4.3 Article

Effects of trimetazidine in patients with severe chronic heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: A prospective, randomized, open-label, cross-over study

期刊

CARDIOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 627-636

出版社

VIA MEDICA
DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2020.0165

关键词

trimetazidine; heart failure; cardiac metabolism; exercise capacity; echocardiography; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of trimetazidine in stable patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction did not have significant effects on exercise capacity, left ventricular ejection fraction, mortality, or quality of life.
Background: Trimetazidine (TMZ) modulates cardiac metabolism, but its use in heart failure remains controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of TMZ on exercise capacity, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), mortality, and quality of life in stable patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods: Forty-five patients with stable advanced HFrEF treated with optimal medical therapy were randomized in a prospective, single-center, open-label, cross-over study of TMZ (35 mg b.i.d.) on top of standard medical therapy or standard pharmacotherapy for two periods of 30 days and one period of 6 months. Initially and at the end of each period all patients underwent the following: exercise testing, six-minute walk test (6MWT), two-dimensional-echocardiography, and quality of life assessment. Results: The mean age of patients was 58.2 +/- 10.6 years. Etiology of HFrEF was ischemic in 66.6% of patients. After 6 months no significant changes were observed in either group with regards to peak VO2 uptake, 6MWT, LVEF, or quality of life. TMZ had no effect on mortality or cardiovascular events. Conclusions: The additional use of TMZ on top of standard medical therapy in stable advanced HFrEF patients was not associated with significant changes in mortality, exercise capacity, LVEF, or quality of life.

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

4.3
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