scholarly journals Indicators of the left ventricular-arterial coupling interaction in chronic forms of ischemic heart disease: relationships of the protradenomedullin and N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide

Kardiologiia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (6S) ◽  
pp. 41-50
Author(s):  
E. I. Myasoedova ◽  
L. P. Voronina ◽  
O. S. Polunina ◽  
Yu. G. Shvarts

Purpose of the study. Analyze the parameters of the interaction between the left ventricle and the arterial system in patients with chronic forms of coronary heart disease and to identify relationships with levels of proadrenomedullin (MR‑proADM) and N‑terminal precursor of the brain natriuretic peptide B (NT‑proBNP).Materials and methods.240 patients with chronic forms of coronary heart disease (median – 55,9 [43; 63] years) and Q‑forming myocardial infarction in the past were examined. Of these, 110 patients with myocardial infarction and preserved lef ventricular ejection fraction and 130 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. All patients were calculated parameters of lef ventricular‑arterial interaction and the determination in blood serum levels of MR‑proADM and NT‑proBNP.Results.In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, an increase in the lef ventricular‑arterial interaction index was detected (2,51 [1,18; 5,00]), which reflects a decrease in the functional abilities and efficiency of the heart. In patients with myocardial infarction and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, this indicator was in the range of normal values (0,78 [0,55; 1,07]), which indicates an effective cardiac work. A study of MR‑proADM and NT‑proBNP levels demonstrated an increase in both groups (1,72 [1,56; 1,98] nmol/l and 779,3 [473; 2193] pg/ml in the group of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy; 0,89 [0,51; 1,35] nmol/l and 246 [118; 430] pg/ml in the group of patients with myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction), and the correlation analysis with left ventricular‑arterial coupling interaction parameters allowed identify statistically significant connections (in the group of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy: with the level of MR‑proADM ‑ r=0,67, p=0,006, with the level of NT‑proBNP ‑ r=0,78, p<0,001; in the group of patients with myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: with MR‑proADM level ‑ r=‑0,52, p=0,024, with NT‑proBNP level ‑ r =‑0,38, p=0,037).Conclusion.The findings suggest a pathogenetic association between the biomarkers under study and the parameters of left ventricular‑arterial coupling interaction.

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 2773
Author(s):  
K. G. Pereverzeva ◽  
S. S. Yakushin ◽  
A. S. Galus ◽  
A. R. Shanina

Aim. During one-year follow-up, to assess the effect of genetic and nongenetic factors on the risk of poor outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) with high medical adherence.Material and methods. The study included 250 patients admitted to the hospital due to MI in the period from September 1, 2018 to May 1, 2019 and with a potentially high medical adherence. Twelve months after MI, patients were assessed for adherence to therapy and the effect of genetic and nongenetic factors on the patient prognosis.Results. Within 12 months after MI, 70 (28,0%) patients had a composite endpoint: all-cause death, MI, cerebral stroke, and nonelective coronary revascularization. There were following factors increasing the risk of composite endpoint: non-Q-wave MI (relative risk (RR), 2,63; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1,63-4,25 (p=0,001); left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% — RR, 2,03; 95% CI: 1,17-3,50 (p<0,0001); CYP2C19 GA/AA genotype (RR, 1,58; 95% CI: 1,06-2,37 (p<0,00001)).Conclusion. The study results allow identifying patients with a high risk of poor outcome: patients with non-Q-wave MI, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, and CYP2C19 GA/AA genotype.


Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Wu ◽  
Marie Lauzon ◽  
Jenna Maughan ◽  
Leslee J Shaw ◽  
Sheryl F Kelsey ◽  
...  

Background: Relatively high left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) (>65%) in women was recently associated with higher all-cause mortality over 6 years follow-up in the CONFIRM study. We sought to evaluate high EF and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the Women’s Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) study. Methods: The WISE original cohort (enrolled 1996-2000) is a multicenter prospective study of women with suspected ischemic heart disease undergoing clinically indicated invasive coronary angiography. We investigated the relationship between high (>65%) and normal (55-65%) EF and MACE, defined as all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and heart failure (HF) hospitalization using Kaplan Meier (KM) and regression analyses. Results: A total of 653 women were included (298 high and 355 normal EF). Mean age was 58±11 years and mean EF was 68±7%. There was no significant difference in MACE by EF group over a 10-year follow-up period (log rank p=0.54, Figure ). When patients were stratified by the presence of obstructive CAD, MACE rates remained similar between high and normal EF. High EF was not associated with stroke or HF but had a lower MI risk (log rank p=0.03, Table ). EF was not associated with MACE in a multivariable regression model. Conclusions: Among women presenting with evidence of ischemia, there was no significant difference in MACE between high and normal EF groups. High EF was associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction as an individual component of MACE.


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
P C Kahr ◽  
P Kaufmann ◽  
J Kuster ◽  
J Tonko ◽  
A Breitenstein ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality in selected symptomatic patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and wide QRS complex. However, some patients fail to benefit from CRT. Data on the differential role of baseline and follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on outcome in patients with ischemic compared to non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM, N-ICM) is controversial. Purpose To test, whether ICM and N-ICM patients differ in outcome after CRT during long-term follow-up and whether predictors for survival after CRT differ between the two groups. Methods All patients undergoing CRT implantation at our institution between November 2000 and January 2015 were evaluated (n=418). All ICM/N-ICM patients with follow-up echocardiography within 1 year after CRT implantation (FU1) and a second echocardiography >1 year after FU1 (FU2) were included in the analysis (n=253). Primary post-hoc defined study endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, heart transplantation or implantation of a ventricular assist device. Results Compared to patients with N-ICM (n=160, median age 64 years [IQR 54–71], 71% male), ICM patients (n=93, median age 70 years [IQR 61–75], 84% male) were significantly older and had a higher prevalence of male gender, concomitant diabetes mellitus and arterial hypertension. There were no significant differences in pre-implantation echocardiographic features (LVEF, LVEDV, RV-FAC, severity of mitral regurgitation), QRS width and NT-proBNP levels between the groups. However, the hazard for reaching the primary endpoint was significantly higher in patients with ICM compared to N-ICM both on univariate analysis (HR 1.62 [95% CI 1.09–2.42], p=0.018) and after multivariate correction (aHR 2.13 [1.24–3.66], p=0.006). While higher NT-proBNP levels and greater right ventricular fractional area change were positively correlated with the hazard of death in both ICM and N-ICM (see Figure), lower LVEF at baseline was associated with an increased risk of death only in ICM but not in N-ICM (HR 0.95 [0.91–0.99], p=0.029 vs. HR 1.00 [0.96–1.04], p=0.945). Male gender, lower BMI and NYHA class ≥ III were positively correlated with the endpoint in N-ICM, but not in ICM. Importantly, LVEF at FU1 (median 4.7 months after implantation) and FU2 (median 47.1 months after implantation) were found to correlate signficantly with the endpoint in both ICM and N-ICM. Conclusion Our findings highlight important differences in ischemic and non-ischemic patient populations undergoing CRT. While overall survival of patients with N-ICM exceeds survival in ICM, several other factors (including LVEF) have differential effects on response to CRT in these two patient groups.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document