Key result
Higher LV diastolic function score linked to ~335% greater all-cause mortality risk.
Why the study?
While individual markers of left ventricular diastolic function predict adverse events in AMI, the clinical significance and long-term prognostic value of summing abnormal diastolic function markers remain unclear.
Does a higher left ventricular diastolic function (LVDF) score predict increased mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients with acute myocardial infarction after successful PCI?
Cohort (n=2,030)
No
Does a higher left ventricular diastolic function (LVDF) score predict increased mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients with acute myocardial infarction after successful PCI?
Effect estimate: HR 4.346 (95% CI 2.144-8.804)
Absolute Event Rate: 44.5% vs 2.3%
p-value: p=<0.001
A simple LVDF score combining four echocardiographic parameters is a strong predictor of long-term mortality and heart failure hospitalization in AMI patients post-PCI, outperforming LVEF.
Background: Left ventricular diastolic function (LVDF) evaluation using a combination of several echocardiographic parameters is an important predictor of adverse events in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). To date, the clinical impact of each individual LVDF marker is well-known, but the clinical significance of the sum of the abnormal diastolic function markers and the long-term clinical outcome are not well-known. This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of LVDF score in predicting clinical outcomes of patients with AMI. Methods: LVDF scores were measured in a 2,030 patients with AMI who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention from 2012 to 2015. Four LVDF parameters (septal e′ ≥ 7 cm/s, septal E/e′ ≤ 15, TR velocity ≤ 2.8 m/s, and LAVI ≤ 34 ml/m 2 ) were used for LVDF scoring. The presence of each abnormal LVDF parameter was scored as 1, and the total LVDF score ranged from 0 to 4. Mortality and hospitalization due to heart failure (HHF) in relation to LVDF score were evaluated. To compare the predictive ability of LVDF scores and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) for mortality and HHF, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and landmark analyses were performed. Results: Over the 3-year clinical follow-up, all-cause mortality occurred in 278 patients (13.7%), while 91 patients (4.5%) developed HHF. All-cause mortality and HHF significantly increased as LVDF scores increased (all-cause mortality–LVDF score 0: 2.3%, score 1: 8.8%, score 2: 16.7%, score 3: 31.8%, and score 4: 44.5%, p < 0.001; HHF–LVDF score 0: 0.6%, score 1: 1.8%, score 2: 6.3%, score 3: 10.3%, and score 4: 18.2%, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, a higher LVDF score was associated with significantly higher adjusted hazard ratios for all-cause mortality and HHF. In landmark analysis, LVDF score was a better predictor of long-term mortality than LVEF (area under the ROC curve: 0.739 vs. 0.640, p < 0.001). Conclusion: The present study demonstrated that LVDF score was a significant predictor of mortality and HHF in patients with AMI. LVDF scores are useful for risk stratification of patients with AMI; therefore, careful monitoring and management should be performed for patients with AMI with higher LVDF scores.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bae et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Acute Myocardial Infarction (n=2,030). Left ventricular diastolic function (LVDF) score 4 vs. LVDF score 0 was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 4.346, 95% CI 2.144-8.804, p=<0.001). A higher left ventricular diastolic function score significantly increased the risk of all-cause mortality, with a score of 4 associated with a 44.5% mortality rate compared to 2.3% for a score of 0 (HR 4.346).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: