These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Determinants of left ventricular systolic function recovery after an acute coronary syndrome.
    Author: Sampaio F, Mateus P, Bettencourt N, Dias CC, Adão L, Santos L, Teixeira M, Simões L, Gama V.
    Journal: Rev Port Cardiol; 2006 Mar; 25(3):321-7. PubMed ID: 16789405.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Ischemic heart disease is a major cause of heart failure in western societies. However, the factors that may influence left ventricular function (LVF) recovery after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are still unclear. OBJECTIVE: To identify variables that may influence LVF evolution one year after ACS. METHODS: 104 patients hospitalized with ACS between 7/1/2001 and 12/31/2002 and with systolic dysfunction--defined as an echocardiographic ejection fraction (EF) < or = 45%--were randomly allocated to a planned coronary follow-up program (FUP) or a general cardiology clinic (GC); patients from both groups were also randomly referred to a structured cardiac rehabilitation program (CRP). EF was re-assessed at one year. We compared differences between patients who recovered left ventricular function (EF > 45%; group 1) and those who did not (group 2). RESULTS: One year after discharge, 44.2% of the patients had recovered function. There were no significant differences between the groups in gender (77.7 vs. 76.5% male), age (56 vs. 59 years), hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking habits or family history. A previous history of cardiovascular events was more frequent in group 2 (11.1% vs. 35.3%, p = 0.03). Cardiac catheterization was performed before discharge in 88.8% and 88.2% in groups 1 and 2 respectively (p = NS); no differences were found in coronary anatomy between the two groups. Angioplasty was performed in 54.2% in group 1 and 50% in group 2 (p = NS). There were no differences in the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (83.3% vs. 87.5%), beta-blockers (87.5% vs. 87.5%), nitrates (37.5% vs. 33.3%), aspirin (95.8% vs. 95.8%), statins (79.1% vs. 75%) or diuretics (20.8% vs. 45.8%). There was no significant difference in LVF recovery between patients randomized to FUP or GC (38.5% vs. 54.5%). 87.5% of patients who completed the CRP had normal EF at one year compared to 32.7% of patients not referred to the program (p = 0.009). Although EF improved in both groups, this improvement was greater in patients who completed a CRP (EF 8% vs. 5%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: A previous cardiovascular event and completion of a CRP were the only variables that influenced LVF recovery. Thus, enrollment in a CRP, in addition to standard therapy, could be an important therapeutic measure in patients with systolic dysfunction after ACS; our data suggest that these programs should be more widely used.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]