4.5 Article

Improved Long-Term Prognosis of Dilated Cardiomyopathy With Implementation of Evidenced-Based Medication - Report From the CHART Studies

Journal

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
Volume 79, Issue 6, Pages 1332-+

Publisher

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-14-0939

Keywords

Beta-blocker; Dilated cardiomyopathy; Lifestyle disease; Prognosis

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25330032] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Recent trends in the clinical characteristics, management and prognosis of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) remain to be examined in Japan. Methods and Results: We compared 306 and 710 DCM patients in the Chronic Heart Failure Analysis and Registry in the Tohoku District (CHART)-1 (2000-2005, n=1,278) and the CHART-2 (2006-present, n=10,219) Studies, respectively. Between the 2 groups of DCM patients, there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The prevalence of hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus were all significantly increased from the CHART-1 to the CHART-2 Study. The use of beta-blockers and aldosterone antagonists was significantly increased, while that of loop diuretics and digitalis was significantly decreased in the CHART-2 Study. The 3-year mortality rate was significantly improved from 14% in the CHART-1 to 9% in the CHART-2 Study (adjusted HR, 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49-0.81; P=0.001). In particular, 3-year incidence of cardiovascular death was significantly decreased (adjusted HR, 0.26; 95% CI: 0.14-0.50, P<0.001), while that of HF admission was not (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI: 0.59-1.37, P=0.632). The prognostic improvement was noted in patients with BNP <220 pg/ml, LVEF>40%, beta-blocker use and aldosterone antagonist use. Conclusions: Long-term prognosis of DCM patients has been improved, along with the implementation of evidence-based medication in Japan.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available