PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 1, 1994Angiology11 citations

Long-Term Outcome and Prognostic Factors in Dilated Cardiomyopathy

View Full Paper
FFFriedrich FruhwaldJDJohann DusleagBEBernd Eber

Structured PICO

P
Population
167 consecutive outpatients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM)
O
Outcome
Long-term survival and identification of prognostic factorshard clinical

In patients with dilated cardiomyopathy, delayed diagnosis, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and higher left ventricular end-diastolic pressure at baseline are strong predictors of long-term mortality.

Abstract

UNLABELLED: To investigate long-term follow-up and identify prognostic factors in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) the authors investigated 167 consecutive patients on an outpatient basis. All patients underwent left- and right-heart catheterization; follow-up comprised clinical and echocardiographic investigations. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up period of ninety-three +/- thirty-six months 82 patients (49%; 71 men, 11 women, mean age fifty-five +/- eleven years) were alive. 29 of them (27 men, 2 women, mean age fifty-two +/- nine) showed normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after a mean follow-up period of one hundred four +/- forty months. The remaining 53 patients (44 men, 9 women, mean age fifty-six +/- eleven) revealed LVEF similar to that of the first examination. Eighty-five patients died (51%; 73 men, 12 women). Causes of death were the following: progressive heart failure, 24; sudden death, 23; stroke, 3; pulmonary embolism, 2; noncardiac death, 4; unknown causes, 29. The median period from the onset of first symptoms until definite diagnosis was two months in patients with stable conditions, three months in those with normalization of LVEF and twenty-four months in those who died, respectively (P < 0.01). At the time of diagnosis, patients with stable outcome had a mean LVEF (LVEF 1) of 37%, those who returned to normal had 40% (ns). Patients who died had a mean LVEF 1 of 32% and therefore differed significantly from both groups of survivors (P < 0.001). Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) at the time of diagnosis was highest in patients who died (22 mmHg) and therefore differed significantly from both groups of survivors (normalization: 16 mmHg, stable patients: 18 mmHg, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: According to their results, time until diagnosis, LVEF, and LVEDP are prognostic indicators. No difference was noted between the groups concerning etiology, medical treatment, or functional classification according to the New York Heart Association.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Fruhwald et al. (1994) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a211dea23521dddf4c3c8e9https://doi.org/10.1177/000331979404500903
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Prognosis of dilated cardiomyopathy. From a retrospective to a prospective study employing multivariate analysis.1987 · 16 citations
  2. 2Non-Invasive Predictors of Short and Long-Term Survival in Dilated Cardiomyopathy1984 · 6 citations
  3. 3Long-Term Prognosis of Patients With Mildly Dilated Cardiomyopathy.2002 · 21 citations
  4. 4Eight-Year Survival Analysis of Patients With Dilated Cardiomyopathy: Does Treatment Era Affect Prognosis?2025
  5. 5Dilated cardiomyopathy: Functional status, hemodynamics, arrhythmias, and prognosis1985 · 42 citations