CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

Non-eligibility for reperfusion therapy in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Contemporary insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) The Wait for High-Sensitivity Troponin Is Over—Proceed Cautiously Impact of the US Food and Drug Administration–Approved Sex-Specific Cutoff Values for High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T to Diagnose Myocardial Infarction Revision: prognostic impact of baseline glucose levels in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock-a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial Improvement of Clinical Outcome in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Between 1999 And 2016 in China : The Prospective, Multicenter Registry MOODY Study Prognostic Significance of Complex Ventricular Arrhythmias Complicating ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction What's new in the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial infarction? Respiratory syncytial virus infection and risk of acute myocardial infarction

Original Research2020 Jul 15;S0167-5273(20)33449-5.

JOURNAL:Int J Cardiol. Article Link

The prognostic role of mid-range ejection fraction in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

M Alkhalil, A Kearney, D MacElhatton et al. Keywords: mid-range ejection fraction; STEMI; suboptimal medical therapy; renal dysfunction

ABSTRACT

OBJECIVE - There is a paucity of studies investigating the impact of mid-range ejection fraction (mrEF) on clinical outcomes, including ventricular arrhythmias, in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We sought to investigate the prognostic role of mrEF post STEMI and whether recommended medical therapy may modify future risk.


METHODS - 533 consecutive patients from a single large-volume centre who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention were included. Reduced EF (<40%), mrEF (40-49%) and preserved EF (≥50%) were defined according to the European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Clinical outcomes were prospectively collected, and the primary endpoint was defined as the composite of death, re-admission with heart failure, sustained ventricular arrhythmia requiring hospitalisation or implantable cardioverter defibrillator over three years follow-up.


RESULTS - There was a stepwise increase in the primary endpoint according to EF group (8%, 17%, 30%, P < .001), which was derived from each individual component. Compared to preserved EF, patients with mrEF had significantly higher risk [HR 4.08 (95%CI 2.38 to 6.99), P < .001]. The use of suboptimal medical therapy was associated with increased future risk, particularly in mrEF [HR 2.62, (95%CI 1.18 to 5.83), P = .018]. The proportion of mrEF patients who experience the primary endpoint was significantly different according the status of kidney function and recommended medical therapy (8%, 20%, 33%, 50%, P < .001).


CONCLUSIONS - Patients presenting with mrEF following STEMI had increased risk of death, heart failure hospitalisation and ventricular arrhythmias compared to preserved EF. Suboptimal medical therapy in mrEF was associated with increased adverse events, particularly in patients with renal dysfunction.


Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.