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

Improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Predictors and clinical impact. | LitMetric

Background: A percentage of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improve left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the evolution. This entity, defined for the first time in an international consensus as heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF), could have a different clinical profile and prognosis than HFrEF. Our main aim was to analyze the differential clinical profile between the two entities, as well as the mid-term prognosis.

Material-methods: Prospective study of a cohort of patients with HFrEF who had echocardiographic data at baseline and follow-up. A comparative analysis of patients who improved LVEF with those who did not was made. Clinical, echocardiographic and therapeutic variables were analyzed, and the mid-term impact in terms of mortality and hospital readmissions for HF was assessed.

Results: Ninety patients were analyzed. Mean age was 66.5(10.4) years, with a male predominance (72.2%). Forty five patients (50%) improved LVEF (Group-1,HFimpEF) and forty five patients (50%) sustained reduced LVEF (Group-2,HFsrEF). The mean time to LVEF improvement in Group-1 was 12.6(5.7) months. Group-1 had a more favorable clinical profile: lower prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, higher prevalence of de novo HF (75.6% vs. 42.2%; p<0.05), lower prevalence of ischemic etiology (22.2% vs. 42.2%; p<0.05), with less basal dilatation of the left ventricle. At the end of follow-up (mean 19(1) months) Group-1 had a lower hospital readmission rate (3.1% vs. 26.7%; p<0.01), as well as lower mortality (0% vs. 24.4%; p<0.01).

Conclusion: Patients with HFimpEF seem to have a better mid-term prognosis in terms of reduced mortality and hospital admissions. This improvement could be conditioned by the clinical profile of patients HFimpEF.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2023.02.009DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ejection fraction
20
heart failure
12
clinical profile
12
left ventricular
8
ventricular ejection
8
patients heart
8
failure reduced
8
reduced ejection
8
improved lvef
8
forty patients
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!