4.7 Article

Left ventricular systolic dysfunction in 75-year-old men and women -: A population-based study

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 22, 期 8, 页码 676-683

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1053/euhj.2000.2284

关键词

ventricular dysfunction; heart failure; prevalence; echocardiography; aged

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To determine the prevalence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction in 75-year-old men and women. Methods and Results In a population-based random sample of 75-year-old subjects (n = 433; response rate 70.1%) the left ventricular systolic function was determined using two echocardiographic methods: (1) wall motion in nine left ventricular segments was visually scored and wall motion index was calculated as the mean value of the nine segments and (2) ejection fraction as measured by the disc summation method. Presence of heart failure was determined by a cardiologist's clinical evaluation. Wall motion index was achievable in 95% of the participants while ejection fraction was measurable in 65%. Normal values were obtained from a healthy subgroup (n = 108) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction was defined as the 0.5th percentile of the wall motion index (i.e. <1.7). In participants in whom both ejection fraction and wall motion index were achievable, wall motion index <1.7 predicted ejection fraction <43% with a sensitivity and specificity of 84.0% and 99.6%, respectively. The prevalence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction was 6.8% (95% CI, 5.6-8.0%) and was greater in men than in women (10.2% vs 3.4%, P = 0.006). Clinical evidence of heart failure was absent in 46% of the participants with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Conclusions Left ventricular systolic dysfunction is common among 75-year-olds with a prevalence of 6.8% in our estimate. The condition is more likely to affect men than women. In nearly half of 75-year-olds with left ventricular systolic dysfunction there is no clinical evidence of heart failure.

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

4.7
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