To access this material please log in or register

Register Authorize

Effect of left ventricular ejection fraction on remote prognosis of patients after a cardiac catastrophe. Analysis of 5-year monitoring performed as a part of the population-based program “Registry of acute myocardial infarction”

Garganeeva A. A., Borel K. N., Okrugin S. A., Kuzheleva E. A.
Federal State Budgetary Institution, “Research Institute of Cardiology” at the Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Kievskaya 111a, Tomsk 63402

Keywords: myocardial infarction, prognosis, heart failure, 
left ventricular ejection fraction, echocardiography

DOI: 10.18087/rhfj.2014.4.1950

Background. According to numerous reports, LV EF is preserved in a considerable proportion of patients with HF symptoms. The Framingham study has demonstrated better survival of patients with preserved LV systolic function compared to patients with reduced EF. However controversial results were obtained in some studies, which demonstrated comparable survival of such patients. Aim. To evaluate the effect of LV EF on prognosis for patients of able-bodied age who have had an acute MI. Materials and methods. The study included 365 patients who had had a MI and had been registered in the “Registry of Acute MI” database. Based on LV EF, the patients were divided into three groups: group 1 (n=23), patients with EF ≤35%; group 2 (n=84), “grey zone” patients with 36 ≤EF ≤49%); group 3 (n=258), patients with EF ≥50%. The highest mortality rate of patients with low EF was observed at 3 years of follow-up; later, at 5 years of MI, this index tended to decrease. In patients with preserved EF, the death rate clearly tended to increase throughout the follow-up period. For the 5-year follow-up period, 30.4 % of patients died in the group with reduced EF; 19 % of patients died in the «grey zone» group; and 16.6 % of patients died in the group with preserved EF. Statistical analysis showed that differences between groups in the death rate were not significant. Conclusion. The 5-year mortality rate of patients who have had an acute MI did not depend on LV EF. Low EF determined the death rate in the first three years after MI. Subsequently, the effect of this index evened out, which justified a need for more aggressive therapeutic strategy in patients with preserved EF as such patients have traditionally received less attention than patients with systolic dysfunction.
  1. Cho GY, Marwick TH, Kim HS et al. Global 2‑dimensional strain as a new prognosticator in patients with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Aug 11;54 (7):618–624.
  2. Persson H, Lonn E, Edner M et al. Diastolic dysfunction in heart failure with preserved swstolic function: nedeed for objective evidence. Results from the CHARM echocardiographic substudy – CHARMES. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Feb 13;49 (6):687–694.
  3. Pritchett AM, Mahoney DW, Jacobsen SJ et al. Diastolic dysfunction and left atrial volume: a population-based study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Jan 4;45 (1):87–92.
  4. Беленков Ю. Н., Агеев Ф. Т., Мареев В. Ю. Знакомьтесь: Диастолическая сердечная недостаточность. Журнал Сердечная недостаточность. 2000;1 (2):40–44.
  5. Paulus WJ, Tschope C, Sanderson JE et al. How to diagnose diastolic heart failure: a consensus statement on the diagnosis of heart failure with normal left ventricular ejection fraction by the Heart Failure and Echocardiography Associations of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2007 Oct;28 (20):2539–2550.
  6. Maeder MT, Kaye DM. Heart failure with normal left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Mar 17:53 (11):905–918.
  7. Chemla D, Coirault C, Hebert JL et al. Mechanics of relaxation of the human heart. News Physiol Sci. 2000 Apr;15 (2):78–83.
  8. Vasan RS, Larson MG, Benjamin EJ et al. Congestive heart failure in subjects with normal versus reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: prevalence and mortality in a population-based cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999 Jun;33 (7):1948–1955.
  9. Sonnenblick EH, Downing SE. Afterload as a primary determinant of ventricular performance. Am J Physiol. 1963 Apr;204:604–610.
  10. Cowie MR, Wood DA, Coats AJS et al. Incidence and aetiology of heart failure. A population-based study. Eur Heart J 1999 Mar;20 (6):421–428.
  11. Leong-Poi H, Hutchison S. Diastolic dysfunction. Cardiology rounds. 2000 Feb;V (1):1–8.
  12. Хамуев Я. П. Прогностическое значение диастолической дисфункции левого желудочка у больных ИБС с СН. Журнал Сердечная Недостаточность. 2011;12 (2):102–108.
  13. Galderisi M. Diastolic dysfunction and diastolic heart failure: diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic aspects. Cardiovascular Ultrasound. 2005 Apr;3: a9.
  14. Bursi F, Weston SA, Redfield MM et al. Systolic and diastolic heart failure in the community. JAMA. 2006 Nov 8;296 (18):2209–2216.
  15. Vasan RS, Benjamin EJ, Levy D. Prevalence, clinical features and prognosis of diastolic heart failure: an epidemiologic perspective. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26 (7):1565–1574.
  16. Беленков Ю. Н., Мареев В. Ю., Агеев Ф. Т. и др. Истинная распространенность ХСН в Европейской части Российской (исследование ЭПОХА, госпитальный этап). Журнал Сердечная Недостаточность. 2011;12 (2):63–69.
  17. Мареев В. Ю., Агеев Ф. Т., Арутюнов Г. П. и др. Национальные рекомендации ОССН, РКО и РНМОТ по диагностике и лечению ХСН (четвертый пересмотр). Журнал Сердечная Недостаточность. 2013;14 (7): 379–472.
Garganeeva A.A., Borel K.N., Okrugin S.A., Kuzheleva E.A. Effect of left ventricular ejection fraction on remote prognosis of patients after a cardiac catastrophe. Analysis of 5-year monitoring performed as a part of the population-based program “Registry of acute myocardial infarction”. Russian Heart Failure Journal. 2014;85 (4):218–223

To access this material please log in or register

Register Authorize
Ru En