Key result
Resting left ventricular ejection fraction >0.45 did not significantly predict lower mortality compared to EF ≤0.45 (25% vs 30%) in survivors of acute myocardial infarction with pulmonary edema.
Why the study?
Does preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (>0.45) improve prognosis compared to reduced ejection fraction (<=0.45) in patients with acute pulmonary edema and myocardial infarction?
Population
39 consecutive patients who presented with acute pulmonary edema and myocardial infarction.
Comparison
Left ventricular ejection fraction >0.45… vs Left ventricular ejection fraction <=0.45
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
9 +/- 3 months
Authors
Loading...
Similar mortality persists despite preserved EF in post-MI pulmonary edema; leaves open EF-independent risk stratification.
Cohort (n=39)
Does preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (>0.45) improve prognosis compared to reduced ejection fraction (<=0.45) in patients with acute pulmonary edema and myocardial infarction?
Absolute Event Rate: 25% vs 30%
p-value: p=NS
Patients with acute pulmonary edema during myocardial infarction form a high-risk group with significant incidence of recurrent MI and death, regardless of whether their predischarge ejection fraction is preserved or reduced.
Warnowicz et al. (1983) conducted a cohort in acute pulmonary edema and myocardial infarction (n=39). Ejection fraction > 0.45 vs. Ejection fraction <= 0.45 was evaluated on Mortality (p=NS). Resting left ventricular ejection fraction >0.45 did not significantly predict lower mortality compared to EF ≤0.45 (25% vs 30%) in survivors of acute myocardial infarction with pulmonary edema.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: