Dataset Information

Clinical profile and midterm prognosis of left ventricular thrombus in heart failure.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

We documented the midterm prognosis of left ventricular thrombus (LVT) in heart failure (HF) patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). We aimed to characterize patients with LVT in the context of HF with reduced (≤40%) left ventricular ejection fraction and evaluate their risk for death and/or embolic events, overall, and specifically in patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic aetiology. We also intended to identify risk factors for LVT in patients with DCM.

Methods and results

We included all HF patients (N = 105, age 56 ± 13) admitted from 2005 to 2018 in our institution for LVT without significant valve disease/prosthesis, heart transplant/left ventricular assist device, congenital heart disease, or acute myocardial infarction. Our primary endpoint was the 1 year risk of the composite of all-cause mortality (ACM) and symptomatic embolic events. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 23 ± 9%, and median BNP was 1795 pg/mL. Most (97%) patients were treated with vitamin K anticoagulants, and 64% had ICM. Symptomatic embolic events and/or ACM occurred in 20% of the population [embolic events (all within 30 days of LVT diagnosis) 15% and ACM 6%] and was similarly frequent in DCM or ICM (P > 0.05). Suspected/transient embolic events were more frequent in DCM (overall 13%; 29% in DCM vs. 5% in ICM, P < 0.01). Major bleeding occurred in 5% of patients. Left ventricular reverse remodelling occurred in 65% of patients, more frequently in DCM (86% in DCM vs. 65% in ICM, P = 0.02). In a case-control analysis matching DCM patients, BNP level was the only factor significantly associated with LVT (2447 pg/mL in LVT vs. 347 pg/mL, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Patients with LVT have markedly high natriuretic peptides and experience a 20% 1 year risk for embolic events and/or death following diagnosis despite anticoagulant treatment. Most patients have favourable remodelling/recovery. As all symptomatic embolic events occurred within 30 days of LVT diagnosis, a very careful initial management is warranted.

SUBMITTER: Lemaitre AI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8006720 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundContemporary data regarding the clinical characteristics and prognosis of left ventricular thrombus (LVT) in older adults (aged ≥ 65 years old) are lacking. In this study, we characterized elderly patients with LVT (aged ≥ 65 years old) and investigated the long-term prognosis in this highly vulnerable patient population.MethodsThis single-center, retrospective study was conducted from January 2017 to December 2022. Patients with a reported LVT were assessed primarily by transthoracic echocardiography (TEE) and classified into two groups: elderly LVT groups and younger LVT groups. All patients were treated with anticoagulant treatment. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, systemic embolism, and rehospitalization for cardiovascular events. Survival analyses were performed with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazard model.ResultsA total of 315 eligible patients were included. Compared to the younger LVT group (n = 171), the elderly LVT group (n = 144) had a lower proportion of males and lower serum creatinine clearance, as well as a higher level of NT-proBNP, and a higher rate of history of systemic embolism. LVT resolution occurred in 59.7% and 69.0% of patients in the elderly LVT group and younger LVT group, respectively, with no significant difference (adjusted HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.74-1.28; P = 0.836). Yet, elderly patients with LVT, had higher prevalence rates of MACE (adjusted HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.10-2.11; P = 0.012), systemic embolism (adjusted HR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.20-6.59; P = 0.017) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.29-3.74; P = 0.004) compared with younger patients with LVT. After adjusting for mortality in the Fine-Gray model, similar results were observed. Additionally, patients treated with different anticoagulation therapies (DOACs vs. warfarin) achieved a similar improvement in prognosis (P > 0.05) or LVT resolution (P > 0.05) in elderly patients with LVT.ConclusionsOur results found that elderly patients experiencing LVT have a poor prognosis compared with the younger ones. Clinical prognosis in elderly patients did not significantly differ with the type of anticoagulant used. With aging societies worldwide, further evidence of antithrombotic therapy in elderly individuals with LVT is necessary.

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.