Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2021
Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF): A new entity with improved cardiac outcome.
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.
Zeller Judith, Hubauer Ute, Schober Andreas, Schober Alexander, Keyser Andreas, Fredersdorf Sabine, Uecer Ekrem, Maier Lars S, Jungbauer Carsten
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Aim of the study was a better characterization of heart failure (HF) with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) and undulating EF (HFuEF) with regard to re-hospitalization due to congestive HF (CHF), adequate electric therapies (AETs) and mortality compared to HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), mid-range EF (HFmrEF) and preserved EF (pEF).
METHODS: Retrospective study of 342 participants with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary or secondary prevention. Type of HF was classified according to left ventricular EF with 4.7 ± 3.1 investigations for each patient.
RESULTS: Re-hospitalization due to CHF was similar in HFrecEF (7 (9.5%)), HFmrEF (2(9.0%)) and pEF (8(12.9%); p = n.s.) and significantly higher in HFrEF (62(38.0%)) and HFuEF (6(28.6%); p < .001 compared to HFrecEF and HFrEF). AETs were significantly lower in HFrecEF (13(17.6%)) compared to HFrEF (57(35.0%)), HFmrEF (7(31.8%)), pEF (18(29.0%)) and HFuEF (6(28.6%); each p < .01 compared to HFrecEF). Mortality was similar in HFrecEF (6(8.1%)) compared to HFuEF (0(0%)), pEF (4(6.5%)) and HFmrEF (2(9.0%), p = n.s.) and significantly lower compared to HFrEF (52(31.9%), p < .001). HFrEF was the strongest predictor for mortality besides age and chronic renal insufficiency according to Cox Regression (each p < .05) opposite to arterial hypertension, diabetes, type of cardiomyopathy and secondary prevention ICD indication (each p = n.s.).
CONCLUSIONS: HFrecEF indicates as a new entity of HF with similar prognosis as pEF and HFmrEF with regard to re-hospitalization due to CHF and mortality and even better prognosis with regard to AETs. HFuEF showed similar rates of re-hospitalization due to CHF and AETs compared to HFrEF, but lower rates of mortality.
METHODS: Retrospective study of 342 participants with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary or secondary prevention. Type of HF was classified according to left ventricular EF with 4.7 ± 3.1 investigations for each patient.
RESULTS: Re-hospitalization due to CHF was similar in HFrecEF (7 (9.5%)), HFmrEF (2(9.0%)) and pEF (8(12.9%); p = n.s.) and significantly higher in HFrEF (62(38.0%)) and HFuEF (6(28.6%); p < .001 compared to HFrecEF and HFrEF). AETs were significantly lower in HFrecEF (13(17.6%)) compared to HFrEF (57(35.0%)), HFmrEF (7(31.8%)), pEF (18(29.0%)) and HFuEF (6(28.6%); each p < .01 compared to HFrecEF). Mortality was similar in HFrecEF (6(8.1%)) compared to HFuEF (0(0%)), pEF (4(6.5%)) and HFmrEF (2(9.0%), p = n.s.) and significantly lower compared to HFrEF (52(31.9%), p < .001). HFrEF was the strongest predictor for mortality besides age and chronic renal insufficiency according to Cox Regression (each p < .05) opposite to arterial hypertension, diabetes, type of cardiomyopathy and secondary prevention ICD indication (each p = n.s.).
CONCLUSIONS: HFrecEF indicates as a new entity of HF with similar prognosis as pEF and HFmrEF with regard to re-hospitalization due to CHF and mortality and even better prognosis with regard to AETs. HFuEF showed similar rates of re-hospitalization due to CHF and AETs compared to HFrEF, but lower rates of mortality.