Different prognostic impact of systolic function in patients with heart failure and/or acute myocardial infarction

Can left ventricular function be assessed on non-ECG-gated CT?

To evaluate whether non-gated computed tomography (CT) can assess left ventricular (LV) function, 101 patients with both CT and echocardiography were selected, with ejection fraction <50% on echocardiography used as a reference standard. CTs were blindly reevaluated, and qualitative assessment of LV dysfunction on CT correlated with echocardiographic dysfunction, odds ratio of 21.0 (95% confidence interval=6.55-71.0), specificity of 86% (56/65). Systolic and diastolic images were identified on CT, and the ratio of systolic to diastolic LV internal diameters and ratio of LV to RV internal diameter were determined, both showing correlation with LV dysfunction on echocardiography (P<.0001). Non-gated CT can be used to predict LV dysfunction.

Impact of the combined left ventricular systolic and renal dysfunction on one-year outcomes after primary percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of combined left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and renal dysfunction (RD) on 1-year overall mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (comprising cardiovascular death, nonfatal renfarction, target vessel revascularization, and nonfatal stroke) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI).

METHODS

One thousand three hundred ninety eight patients with first myocardial infarction, undergoing pPCI were divided into four groups according to the presence of LVSD (ejection fraction [EF] <40%) and/or baseline RD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per m(2)): Group I (no LVSD and no RD); Group II (LVSD, no RD); Group III (RD, no LVSD); Group IV (LVSD + RD).

RESULTS

One-year mortality rates in Groups I, II, III, and IV were 2.6%, 15.2%, 10.6%, and 34.2% and 1-year MACE rates were 5.7%, 19.5%, 17.1% and 35.7%, respectively. Patients in Groups II, III, and IV had an increased probability of 1-year overall mortality and MACE as compared to Group I. Overall mortality: Group II HR 2.1 (95% CI 1.1-4.2); Group III HR 2.1 (95% CI 1.1-4.1); Group IV HR 4.8 (95% CI 2.4-9.4); MACE: Group II HR 2.2 (95% CI 1.1-4.2); Group III HR 2.2 (95% CI 1.1-4.3); Group IV HR 5.1 (95% CI 2.6-10.1). The LVSD-RD combination was the strongest independent predictor for 1-year outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The LVSD-RD combination is associated with an approximately five-fold increase in 1-year overall mortality and MACE after pPCI. The evaluation of the renal function in patients with LVSD represents a simple method which enables a more precise stratification of the risks related to the occurrence of adverse events in long-term patient follow-up.

Identifying subjects who benefit from additional information for better prediction of the outcome variables

Suppose that we are interested in using new bio- or clinical markers, in addition to the conventional markers, to improve prediction or diagnosis of the patient's clinical outcome. The incremental value from the new markers is typically assessed by averaging across patients in the entire study population. However, when measuring the new markers is costly or invasive, an overall improvement does not justify measuring the new markers in all patients. A more practical strategy is to utilize the patient's conventional markers to decide whether the new markers are needed for improving prediction of his/her health outcomes. In this article, we propose inference procedures for the incremental values of new markers across various subgroups of patients classified by the conventional markers. The resulting point and interval estimates can be quite useful for medical decision makers seeking to balance the predictive or diagnostic value of new markers against their associated cost and risk. Our proposals are theoretically justified and illustrated empirically with two real examples.

Comparison of Regional Versus Global Assessment of Left Ventricular Function in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction, Heart Failure, or Both After Myocardial Infarction: The Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Echocardiographic Study

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and wall-motion index (WMI) have both been shown to be independent predictors of outcome after myocardial infarction (MI).

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine whether these two measurements of LV systolic function provide similar or complementary information about prognosis after MI.

METHODS

Echocardiography was performed in 610 patients with LV dysfunction, heart failure, or both after MI enrolled in the Valsartan in Acute MI trial. LVEF was estimated by biplane Simpson's rule, and WMI was assessed using a 16-segment model in 502 patients with echocardiograms of sufficient quality for wall-motion assessment.

RESULTS

Both LVEF and WMI were independent predictors of adverse outcome after MI. LVEF conferred no additional prognostic information in multivariable analysis including WMI (P = .39) or number of affected segments (P = .53), whereas WMI (P = .02) and total number of affected segments (P = .006) remained significant even when adjusting for LVEF.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of regional dysfunction by WMI or the number of affected segments has slightly more prognostic value than LVEF in patients with LV dysfunction, heart failure, or both after MI. Regional assessment might be a more sensitive predictor of outcome than global assessment in patients with acute MI.