scholarly journals PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF 64-SLICE CARDIAC CT IN CORONARY BYPASS PATIENTS: GRAFT PATENCY AND LEFT VENTRICULAR EJECTION FRACTION

2011 ◽  
Vol 57 (14) ◽  
pp. E777
Author(s):  
Benjamin J.W. Chow ◽  
Osman Ahmed ◽  
Gary Small ◽  
Abdul-Aziz Alghamdi ◽  
Yeung Yam ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
P Angaran ◽  
P Dorian ◽  
A Ha ◽  
P Thavendiranathan ◽  
W Tsang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Although 2-dimensional echocardiography (2DE) is widely used to measure left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the prognostic value of 2DE-derived LVEF has not been clearly demonstrated in a broad range of patients, including those acutely hospitalized as well as ambulatory patients. In particular, the prognostic value of echocardiographic LVEF has not been demonstrated for cardiovascular and heart failure hospitalizations. Purpose To determine if greater degrees of LV dysfunction are associated with progressively increasing risks of death or cardiovascular hospitalizations among patients undergoing echocardiography in hospital or outpatient settings. Methods We examined quantitative LVEFs from patient-level echocardiographic reports at 3 large hospital laboratories, which were linked to the Canadian Institute for Health Information hospitalization database and to death registries in Ontario, Canada. LVEF was categorized as <25%, 25–35%, 36–45%, or 46–55% (reference). Analyses were performed using cause-specific hazard competing risk models and stratified by: a) outpatient vs. inpatient echocardiogram, and b) if inpatient study, whether the reason for hospitalization was cardiac or noncardiac in nature. Results In the echocardiographic cohort of 27,323 patients (median age 68 [IQR: 58–77], 14,828 women [31.7%]), greater reductions in LVEF were associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality, with adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) of 1.67 (1.57, 1.77) for LVEF <25%, 1.30 (1.24, 1.36) for LVEF 25–35%, and 1.17 (1.11, 1.23) for LVEF 36–45%, compared to LVEF 46–55% (all p<0.001). The cumulative incidence of cardiovascular death was higher as LVEF progressively worsened (Figure). The rate of heart failure hospitalizations was also increased with hazard ratios of 1.71 (1.59, 1.85) for LVEF <25%, 1.39 (1.31, 1.48) for LVEF 25–35%, and 1.21 (1.13, 1.29) for LVEF 36–45%, compared to LVEF 46–55% (all p<0.001). Cardiovascular hospitalizations were also increased with hazard ratios of 1.35 (1.27, 1.42), 1.21 (1.16, 1.27), and 1.13 (1.07, 1.18) for LVEFs <25%, 25–35%, and 36–45%, respectively (all p<0.001). The risk of mortality and hospitalizations increased comparably with greater reductions in LVEF during both inpatient cardiac or noncardiac admissions (p<0.001). Cumulative incidence of CV death Conclusions Quantitative LVEF assessed by 2DE is potent prognostically and was able to stratify the risk of both death and hospitalization outcomes in a wide range of clinical settings. Patients with reduced LVEF measured on inpatient or outpatient echocardiograms, and even in the context of non-cardiac admission, should be considered an at-risk group in whom quality of care metrics could be evaluated in future studies. Acknowledgement/Funding Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation, and the Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research


Author(s):  
Khadijah Breathett ◽  
Larry A Allen ◽  
James Udelson ◽  
Gordon Davis ◽  
Michael Bristow

Background: Left ventricular remodeling, as commonly measured by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), is associated with clinical outcomes. Although change in LVEF over time would be anticipated to reflect response to therapy and subsequent clinical course, systematic serial measurement of LVEF is inconsistent in observational settings, and has not been systematically reported in large-scale clinical trials. Thus the incremental prognostic value of change in LVEF has not been well characterized. Methods: The Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial (BEST, 1995-1999) collected LVEF by radionuclide ventriculography at baseline and at 3 and 12-months after randomization. Change in LVEF was defined as change from baseline to 12-month unless that value was missing, in which case the 3-month value was used. We built a series of multivariable models including 16 commonly used clinical parameters plus change in LVEF for predicting the following time to first event endpoints: all-cause mortality (ACM), cardiovascular mortality (CVM), heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and ACM or HFH. Results: Among 2,484 patients with a mean follow-up of 2-years, serial improvement in LVEF by ≥5% was the second most significant predictor (behind baseline creatinine) of outcomes (Table). LVEF change ≥5% correlated with a modest increase in C-index compared to traditional predictors (Table). Conclusions: Serial evaluation for change ≥5% LVEF predicts both survival and HFH. Further validation of the incremental prognostic value of change in LVEF for important clinical decisions, including frequency of cardiac imaging, across various heart failure populations is needed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document