Características clinicoevolutivas en la insuficiencia cardíaca descompensada con disfunción sistólica y función sistólica preservada

Objetivos. Comparar las características clínicas y el pronóstico hospitalario y tardío en la insuficiencia cardíaca crónica con disfunción sistólica o función sistólica preservada. Pacientes y método. Se incluyó a 328 pacientes consecutivos ingresados en el Instituto de Cardiología de Corrientes con insuficiencia cardíaca descompensada. Según la fracción de eyección evaluada por ecocardiograma bidimensional, la población fue clasificada como con disfunción sistólica (grupo 1, con una fracción de eyección = 40%) o con función sistólica preservada (grupo 2, con una fracción de eyección > 40%). Resultados. Se detectó una disfunción sistólica en 192 pacientes (58,5%) y una función sistólica preservada en el 41,5% restante. En los grupos 1 y 2, la edad media fue de 62,7 ± 12,5 frente a 65,2 ± 16,2 años (p = 0,03) y la proporción de varones fue del 73,3 frente al 49,3%, respectivamente (p 40% e insuficiencia global, el tipo de disfunción no se asoció con una mortalidad tardía, y fueron predictores independientes la hipoperfusión periférica (OR = 3,7; p < 0,0001), la concentración baja de sodio (OR = 0,9; p = 0,009) y el sexo masculino (OR = 1,9; p = 0,041). Conclusiones. La insuficiencia cardíaca descompensada con una función sistólica preservada se presentó con mayor frecuencia en las mujeres y los pacientes más ancianos, con una baja prevalencia de enfermedad coronaria. A pesar de estas diferencias, el tipo de disfunción no tuvo implicaciones en el pronóstico hospitalario y tardío

Heart failure in younger patients: the Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC)

Aim Our understanding of heart failure in younger patients is limited. The Meta-analysis Global Group inChronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) database, which consisted of 24 prospective observational studies and 7 randomized trials, was used to investigate the clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of younger patients. Methods and Results Patients were stratified into six age categories: ,40 (n ¼ 876), 40 – 49 (n ¼ 2638), 50 – 59 (n ¼ 6894), 60 – 69 (n ¼ 12 071), 70 – 79 (n ¼ 13 368), and ≥80 years (n ¼ 6079). Of 41 926 patients, 2.1, 8.4, and 24.8% were younger than 40, 50, and 60 years of age, respectively. Comparing young (,40 years) against elderly (≥80 years), younger patients were more likely to be male (71 vs. 48%) and have idiopathic cardiomyopathy (63 vs. 7%). Younger patients reported better New York Heart Association functional class despite more severe left ventricular dysfunction (median ejection fraction: 31 vs. 42%, all P , 0.0001). Comorbidities such as hypertension, myocardial infarction, and atrial fibrillation were much less common in the young. Younger patients received more disease-modifying pharmacological therapy than their older counterparts. Across the younger age groups (,40, 40 – 49, and 50 – 59 years), mortality rates were low: 1 year 6.7, 6.6, and 7.5%, respectively; 2 year 11.7, 11.5, 13.0%; and 3 years 16.5, 16.2, 18.2%. Furthermore, 1-, 2-, and 3-year mortality rates increased sharply beyond 60 years and were greatest in the elderly (≥80 years): 28.2, 44.5, and 57.2%, respectively. Conclusion Younger patients with heart failure have different clinical characteristics including different aetiologies, more severe left ventricular dysfunction, and less severe symptoms. Three-year mortality rates are lower for all age groups under 60 years compared with older patients

Differing prognostic value of pulse pressure in patients with heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction: results from the MAGGIC individual patient meta-analysis

AIMS: Low pulse pressure is a marker of adverse outcome in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFREF) but the prognostic value of pulse pressure in patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF) is unknown. We examined the prognostic value of pulse pressure in patients with HF-PEF [ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 50%] and HF-REF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 22 HF studies were examined. Preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was defined as LVEF ≥ 50%. All-cause mortality at 3 years was evaluated in 27 046 patients: 22 038 with HF-REF (4980 deaths) and 5008 with HFPEF (828 deaths). Pulse pressure was analysed in quintiles in a multivariable model adjusted for the previously reported Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure prognostic variables. Heart failure and reduced ejection fraction patients in the lowest pulse pressure quintile had the highest crude and adjusted mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.53–1.84) compared with all other pulse pressure groups. For patients with HF-PEF, higher pulse pressure was associated with the highest crude mortality, a gradient that was eliminated after adjustment for other prognostic variables. CONCLUSION: Lower pulse pressure (especially ,53 mmHg) was an independent predictor of mortality in patients with HF-REF, particularly in those with an LVEF , 30% and systolic blood pressure ,140 mmHg. Overall, this relationship between pulse pressure and outcome was not consistently observed among patients with HF-PEF

The survival of patients with heart failure with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: an individual patient data meta-analysis

Aims A substantial proportion of patients with heart failure have preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HF-PEF). Previous studies have reported mixed results whether survival is similar to those patients with heart failure and reduced EF (HF-REF). Methods and results We compared survival in patients with HF-PEF with that in patients with HF-REF in a meta-analysis using individual patient data. Preserved EF was defined as an EF = 50%. The 31 studies included 41 972 patients: 10 347 with HF-PEF and 31 625 with HF-REF. Compared with patients with HF-REF, those with HF-PEF were older (mean age 71 vs. 66 years), were more often women (50 vs. 28%), and have a history of hypertension (51 vs. 41%). Ischaemic aetiology was less common (43 vs. 59%) in patients with HF-PEF. There were 121 [95% confidence interval (CI): 117, 126] deaths per 1000 patient-years in those with HF-PEF and 141 (95% CI: 138, 144) deaths per 1000 patient-years in those with HF-REF. Patients with HF-PEF had lower mortality than those with HF-REF (adjusted for age, gender, aetiology, and history of hypertension, diabetes, and atrial fibrillation); hazard ratio 0.68 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.71). The risk of death did not increase notably until EF fell below 40%. Conclusion Patients with HF-PEF have a lower risk of death than patients with HF-REF, and this difference is seen regardless of age, gender, and aetiology of HF. However, absolute mortality is still high in patients with HF-PEF highlighting the need for a treatment to improve prognosis