Key result
Consistently reduced LVEF post-MI is linked to ~8.5-fold higher heart failure hospitalization risk versus preserved LVEF.
Why the study?
Data are lacking on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory following myocardial infarction and its impact on long-term outcomes after PCI.
Does LVEF trajectory after PCI for MI impact the long-term risk of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization?
Cohort (n=13,439)
Yes
Does LVEF trajectory after PCI for MI impact the long-term risk of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization?
Hazard Ratio: 8.49 (95% CI 7.49–9.64)
Absolute Event Rate: 40% vs 6.4%
p-value: p=<0.001
Even patients who recover their LVEF after an MI remain at a significantly increased risk for heart failure hospitalization and mortality compared to those with consistently preserved LVEF.
RedEF markedly raises HF hospitalization risk versus pEF; confirms prognostic differences in this large RCT.
BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory following myocardial infarction (MI). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of LVEF trajectory after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for MI on long-term outcomes. METHODS: Patients undergoing PCI for MI (2007-2022) with serial echocardiograms were identified in the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry and the UC San Diego internal National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. All-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization within 6 years were assessed with time-to-event analysis adjusted for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Of 13,439 patients (mean age 64 ± 10 years, 24.5% female, 46.8% ST-segment elevation MI), 28.2% had consistently reduced LVEF (redEF), 14.8% recovered their LVEF (recEF), 53.0% had consistently preserved LVEF (pEF), and 3.9% decreased from preserved to reduced LVEF (decEF). Heart failure hospitalization rates were 40.0% for redEF, 30.4% for decEF, 16.1% for recEF, and 6.4% for pEF (P < 0.001). Compared to pEF, the heart failure hospitalization risk was significantly higher for redEF (adjusted HR [aHR]: 8.49; 95% CI: 7.49-9.64; P < 0.001), decEF (aHR: 5.74; 95% CI: 4.69-7.02; P < 0.001), and recEF (aHR: 3.18; 95% CI: 2.70-3.76; P < 0.001). Mortality rates were 14.0% for redEF, 14.9% for decEF, 7.8% for recEF, and 6.7% for pEF (P < 0.001). Compared to pEF, the mortality risk was significantly higher for redEF (aHR: 2.20; 95% CI: 1.86-2.59; P < 0.001), decEF (aHR: 2.10; 95% CI: 1.56-2.82; P < 0.001), and recEF (aHR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.02-1.65; P = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: LVEF trajectory after MI significantly impacts long-term outcomes. Even patients with LVEF recovery remain at increased risk for heart failure hospitalization and mortality compared to those with pEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sampath-Kumar et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Myocardial Infarction (n=13,439). Consistently reduced LVEF (redEF) vs. Consistently preserved LVEF (pEF) was evaluated on Heart failure hospitalization (HR 8.49, 95% CI 7.49-9.64, p=<0.001). Compared to consistently preserved LVEF, a consistently reduced LVEF trajectory after MI was associated with a significantly higher risk of heart failure hospitalization (aHR 8.49; 95% CI 7.49-9.64).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: