4.7 Article

Right ventricular dysfunction and risk of heart failure and mortality after myocardial infarction

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 9, Pages 1450-1455

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(02)01804-1

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of right ventricular (RV) function in patients after a myocardial infarction (MI). BACKGROUND Right ventricular function has been shown to predict exercise capacity, autonomic imbalance and survival in patients with advanced heart failure (HF). METHODS Two-dimensional echocardiograms were obtained in 416 patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction (ejection fraction [LVEF] less than or equal to40%) from the Survival And Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) echocardiographic substudy (mean 11.1 +/- 3.2 days post infarction). Right ventricular function from the apical four-chamber view, assessed as the percent change in the cavity area from end diastole to end systole (fractional area change [FAC]), was related to clinical outcome. RESULTS Right ventricular function correlated only weakly with die LVEF (r = 0.12, p = 0.013). On univariate analyses, the RV FAC was a predictor of mortality, cardiovascular mortality and HF (p < 0.0001 for all) but not recurrent MI. After adjusting for age, gender, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, previous MI, LVEF, infarct size, cigarette smoking and treatment assignment, RV function remained an independent predictor of total mortality, cardiovascular mortality and HF. Each 5% decrease in the RV FAC was associated with a 16% increased odds, of cardiovascular mortality (95% confidence interval 4.3% to 29.2%; P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS Right ventricular function is an independent predictor of death and the development of HF in patients with LV dysfunction after MI. (C) 2002 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available