Why the study?
Pulmonary hypertension worsens prognosis in heart failure, but its true prevalence and role in dilated cardiomyopathy remain unclear.
Does echocardiography-determined pulmonary hypertension risk level predict all-cause death in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy?
Does echocardiography-determined pulmonary hypertension risk level predict all-cause death in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy?
In patients with dilated cardiomyopathy, higher echocardiography-derived pulmonary hypertension risk is associated with significantly increased all-cause mortality.
Echocardiography-derived PH risk may stratify all-cause mortality in dilated cardiomyopathy; leaves open prospective validation and incremental utility.
Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in patients with heart failure (HF) contributes to a poorer prognosis. However, in those with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), the true prevalence and role of PH is unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the profile of DCM patients at various levels of PH risk, determined via echocardiography, and its impact on outcomes. The 502 DCM in- and out-patient records were retrospectively analyzed. Information on patient status was gathered after 45.9 ± 31.3 months. Patients were divided into 3 PH-risk groups based on results from echocardiography measurements: low (L, n = 239, 47.6%), intermediate (I, n = 153, 30.5%), and high (H, n = 110, 21.9%). Symptom duration, atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachyarrhythmia, ejection fraction, right atrial area, and moderate or severe mitral regurgitation were found to be independently associated with PH risk. During the follow-up period, 83 (16.5%) DCM patients died: 29 (12.1%) in L, 31 (20.3%) in I, and 23 (20.9%) in H. L-patients had a significantly lower risk of all-cause death (L to H: HR 0.55 (95%CI 0.32–0.98), p = 0.01), while no differences in prognosis were found between I and H. In conclusion, over one in five DCM patients had a high PH risk, and low PH risk was associated with better prognoses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dziewięcka et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: