Key result
Patients with heart failure due to systemic hypertension and a ventricular mass/volume ratio >1.8 had a significantly higher ejection fraction (67.62% vs 55.33%) compared to those with a ratio <1.8.
Why the study?
To evaluate diastolic function of heart failure patients with systemic hypertension.
Observational (n=54)
No
Absolute Event Rate: 67.62% vs 55.33%
p-value: p=<0.001
In hypertensive HFpEF patients, a higher ventricular mass/volume ratio is associated with distinct echocardiographic and clinical features, including higher ejection fraction and LV mass but smaller ventricular diameter.
Introduction: Diastolic function as is the current conventional tradition, in order to gain deeper understanding it is more useful to view diastolic function as a problem to be solved! Once the basic problem of normal physiology of diastole has been mastered, it is nearly self-evident as to what the issues are in clinical heart failure and which physiologic mechanism and its hard-wired compensatory pathways one is confronted with. Objective: To evaluate diastolic function of heart failure patients with systemic hypertension. Methods: The present prospective observational study was undertaken in Cardiology Department, Dhaka Medical College hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh from January to July, 2019. Fifty-four (54) patients with systemic hypertension who recently experienced heart failure with normal ejection fraction (≥50%) and no clinical history of ischaemic cardiomyopathy were studied. The patients were divided into two groups according to the degree of echocardiographic hypertrophy: Group-I (28 patients) with a ventricular mass/volume ratio >1.8 and group-II (26 patients) with a ratio <1.8. Results: Total 54 patients with diastolic dysfunction with hypertension were included in the study. Shows the age and sex distribution with highest frequency in the age group 61-70 years, comprising 31.5 percent and 51-60 years 25.9 percent, 41-50 year 24.1 percent, 71 + years 12.9 percent and 30-40 years 5.6 percent in descending order. Group I patients had a higher ejection fraction (67.62±3.14 vs 55.33 ±4.13, P<0.001), smaller ventricular diameter (28.88±2.46 vs 34.38±4.37, P<0.001), higher LV mass (154.42±6.80 vs 123.38±5.58, P<0.001), lower ETT positivity (14%vs73%, P<0.001). Clinically, group I had more frequent audible fourth heart sound (57% vs 21%, P< 0.001), low incidence of audible third heart sound (17% vs 69%, P<0.001), ECG evident LVH (96% vs 15%, P<0.001), cardiomegaly (25% vs 73%, P<0.001). Conclusion: There were no significant differences between groups ..........
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Roy et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Heart failure with normal ejection fraction (≥50%) due to systemic hypertension (n=54). Ventricular mass/volume ratio >1.8 (Group I) vs. Ventricular mass/volume ratio <1.8 (Group II) was evaluated on Ejection fraction (%) (p=<0.001). Patients with heart failure due to systemic hypertension and a ventricular mass/volume ratio >1.8 had a significantly higher ejection fraction (67.62% vs 55.33%) compared to those with a ratio <1.8.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: