Clinical cardiology · 2021
Predictors of treatment benefits after enhanced external counterpulsation in patients with refractory angina pectoris.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wu Eline, Mårtensson Jan, Desta Liyew, Broström Anders
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) is a noninvasive treatment that can decrease limiting symptoms in patients with refractory angina pectoris (RAP). Identifying responders to EECP is important as EECP is not widely available and relatively time intensive.
HYPOTHESIS: The effect of EECP treatment on physical capacity in patients with RAP can be predicted from baseline patient characteristics and clinical factors.
METHODS: This explorative study includes all patients from a cardiology clinic who had finished one EECP treatment and a 6 min walk test pre and post EECP. Clinical data, including Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), were assessed before treatment. If patients increased their 6 min walking distance (6MWD) by 10% post EECP, they were considered responders.
RESULTS: Of the 119 patients (men = 97, 40-91 years), 49 (41.2%) were responders. Multinomial regression analysis showed that functional status (i.e., CCS class ≥3) (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.12-8.57), LVEF <50% (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.02-7.80), and prior performed revascularization (i.e., ≤ 1 type of intervention) (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.06-7.20) were predictors of response to EECP (p < .05, Accuracy 63.6%). Traditional risk factors (e.g., gender, smoking, and comorbidities) did not predict response.
CONCLUSIONS: EECP treatment should be considered preferentially for patients that have a greater functional impairment, evidence of systolic left ventricular dysfunction, and exposure to fewer types of revascularization, either PCI or CABG. Improvement in 6MWD post EECP could imply improvement in physical capacity, which is a likely contributor to improved well-being among patients with RAP.
HYPOTHESIS: The effect of EECP treatment on physical capacity in patients with RAP can be predicted from baseline patient characteristics and clinical factors.
METHODS: This explorative study includes all patients from a cardiology clinic who had finished one EECP treatment and a 6 min walk test pre and post EECP. Clinical data, including Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), were assessed before treatment. If patients increased their 6 min walking distance (6MWD) by 10% post EECP, they were considered responders.
RESULTS: Of the 119 patients (men = 97, 40-91 years), 49 (41.2%) were responders. Multinomial regression analysis showed that functional status (i.e., CCS class ≥3) (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.12-8.57), LVEF <50% (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.02-7.80), and prior performed revascularization (i.e., ≤ 1 type of intervention) (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.06-7.20) were predictors of response to EECP (p < .05, Accuracy 63.6%). Traditional risk factors (e.g., gender, smoking, and comorbidities) did not predict response.
CONCLUSIONS: EECP treatment should be considered preferentially for patients that have a greater functional impairment, evidence of systolic left ventricular dysfunction, and exposure to fewer types of revascularization, either PCI or CABG. Improvement in 6MWD post EECP could imply improvement in physical capacity, which is a likely contributor to improved well-being among patients with RAP.