4.8 Article

Left ventricular remodeling after primary coronary angioplasty - Patterns of left ventricular dilation and long-term prognostic implications

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 106, 期 18, 页码 2351-2357

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000036014.90197.FA

关键词

myocardial infarction; angioplasty; remodeling; survival; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-We prospectively evaluated the prevalence, pattern, and prognostic impact of left ventricular (LV) remodeling after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) successfully treated with primary PTCA. The prevalence, course, and prognostic value of LV remodeling after primary PTCA are still to be clarified. Methods and Results-In 284 consecutive patients with AMI treated with primary PTCA, serial echocardiographic and angiographic studies, within 24 hours (T1), at 1 (T2) and 6 months (T3) after AMI were performed. Long-term (61 +/- 14 months) clinical follow-up data were collected for 98.6% patients enrolled in the study. Overall, 85 (30%) patients showed LV dilation (>20% end-diastolic volume increase) at T3 as compared with T1. Early (from T1 to T2), late (from T2 to T3), and progressive dilation patterns (from T1 to T2 to T3) were detected in 42 (15%), 41 (14%), and 36 (13%) patients, respectively. Cardiac death and combined events rate was significantly higher among patients with than among those without LV dilation (P = 0.005 and P = 0.025, respectively). The pattern of LV dilation during 6 months did not significantly affect survival. Cox survival analysis identified end-systolic volume at T1 and age as baseline predictors and end-systolic volume at T3 and age as 6-month predictors of cardiac death, respectively. Conclusions-LV remodeling after successful PTCA occurs despite sustained patency of the infarct-related artery and preservation of regional and global LV function. LV dilation at 6 months after AMI but not the specific pattern of LV dilation is clearly associated with worse long-term clinical outcome.

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