4.8 Article

Clinical Features and Outcomes of Takotsubo (Stress) Cardiomyopathy

期刊

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 373, 期 10, 页码 929-938

出版社

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1406761

关键词

-

资金

  1. Mach-Gaensslen Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND The natural history, management, and outcome of takotsubo (stress) cardiomyopathy are incompletely understood. METHODS The International Takotsubo Registry, a consortium of 26 centers in Europe and the United States, was established to investigate clinical features, prognostic predictors, and outcome of takotsubo cardiomyopathy. Patients were compared with age- and sex-matched patients who had an acute coronary syndrome. RESULTS Of 1750 patients with takotsubo cardiomyopathy, 89.8% were women (mean age, 66.8 years). Emotional triggers were not as common as physical triggers (27.7% vs. 36.0%), and 28.5% of patients had no evident trigger. Among patients with takotsubo cardiomyopathy, as compared with an acute coronary syndrome, rates of neurologic or psychiatric disorders were higher (55.8% vs. 25.7%) and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was markedly lower (40.7 +/- 11.2% vs. 51.5 +/- 12.3%) (P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of severe in-hospital complications including shock and death were similar in the two groups (P = 0.93). Physical triggers, acute neurologic or psychiatric diseases, high troponin levels, and a low ejection fraction on admission were independent predictors for in-hospital complications. During long-term follow-up, the rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was 9.9% per patient-year, and the rate of death was 5.6% per patient-year. CONCLUSIONS Patients with takotsubo cardiomyopathy had a higher prevalence of neurologic or psychiatric disorders than did those with an acute coronary syndrome. This condition represents an acute heart failure syndrome with substantial morbidity and mortality. (Funded by the Mach-Gaensslen Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01947621.)

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

4.8
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