4.6 Article

Prognostic significance of the echocardiographic estimate of pulmonary hypertension and of right ventricular dysfunction in acute decompensated heart failure. A pilot study in HFrEF patients

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 271, 期 -, 页码 301-305

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.04.069

关键词

Heart failure; Right ventricular function; Pulmonary hypertension

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Mortality following an admission for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is high and risk stratification in this context remains a challenge. The objective of the present study was to assess whether a simple echocardiographic assessment of pulmonary hypertension (PH) and/or of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction is associated with cardiovascular events in a 1-year follow-up after hospital discharge. Methods and results: The present prospective longitudinal study included 214 patients admitted to hospital with a cardiologist-adjudicated diagnosis of ADHF and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at echocardiography <40%. Echocardiography was performed at admission and at discharge and included pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) and RV function as defined by the tricuspid annular plane systolic displacement (TAPSE). The primary end-point was the combination of all-cause mortality and re-hospitalization for worsening heart failure at 1 year after hospital discharge. During an average follow-up period of 230 +/- 130 days, 40 patients died and 41 patients underwent re-hospitalization due to ADHF. At multivariate analysis the independent predictors were LVEF, PASP at discharge and creatinine plasma levels (all p < 0.001). At ROC analysis the best threshold of PASP to discriminate low-risk from high-risk patients was 40mmHg. Conclusions: In ADHF patients with reduced LVEF, PH at discharge is a pivotal prognostic feature to predict morbidity/mortality within the first year after the acute episode. (c) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据