Observational study links hyperuricemia to increased mortality in acute myocardial infarction patients with heart failure, suggesting critical prognostic implications.
Background Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is defined as presenting with clinical symptoms and signs of heart failure with a concomitant left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. However, the prognostic role of serum uric acid in HFpEF is not well understood. Methods In total, 757 patients with HFpEF and acute myocardial infarction were included in the analysis. Hyperuricemia was defined as a serum uric acid level >6.9 mg/dL in men and >5.4 mg/dL in women at the time of diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results Among the enrolled patients, 164 and 593 were placed into the high uric acid and normal uric acid groups, respectively. After a median follow up of 4.8 years [interquartile range: 3.2–7.1], 54 (32.9%) in the high serum uric acid group and 92 (15.5%) in the normal serum uric acid group had died. Hyperuricemia was independently associated with all-cause mortality ( p < 0.001) and cardiovascular death [73 (12.3%) vs. 44 (26.8%); p < 0.001]. The increased risk of mortality remained consistent in the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model (hazard ratio: 1.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.03–2.19; p = 0.033). After classifying the enrolled patients according to their Heart Failure Association-Pre-test assessment, Echocardiography and natriuretic peptide, Functional testing, and Final etiological work-up (HFA-PEFF) score (366 with a HFA-PEFF score <3 and 391 with a HFA-PEFF score ≥3), hyperuricemia was also found to be associated with all-cause mortality in patients with a score greater than the intermediate score (≥3 points) ( p < 0.001). Conclusions In a cohort with acute myocardial infarction, hyperuricemia was independently associated with all-cause mortality in patients with HFpEF. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov , COREA-AMI NCT02806102.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: