4.7 Article

Prognostic implications of restrictive left ventricular filling in reperfused anterior acute myocardial infarction

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(00)01203-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES We sought to assess the relative prognostic role of a restrictive left ventricular (LV) filling pattern after a first anterior acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients treated with primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). BACKGROUND In thrombolized patients, a short Doppler-derived mitral deceleration time (DT) of early filling is a powerful independent predictor of heart failure and death. However, it is still unknown whether the outcome of patients with AMI with a short DT may be improved by a more aggressive treatment. METHODS In 104 patients, two-dimensional and Doppler echocardiograms were obtained three days after the index AMI. Coronary angiography was performed in all patients one and six months after PTCA. The patients were classified into two groups according to the DT duration: group 1 (n = 34) with DT less than or equal to 130 ms and group 2 (n = 70) with DT >130 ms. All patients were followed-up for a mean (+/- SD) period of 32 +/- 10 months. RESULTS During the follow-up period, 14 patients (13%) were admitted to the hospital for congestive heart failure, and 9 patients (9%) died. All cardiac deaths (n = 7) occurred in group 1. The survival rate at mean follow-up was 79% in group 1 and 97.2% in group 2 (p = 0.003). Multivariate Cox analysis showed that only age and restrictive filling were independent predictors of event-free survival. Furthermore, when survival with no cardiovascular events was analyzed, a short DT still emerged as the most powerful independent predictor. CONCLUSIONS Patients with a restrictive LV filling pattern early after anterior AMI have a poor clinical outcome, el en ii treated with primary PTCA. (J Am Coil Cardiol 2001;37:793-9) (C) 2001 by the American College of Cardiology.

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