4.5 Article

Right ventricular dysfunction is an independent predictor for mortality in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with cardiogenic shock on admission

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 276-282

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfp204

关键词

Myocardial infarction; Cardiogenic shock; Right ventricular dysfunction; Percutaneous coronary intervention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite improvement in prognosis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, mortality remains high in STEMI patients presenting with cardiogenic shock (CS). Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction is an established independent predictor for adverse prognosis in STEMI patients without CS. The purpose of our study was to determine the prognostic value of RV dysfunction on admission in STEMI patients presenting in CS. Two hundred and ninety-two consecutive STEMI patients with CS on admission were treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from January 1997 through March 2005. RV function was assessed by measurement of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) on early echocardiography in 184 of 292 patients. Right ventricular dysfunction was defined as a TAPSE of < 14 mm. Right ventricular dysfunction was present on early echocardiography in 70 of 184 patients (38%). The Kaplan-Meier estimate for overall 4-year survival was 57%. Kaplan-Meier estimates for 4-year survival in patients with and without RV dysfunction were 33 and 73%, respectively (P < 0.001). Cox-regression analysis revealed a hazard ratio of 2.1 (95% CI 1.3-3.4, P = 0.002) for RV dysfunction when adjusted for age, glucose on admission, and LVEF < 40%. In patients with and without RV dysfunction, the right coronary artery was the infarct-related artery in 41 and 28% of patients, respectively (P = 0.06). In STEMI patients presenting with CS on admission and treated with primary PCI, RV dysfunction as assessed by echocardiography is an independent predictor for long-term mortality.

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

4.5
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