CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

推荐文献

科研文章

荐读文献

Classification of Deaths in Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Consensus Document From the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk Best Practices for the Prevention of Radial Artery Occlusion After Transradial Diagnostic Angiography and Intervention An International Consensus Paper 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Coronary flow velocity reserve predicts adverse prognosis in women with angina and noobstructive coronary artery disease: resultsfrom the iPOWER study Older Adults in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: Factoring Geriatric Syndromes in the Management, Prognosis, and Process of Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial 2020 AHA/ACC Key Data Elements and Definitions for Coronary Revascularization A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (Writing Committee to Develop Clinical Data Standards for Coronary Revascularization) Non-invasive detection of coronary inflammation using computed tomography and prediction of residual cardiovascular risk (the CRISP CT study): a post-hoc analysis of prospective outcome data Level of Scientific Evidence Underlying the Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Clinical Practice Guidelines

Original Research2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz550.

JOURNAL:Eur Heart J. Article Link

Routinely reported ejection fraction and mortality in clinical practice: where does the nadir of risk lie?

Wehner GJ, Jing L, Haggerty CM et al. Keywords: ejection fraction; cardiac function; survival; mortality; clinical practice

ABSTRACT


AIMS - We investigated the relationship between clinically assessed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and survival in a large, heterogeneous clinical cohort.


METHODS AND RESULTS - Physician-reported LVEF on 403 977 echocardiograms from 203 135 patients were linked to all-cause mortality using electronic health records (1998-2018) from US regional healthcare system. Cox proportional hazards regression was used for analyses while adjusting for many patient characteristics including age, sex, and relevant comorbidities. A dataset including 45 531 echocardiograms and 35 976 patients from New Zealand was used to provide independent validation of analyses. During follow-up of the US cohort, 46 258 (23%) patients who had undergone 108 578 (27%) echocardiograms died. Overall, adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for mortality showed a u-shaped relationship for LVEF with a nadir of risk at an LVEF of 60-65%, a HR of 1.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64-1.77] when 70% and a HR of 1.73 (95% CI 1.66-1.80) at LVEF of 35-40%. Similar relationships with a nadir at 60-65% were observed in the validation dataset as well as for each age group and both sexes. The results were similar after further adjustments for conditions associated with an elevated LVEF, including mitral regurgitation, increased wall thickness, and anaemia and when restricted to patients reported to have heart failure at the time of the echocardiogram.


CONCLUSION - Deviation of LVEF from 60% to 65% is associated with poorer survival regardless of age, sex, or other relevant comorbidities such as heart failure. These results may herald the recognition of a new phenotype characterized by supra-normal LVEF.

 

Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019.