scholarly journals Cardiac troponin and outcome in decompensated heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Thawabi ◽  
Amer Hawatmeh ◽  
Sarah Studyvin ◽  
Habib Habib ◽  
Fayez Shamoon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cardiac Troponin ◽  
Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction

P2610Increase in comfortable walking speed during hospitalization predicts the readmission due to decompensated heart failure in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Tabata ◽  
M Kato ◽  
N Hamazaki ◽  
T Masuda
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Exercise Capacity ◽  
Walking Speed ◽  
Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Functional Classification ◽  
Multivariate Logistic Regression ◽  
Heart Failure Patients

Abstract Background Heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have reduced exercise capacity and poor prognosis as well as those with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Both cardiac function and exercise capacity have been known as prognostic factors for patients with HFrEF. However, few reports documented the relations of comfortable walking speed (CWS) during hospitalization to exercise capacity and prognosis. is used as a clinical measure to assess their exercise capacity and prognosis. However, few reports documented the correlations of CWS with exercise capacity and prognosis in patients with HFpEF. Purpose This study aimed to investigate whether CWS at hospital discharge and the increase in CWS during hospitalization predicted the readmission due to decompensated heart failure in patients with HFpEF and HFrEF. Methods Patients who were hospitalized due to heart failure with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification III or IV were prospectively followed up for 3 years after hospital discharge. Consequently, 264 patients, 173 males and 92 females, aged 73.2±6.8 years were studied. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on their ejection fraction (EF): HFpEF group (EF≥50%; n=98), HFrEF group (EF<40%; n=138) and heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) group (40%≤EF≤49%; n=28). We assessed clinical characteristics including age, gender, height, NYHA functional classification, etiology of CHF, plasma brain natriuretic peptide and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on admission, and measured CWS several days after admission and at discharge. We determined significant factors affecting the readmission and their cut-off values using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curves in the three groups. Results Forty patients (40.8%), 54 (39.1%) and 6 (21.4%) were readmitted in the HFpEF, HFrEF and HFmrEF groups, respectively, within 3 years after the discharge. Univariate logistic regression analysis detected the age, LVEF, CWS at discharge and the CWS increase during hospitalization as significant limiting factors for readmission in the HFpEF and HFrEF groups (P<0.05, respectively). The multivariate logistic regression analysis detected the CWS increase during hospitalization as significant limiting factor for readmission in the HFpEF and HFrEF groups (P<0.001 and P<0.05, respectively). The odds ratios of readmission were 1.86 (P<0.01) and 1.44 (P<0.001) with each 5-meter decrease of CWS increase during hospitalization and predictive cut-off values of the CWS increase were 7.5 and 8.5 meters/min in the HFpEF and HFrEF groups, respectively. Conclusion This study demonstrated that the CWS increase during hospitalization was a strong predictor for readmission due to decompensated heart failure in patients not only with HFrEF but also with HFpEF and each predictive the cut-off value was 7.5 and 8.5 meters/min.

scholarly journals Prognostic significance of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. 1650-1656
Author(s):  
Sho Suzuki ◽  
Hirohiko Motoki ◽  
Masatoshi Minamisawa ◽  
Yukari Okuma ◽  
Wataru Shoin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cardiac Troponin ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure

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

Heart ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 104 (6) ◽  
pp. 525-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ki Hong Choi ◽  
Ga Yeon Lee ◽  
Jin-Oh Choi ◽  
Eun-Seok Jeon ◽  
Hae-Young Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Acute Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
First Year ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
University Hospitals ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction

ObjectiveThere 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%).MethodsBetween 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.ResultsIn 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).ConclusionsHFpEF 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document