3.8 Review

Heart failure following STEMI: a contemporary cohort study of incidence and prognostic factors

期刊

OPEN HEART
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2016-000551

关键词

-

资金

  1. Netherlands Heart Foundation [2014T001]
  2. Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) [90700342]
  3. UCL Hospitals NIHR Biomedical Research Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The aim of the current study was to determine the contemporary incidence, risk factors and prognosis of heart failure (HF) after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods We used the Arrhythmia Genetics in the Netherlands observational cohort study to identify patients with a first STEMI from 2001 onwards (n=1459). HF during follow-up was defined as hospitalisation for HF or an outpatient clinic visit for HF. Cox regression was performed to estimate the relationship between baseline covariates and the onset of HF. Results Follow-up was completed for 1360 (93.2%) patients with an overall median follow-up time of 6.7 years, 1232 (90.6%) of these patients had undergone primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A total of 85 patients (6.3%) developed HF during follow-up. HF cases were significantly older at their index MI (59.9 vs 57.2 years, P<0.001) and more commonly had a history of atrial fibrillation (6.1% vs 1.4%, P=0.001) than controls without HF. The crude incidence rate of HF after STEMI was 9.7 (95% CI 7.7 to 11.8) per 1000 person-years. In multivariable analysis, peak creatine kinase MB (CK-MB) levels (HR 1.11 per 100 U/L (95% CI 1.11 to 1.22)) and a left anterior descending artery (LAD) culprit lesion (HR 2.88 (95% CI 1.53 to 5.40)) were risk factors associated with HF. Conclusions We found a relatively low long-term contemporary incidence of HF after a first STEMI in the current PCI era in comparison with other reports. Higher CK-MB levels and a LAD culprit lesion at index STEMI were important risk factors for the development of HF after STEMI.

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

3.8
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