Dataset Information

Prognosis of Adults With Borderline Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.

ABSTRACT: This study sought to examine the association of a borderline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 50% to 55% with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a community-based cohort.Guidelines stipulate a LVEF >55% as normal, but the optimal threshold, if any, remains uncertain. The prognosis of a "borderline" LVEF, 50% to 55%, is unknown.This study evaluated Framingham Heart Study participants who underwent echocardiography between 1979 and 2008 (n = 10,270 person-observations, mean age 60 years, 57% women). Using pooled data with up to 12 years of follow-up and multivariable Cox regression, we evaluated the associations of borderline LVEF and continuous LVEF with the risk of developing a composite outcome (heart failure [HF] or death; primary outcome) and incident HF (secondary outcome).During follow-up (median 7.9 years), HF developed in 355 participants, and 1,070 died. Among participants with an LVEF of 50% to 55% (prevalence 3.5%), rates of the composite outcome and HF were 0.24 and 0.13 per 10 years of follow-up, respectively, versus 0.16 and 0.05 in participants having a normal LVEF. In multivariable-adjusted analyses, LVEF of 50% to 55% was associated with increased risk of the composite outcome (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05 to 1.80) and HF (HR: 2.15; 95% CI: 1.41 to 3.28). There was a linear inverse relationship of continuous LVEF with the composite outcome (HR per 5 LVEF% decrement: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.16) and HF (HR per 5 LVEF% decrement: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.32).Persons with an LVEF of 50% to 55% in the community have greater risk for morbidity and mortality relative to persons with an LVEF >55%. Additional studies are warranted to elucidate the optimal management of these individuals.

SUBMITTER: Tsao CW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4932891 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prognosis of Adults With Borderline Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.

Tsao Connie W CW Lyass Asya A Larson Martin G MG Cheng Susan S Lam Carolyn S P CS Aragam Jayashri R JR Benjamin Emelia J EJ Vasan Ramachandran S RS

JACC. Heart failure 20160601 6

<h4>Objectives</h4>This study sought to examine the association of a borderline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 50% to 55% with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a community-based cohort.<h4>Background</h4>Guidelines stipulate a LVEF >55% as normal, but the optimal threshold, if any, remains uncertain. The prognosis of a "borderline" LVEF, 50% to 55%, is unknown.<h4>Methods</h4>This study evaluated Framingham Heart Study participants who underwent echocardiography between 19 ...[more]

PMID: 27256754

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims: Evidence-based guidelines for heart failure management depend mainly on current left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, fewer studies have examined the impact of prior LVEF. Patients may enter the heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) category when heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) deteriorates or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improves. In this study, we examined the association between change in LVEF and adverse outcomes. Methods: HFmrEF patients with at least two or more echocardiograms 3 months apart at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between September 1, 2015 and November 30, 2019 were identified. According to the prior LVEF, the subjects were divided into improved group (prior LVEF < 40%), stable group (prior LVEF between 40 and 50%), and deteriorated group (prior LVEF ≥ 50%). The primary outcomes were cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for worsening heart failure, and composite event of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization. Results: A total of 1,168 HFmrEF patients (67.04% male, mean age 63.60 ± 12.18 years) were included. The percentages of improved, stable, and deteriorated group were 310 (26.54%), 334 (28.60%), and 524 (44.86%), respectively. After a period of follow-up, 208 patients (17.81%) died and 500 patients met the composite endpoint. The rates of all-cause mortality were 35 (11.29%), 55 (16.47%), and 118 (22.52%), and the composite outcome was 102 (32.90%), 145 (43.41%), and 253 (48.28%) for the improved, stable, and deteriorated groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis showed that the deterioration group had higher risk of cardiovascular death (HR: 1.707, 95% CI: 1.064-2.739, P = 0.027), all-cause death (HR 1.948, 95% CI 1.335-2.840, P = 0.001), and composite outcome (HR 1.379, 95% CI 1.096-1.736, P = 0.006) compared to the improvement group. The association still remained significant after fully adjusted for both all-cause mortality (HR = 1.899, 95% CI 1.247-2.893, P = 0.003) and composite outcome (HR: 1.324, 95% CI: 1.020-1.718, P = 0.035). Conclusion: HFmrEF patients are heterogeneous with three different subsets identified, each with different outcomes. Strategies for managing HFmrEF should include previously measured LVEF to allow stratification based on direction changes in LVEF to better optimize treatment.

Project description:Background Moderate aortic stenosis ( MAS ) has not been extensively studied and characterized, as no published study has been specifically devoted to this condition. Methods and Results We aimed to describe the characteristics of patients with MAS and to evaluate their long-term survival compared with that of the general population. This study included 508 patients (mean±SD age, 75±11 years) with MAS (aortic valve area between 1 and 1.5 cm2; mean±SD aortic valve area, 1.2±0.15 cm2) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. Patients were mostly (86.4%) asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, 78.3% had hypertension, 36.2% were diabetics, and 48.3% had dyslipidemia. Each patient with MAS was matched for the average survival (per year) of all patients of the same age and same sex from our region (Somme department, north of France). During follow-up (median 47 months), 113 patients (22.2%) underwent aortic valve replacement for severe AS. The mean±SD time between inclusion and surgery was 37±22 months. During follow-up, 255 patients (50.2%) died. The 6-year survival of patients with MAS was lower than the expected survival (53±2% versus 65%). In multivariate analysis, age (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.02-1.05]; P<0.001), prior atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.05-1.73]; P=0.019), and Charlson comorbidity index (hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.05-1.18]; P=0.002) were associated with increased mortality. Aortic valve replacement was associated with better survival (hazard ratio, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.27-0.54]; P<0.001). Conclusions The results of this study show that patients with MAS present many cardiovascular risk factors, a high rate of surgery during follow-up, and increased mortality compared with the general population mainly related to associated comorbidities. Patients with MAS should, therefore, be managed for their cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities. They require close follow-up, especially when the aortic valve area is close to 1 cm2, as aortic valve replacement performed when patients transition to severe AS and develop indications for surgery during follow-up is associated with better survival.

Project description:Nonischemic cardiomyopathy is a common cause of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and myocardial fibrosis. The purpose of this study was to noninvasively evaluate changes in segmental LV extracellular volume (ECV) fraction, LV velocities, myocardial scar, and wall motion in nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients.Cardiac MRI including pre- and postcontrast myocardial T1 mapping and velocity quantification (tissue phase mapping) of the LV (basal, midventricular, and apical short axis) was applied in 31 patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (50±18 years). Analysis based on the 16-segment American Heart Association model was used to evaluate the segmental distribution of ECV, peak systolic and diastolic myocardial velocities, scar determined by late gadolinium enhancement, and wall motion abnormalities. LV segments with scar or impaired wall motion were significantly associated with elevated ECV (rs =0.26; P<0.001) and reduced peak systolic radial velocities (r=-0.43; P<0.001). Regional myocardial velocities and ECV were similar for patients with reduced (n=12; ECV=0.28±0.06) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (n=19; ECV=0.30±0.09). Patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction showed significant relationships between increasing ECV and reduced systolic (r=-0.19; r=-0.30) and diastolic (r=0.34; r=0.26) radial and long-axis peak velocities (P<0.001). Even after excluding myocardial segments with late gadolinium enhancement, significant relationships between ECV and segmental LV velocities were maintained indicating the potential of elevated ECV to identify regional diffuse fibrosis not visible by late gadolinium enhancement, which was associated with impaired regional LV function.Regionally elevated ECV negatively affected myocardial velocities. The association of elevated regional ECV with reduced myocardial velocities independent of left ventricular ejection fraction suggests a structure-function relationship between altered ECV and segmental myocardial function in nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

Project description:ImportancePatients categorized as having heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the midrange between 40% and 50% (HFmrEF) are known to be at increased risk of future events. Although patients can transition into the midrange through either improvement or deterioration in their LVEF, there is limited information available assessing the association of directional change in LVEF with future events. Understanding the association between change in LVEF and the clinical course of patients with HFmrEF would be of value in guiding management strategies.ObjectiveTo determine whether risk of clinical events experienced by patients with HFmrEF varies according to whether LVEF improved or deteriorated into the range of 40% to 50% from previous measurements.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective cohort study, patients were identified from the electronic health records at the UC San Diego Health System who had an LVEF measured between 40% and 50% on transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) performed during the calendar year of 2015 and who also had at least 1 prior TTE for comparison. The clinical course of these patients was then followed from the time of the index TTE through December 2018. Data were analyzed from January to March 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe composite of all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalization, the composite of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization, and each of the individual components.ResultsOf the 448 patients who were identified with HFmrEF, 278 (62.1%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 67.4 (9.7) years. Left ventricular ejection fraction improved from less than 40% in 157 patients (35.0%), deteriorated from greater than 50% in 224 patients (50.0%), and remained between 40% and 50% over time in 67 patients (15.0%). Compared with patients whose LVEF improved from less than 40% to midrange levels, patients whose LVEF deteriorated from greater than 50% had higher risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.82; P = .03) and of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.08-2.50; P = .02), and these differences persisted after multivariable analysis. Outcomes did not differ significantly between patients whose LVEF improved and those in whom it remained stable.Conclusion and relevanceIn a cohort of patients with HFmrEF from a large academic medical center, the clinical course was strongly influenced by the directional change in LVEF from prior study. Patients whose LVEF deteriorated into midrange levels experienced a significantly higher risk of adverse clinical events than patients whose LVEF had improved. These results suggest that directional change in LVEF from prior measurements should be considered when devising management strategies for patients with HFmrEF.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine clinical and prognostic differences between preserved and deteriorated systolic function (defined as left ventricular (LV) ejection fractions > or = 50% and < 50%, respectively) in patients with heart failure satisfying modified Framingham criteria.Patients and methodsRecords were studied of 1252 patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) (mean (SD) age 69.4 (11.7) years; 485 women, 767 men) who had been admitted to a cardiology service for CHF in the period 1991-2002 and whose LV systolic function had been echocardiographically evaluated within two weeks of admission. Data were collected on the main clinical findings, supplementary examinations, treatment, and duration of hospitalisation. Whether the patient was alive in the spring of 2003 was evaluated by searching the general archives of the hospital and by telephone survey.ResultsLV systolic function was preserved in 39.8% of patients. Age, female to male sex ratio, and prevalence of atrial fibrillation, valve disease, and other non-ischaemic, non-dilated cardiopathies were all significantly greater in the group with preserved systolic function. New York Heart Association functional class IV, third heart sound, jugular vein congestion, cardiomegaly, radiological signs of lung oedema, pathological Q waves, left bundle branch block, sinus rhythm, ischaemic cardiopathy, and dilated cardiomyopathy were all significantly more prevalent in the group with deteriorated systolic function, as was treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and most other antihypertensive drugs on discharge from hospital. There was no significant difference in survival between the groups with preserved and deteriorated systolic function (either survival regardless of age at admission or in subgroups aged < 75 and > or = 75 years at admission). In the whole group, survival rates after one, three, and five years were 84.0%, 66.7%, and 50.9%, respectively.ConclusionIn view of the poor prognosis of patients with CHF with preserved LV systolic function, who are currently treated empirically, it is to be hoped that relevant controlled clinical trials under way will afford information allowing optimisation of their treatment.

Dataset Information

Prognosis of Adults With Borderline Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.

Publications

Prognosis of Adults With Borderline Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure