0 82

Cited 0 times in

Outcomes of de novo and acute decompensated heart failure patients according to ejection fraction

Authors
 Ki Hong Choi  ;  Ga Yeon Lee  ;  Jin-Oh Choi  ;  Eun-Seok Jeon  ;  Hae-Young Lee  ;  Hyun-Jai Cho  ;  Sang Eun Lee  ;  Min-Seok Kim  ;  Jae-Joong Kim  ;  Kyung-Kuk Hwang  ;  Shung Chull Chae  ;  Sang Hong Baek  ;  Seok-Min Kang  ;  Dong-Ju Choi  ;  Byung-Su Yoo  ;  Kye Hun Kim  ;  Hyun-Young Park  ;  Myeong-Chan Cho  ;  Byung-Hee Oh 
Citation
 Heart, Vol.104(6) : 525-532, 2018 
Journal Title
 Heart 
ISSN
 1355-6037 
Issue Date
2018
Keywords
Echocardiography ; Epidemiology ; Heart disease ; Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction ; Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There are conflicting results among previous studies regarding the prognosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) compared with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with de novo acute heart failure (AHF) or acute decompensated HF (ADHF) according to HFpEF (EF>/=50%), or HFrEF (EF<40%) and to define the prognosis of patients with HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF, 40</=EF<50%). METHODS: Between March 2011 and February 2014, 5625 consecutive patients with AHF were recruited from 10 university hospitals. A total of 5414 (96.2%) patients with EF data were enrolled, which consisted of 2867 (53.0%) patients with de novo and 2547 (47.0%) with ADHF. Each of the enrolled group was stratified by EF. RESULTS: In de novo, all-cause death rates were not significantly different between HFpEF and HFrEF (HFpEF vs HFrEF, 206/744 (27.7%) vs 438/1631 (26.9%), HRadj 1.15, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.38, p=0.14). However, among patients with ADHF, HFrEF had a significantly higher mortality rate compared with HFpEF (HFpEF vs HFrEF, 245/613 (40.0%) vs 694/1551 (44.7%), HRadj 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.47, p=0.007). Also, in ADHF, HFmrEF was associated with a significantly lower mortality rate within 1 year compared with HFrEF (HFmrEF vs HFrEF, 88/383 (23.0%) vs 430/1551 (27.7%), HRadj 1.31, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.65, p=0.03), but a significantly higher mortality rate after 1 year compared with HFpEF (HFmrEF vs HFpEF, 83/295 (28.1%) vs 101/469 (21.5%), HRadj 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: HFpEF may indicate a better prognosis compared with HFrEF in ADHF, but not in de novo AHF. For patients with ADHF, the prognosis associated with HFmrEF was similar to that of HFpEF within the first year following hospitalisation and similar to HFrEF 1 year after hospitalisation.
Full Text
https://heart.bmj.com/content/104/6/525
DOI
10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311813
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Kang, Seok Min(강석민) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9856-9227
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/162122
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse