These results show that DD is highly prevalent among obese subjects and impairment of longitudinal systolic mechanics, as reflected by GLS reduction, and LV mass normalized to height are major independent predictors of DD in this patients' population.
Recent European Society of Cardiology and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guidelines did not recommend biomarker-guided therapy in the management of heart failure (HF) patients. Combination of echo- and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) may be an alternative approach in guiding ambulatory HF management. Our aim was to determine whether a therapy guided by echo markers of left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP), lung ultrasound (LUS) assessment of B-lines, and BNP improves outcomes of HF patients. Consecutive outpatients with LV ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 50% have been prospectively enrolled. In Group I (n=224), follow-up was guided by echo and BNP with the goal of achieving E-wave deceleration time (EDT) ≥ 150 ms, tissue Doppler index E/e′ < 13, B-line numbers < 15, and BNP ≤ 125 pg/ml or decrease >30%; in Group II (n=293), follow-up was clinically guided, while the remaining 277 patients (Group III) did not receive any dedicated follow-up. At 60 months, survival was 88% in Group I compared to 75% in Group II and 54% in Group III (χ2 53.5; p < 0.0001). Survival curves exhibited statistically significant differences using Mantel–Cox analysis. The number needed to treat to spare one death was 7.9 (Group I versus Group II) and 3.8 (Group I versus Group III). At multivariate Cox regression analyses, major predictors of all-cause mortality were follow-up E/e′ (HR: 1.05; p=0.0038) and BNP >125 pg/ml or decrease ≤30% (HR: 4.90; p=0.0054), while BNP > 125 pg/ml or decrease ≤30% and B-line numbers ≥15 were associated with the combined end point of death and HF hospitalization. Evidence-based HF treatment guided by serum biomarkers and ultrasound with the goal of reducing elevated BNP and LVFP, and resolving pulmonary congestion was associated with better clinical outcomes and can be valuable in guiding ambulatory HF management.
Aims
In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), an association between left atrial (LA) dilatation and dysfunction is expected, but the degree of coexistence of the two abnormalities and their relative prognostic role is not known.
Methods and results
A total of 626 HFrEF patients formed the study population. All of them underwent a comprehensive echocardiographic evaluation. LA maximal volume was indexed to body surface area (LAVi); LA function was assessed using strain analysis during the reservoir phase: peak atrial longitudinal strain (PALS) analysis. Study primary endpoint was overall mortality or hospitalization for worsening heart failure. Four groups of patients were included in this study according to LAVi (≤34 or >34 mL/m2) and PALS (≤23% or >23%); 61 (10%) patients had normal LA volume and function (Group 1), 58 (9%) had LA dilatation but normal function (Group 2), 100 (16%) had normal volume but abnormal function (Group 3), and 407 (65%) had enlarged left atrium and abnormal function (Group 4). PALS was associated with primary endpoint in patients with both normal‐size [Groups 1 and 3: hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88–0.96; P = 0.0006] and dilated left atria (Groups 2 and 4: HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.91–0.96; P < 0.0001). In contrast, LAVi was associated with the primary endpoint in patients with abnormal LA function (Groups 3 and 4: HR 1.018, 95% CI 1.011–1.024; P < 0.00001) but not in those with normal PALS (Groups 1 and 2: HR 1.023, 95% CI 0.99–1.057; P = 0.1).
Conclusions
Left atrial dilatation and dysfunction frequently but not invariably coexist. PALS emerged as a significant prognostic parameter in HFrEF even in the absence of LA dilation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.