A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Left atrium measurement in patients suspected of having heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. | LitMetric

Background: The pathophysiological model of heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) focuses on the presence of diastolic dysfunction, which causes left atrial (LA) structural and functional changes. The LA size, an indicator of the chronic elevation of the left ventricular (LV) filling pressure, can be used as a marker of the presence of HFPEF, and it is easily obtained.

Objective: To estimate the accuracy of measuring the LA size by using indexed LA volume and diameter (ILAV and ILAD, respectively) for diagnosing HFPEF in ambulatory patients.

Methods: This study assessed 142 patients (mean age, 67.3 ± 11.4 years; 75% of the female sex) suspected of having HF, divided into two groups: with HFPEF (n = 35) and without HFPEF (n = 107).

Results: The diastolic function, assessed by use of Doppler echocardiography, showed a significant difference between the groups regarding the parameters assessing ventricular relaxation (E': 6.9 ± 2.0 cm/s vs. 9.3 ± 2.5 cm/s; p < 0.0001) and LV filling pressure (E/E' ratio: 15.2 ± 6.4 vs. 7.6 ± 2.2; p < 0.0001). The ILAV cutoff point of 35 mL/m² best correlated with the diagnosis of HFPEF, showing sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 83%. The ILAD cutoff point of 2.4 cm/m² showed sensitivity of 71%, specificity of 66%, and accuracy of 67%.

Conclusion: For diagnosing HFPEF in ambulatory patients, the ILAV proved to be a more accurate parameter than ILAD. On echocardiographic assessment, ILAV, rather than ILAD, should be routinely measured.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0066-782x2012005000009DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

heart failure
8
failure preserved
8
preserved ejection
8
ejection fraction
8
filling pressure
8
ilav ilad
8
diagnosing hfpef
8
hfpef ambulatory
8
cutoff point
8
hfpef
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!