndrome with various phenotypes and outcomes. The prognostic relevance of echocardiography and the E/e' ratio has previously been reported. We sought to study in addition, the value of estimated pulmonary pressure and left atrial size for diagnosing and determining a prognosis for HFpEF-patients in a prospective multi-centric cohort Methods and results Patients with an acute-HF event accompanied with NT-proBNP > 300 pg/mL (BNP > 100 pg/mL) and LVEF > 45% were included (n = 237) and clinically reassessed using echo-Doppler after 4-8 weeks of HF treatment as part of the prospective KaRen HFpEF study. A core-centre performed the echocardiographic analyses. A combined primary endpoint of either HF hospitalizations and mortality over a span of 18-month, or simply mortality (secondary endpoint) were used. The mean LVEF was 62 +/- 7%, E/e': 12.9 +/- 6.0, left atrial volume index (LAVI): 48.1 +/- 15.9 ml/m(2), TR: 2.9 +/- 0.9 m/s. Patients with both LAVI > 40 ml/m(2) and TR > 3.1 m/s had a significantly greater risk of death or heart failure related hospitalization than others (P = 0.014 after adjustment) Conclusion The combination of enlarged LA and elevated estimated pulmonary pressure has a strong prognostic impact in patients suffering from HFpEF. Our results indicate that such patients constitute a risk group in HFpEF which requires dedicated medical attention.

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

4.5
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