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: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

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

Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction: Clinical characteristics, determinants and prognosis. CARDIOCHUS-CHOP registry. | LitMetric

Background: The magnitude and the prognostic impact of recovering left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure (HF) and systolic dysfunction is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with HFrecEF in an HF population.

Methods: 449 consecutive patients were selected with the diagnosis of HF and an evaluation of LVEF in the 6 months prior to selection who were referred to two HF units. Patients with systolic dysfunction were only considered if a second echocardiogram was performed during the follow-up.

Results: At the time of diagnosis, 207 patients had LVEF > 40% (HFpEF) and 242 had LVEF ≤ 40% (HFrEF). After 1 year, the LVEF was re-evaluated in all 242 patients with a LVEF ≤ 40%: in 126 (52%), the second LVEF was > 40% (HFrecEF), and the remaining 116 (48%) had LVEF ≤ 40% (HFrEF). After 1800 ± 900 days of follow-up patients with recovered LVEF had a significantly lower mortality rate (HFpEF vs. HFrecEF: hazard ratio [HR] = 2.286, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.264-4.145, p = 0.019; HFrEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 2.222, 95% CI 1.189-4.186, p < 0.001) and hospitalization rate (HFpEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 1.411, 95% CI 1.046-1.903, p = 0.024; HFrEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 1.388, 95% CI 1.002-1.924, p = 0.049). The following are predictors of LVEF recovery: younger age, lower functional class, treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and beta-blockers, absence of defibrillator use, and non-ischemic etiology.

Conclusions: Patients with HF and reduced LVEF who were re-evaluated after 1 year, had significant improvement in their LVEF and had a more favourable prognosis than HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2017.0103DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ejection fraction
12
lvef
12
lvef ≤
12
≤ 40%
12
heart failure
8
clinical characteristics
8
patients
8
systolic dysfunction
8
patients lvef
8
lvef 40%
8

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!