4.4 Article

Relation of unrecognized hypervolemia in chronic heart failure to clinical status,hemodynamics, and patient outcomes

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 93, 期 10, 页码 1254-1259

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.01.070

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinically unrecognized intravascular volume overload may contribute to worsening symptoms and disease progression in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). The present study was undertaken to prospectively compare measured blood volume status (determined by radiolabeled albumin technique) with clinical and hemodynamic characteristics and patient outcomes in 43 nonedematous ambulatory patients with CHF. Blood volume analysis demonstrated that 2 subjects (5%) were hypovolemic (mean deviation from normal values -20 +/- 6%), 13 subjects (30%) were normovolemic (mean deviation from normal values -1 +/- 1%), and 28 subjects (65%) were hypervolemic (mean deviation from normal values +30 +/- 3%). Physical findings of congestion were infrequent and not associated with blood volume status. Increased blood volume was associated with increased pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (p = 0.01) and greatly increased risk of death or urgent cardiac transplantation during a median follow-up of 719 days (1-year event rate 39% vs 0%, p <0.01 by log-rank test). Systolic blood pressure was significantly lower in hypervolemic patients than in those with normovolemia or hypovolemia (107 +/- 2 vs 119 +/- 2 mm Hg, p = 0.008), and hypotension was independently associated with increased risk of hypervolemia in multivariate analysis (odds ratio 2.64 for a 10-mm Hg decrease in systolic blood pressure, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 6.19, p = 0.025). These findings demonstrate that clinically unrecognized hypervolemia is frequently present in nonedematous patients with CHF and is associated with increased cardiac filling pressures and worse patient outcomes. (C) 2004 by Excerpta Medica, Inc.

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

4.4
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