Key result
Extensive left ventricular remodeling was associated with a lack of LVEF improvement and higher 3-year clinical event rates (38% vs 5% in patients with viable myocardium), despite viability.
Why the study?
Does extensive LV remodeling prevent LVEF improvement and worsen long-term prognosis after surgical revascularization in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy despite the presence of viable myocardium?
Cohort (n=79)
Does extensive LV remodeling prevent LVEF improvement and worsen long-term prognosis after surgical revascularization in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy despite the presence of viable myocardium?
Absolute Event Rate: 38% vs 5%
Extensive left ventricular remodeling (indicated by large LV end-systolic volume) prevents LVEF recovery and is associated with worse long-term clinical outcomes after surgical revascularization, even when viable myocardium is present.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
LV remodeling may blunt LVEF recovery and raise events after revascularization despite viability; leaves open whether remodeling should modify viability-guided decisions.
Bax et al. (2004) conducted a cohort in Ischemic cardiomyopathy (n=79). Extensive left ventricular remodeling (large LV size) vs. Small LV size was evaluated on 3-year clinical events (cardiac death, infarction, and hospitalization for heart failure) in patients with viable myocardium. Extensive left ventricular remodeling was associated with a lack of LVEF improvement and higher 3-year clinical event rates (38% vs 5% in patients with viable myocardium), despite viability.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: