Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Characteristics and prognosis of heart failure with improved compared with persistently reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analyses

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Smoking and heart failure: A call for action

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. A comment to: Predictors of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target value attainment in the DYSIS II Europe Study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Accelerated collagen turnover in women with angina pectoris without obstructive coronary artery disease: An iPOWER substudy

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. CHADS-VASc score and risk of thromboembolism and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation and recent cancer

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Association between Type D personality and outcomes in patients with non-ischemic heart failure

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. A More COMPLETE Picture of Revascularization in STEMI

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

Aims We assessed the clinical characteristics and prognosis of chronic heart failure patients with improved ejection fraction (HFIEF) compared with persistently reduced ejection fraction (HFpREF) after evidence-based therapy. Methods and results We performed a meta-analysis including 24 eligible observational studies comparing 2663 HFIEF (≥5% left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement) versus 8355 HFpREF patients who received recommended drug therapy, cardiac resynchronization therapy and/or intracardiac defibrillator. LVEF was assessed at baseline and reassessed after 19 ± 19 months. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and appropriate shocks. The mean duration of follow-up was 39 ± 12 months. Among HFIEF patients, LVEF improved 16.3 percentage points (95% confidence interval 15.9-16.6, p < 0.0001). Compared with HFpREF patients, HFIEF patients had a comparable mean age (60.9 years vs. 62.4 years, p = 0.11), were more often women (33% vs. 25%), had a higher prevalence of non-ischaemic heart failure (58% vs. 53%), less diabetes (27% vs. 28%), higher systolic blood pressure (127.5 ± 9 vs. 122 ± 12 mmHg) and lower left ventricle end-diastolic diameter (64.1 ± 3.7 vs. 67.4 ± 4.9 mmHg), all p-values < 0.05. Absolute risk of all-cause mortality was lower in HFIEF (5.8%) compared with HFpREF (17.5%) with a risk ratio of 0.34 (95% confidence interval 0.28-0.41), p < 0.001. Risk of appropriate shocks was significantly lower in HFIEF versus HFpREF (risk ratio 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.46-0.74), p < 0.001). Conclusion In heart failure patients, we identified several baseline characteristics in favour of an improved LVEF, in response to evidence based therapy. Patients with improved LVEF had significantly lower risks of mortality and appropriate shocks compared with patients with persistently reduced LVEF.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftEuropean journal of preventive cardiology
Vol/bind25
Udgave nummer4
Sider (fra-til)366-376
Antal sider11
ISSN2047-4873
DOI
StatusUdgivet - mar. 2018

ID: 56238410