OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of left ventricular (LV) diastolic filling on remodeling and survival after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the link between LV filling, its changes over time, and six-month remodeling and late survival in uncomplicated AMI. METHODS: Doppler mitral profile, end-diastolic volume index (EDVi) and end-systolic volume index (ESVi), ejection fraction (EF), and wall motion abnormalities (%WMA) were evaluated in 571 patients from the GISSI-3 Echo substudy at baseline, pre-discharge, and six months after AMI. Patients with baseline early mitral deceleration time (DT) 130 ms were assigned to the restrictive group (n = 147), and those with DT >130 ms to the nonrestrictive group (n = 424). RESULTS: Restrictive group patients had greater baseline ESVi and %WMA and lower EF than nonrestrictive group, and six-month greater LV dilation (EDVi, ESVi: p < 0.001 for EDVi and ESVi), smaller decrease in %WMA decrease (p < 0.01), and larger EF impairment (p < 0.008). Among the restrictive group, patients (n = 56) with pre-discharge persistent restrictive filling (n = 56) showed six-month greater LV enlargement (p < 0.001) and EF impairment (p < 0.009) than those (n = 91) with reversible restrictive filling. Baseline %WMA and EDVi, together with pre-discharge persistent restrictive filling, predicted severe (>20%) LV dilation. Four-year survival was 93% in nonrestrictive patients versus 88% in the restrictive group (p < 0.06), and 93% in pre-discharge reversible restrictive versus 79% in persistent restrictive (p < 0.0003). The single best predictor of mortality, by Cox analysis, was pre-discharge persistent restrictive filling (chi-square 14.88). CONCLUSIONS: Left ventricular dilation may occur even after uncomplicated AMI and may be paralleled by an improvement in LV filling. However, a baseline restrictive filling that persists at pre-discharge identifies more compromised patients at higher risk for six-month remodeling and four-year mortality.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of left ventricular (LV) diastolic filling on remodeling and survival after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the link between LV filling, its changes over time, and six-month remodeling and late survival in uncomplicated AMI. METHODS: Doppler mitral profile, end-diastolic volume index (EDVi) and end-systolic volume index (ESVi), ejection fraction (EF), and wall motion abnormalities (%WMA) were evaluated in 571 patients from the GISSI-3 Echo substudy at baseline, pre-discharge, and six months after AMI. Patients with baseline early mitral deceleration time (DT) 130 ms were assigned to the restrictive group (n = 147), and those with DT >130 ms to the nonrestrictive group (n = 424). RESULTS: Restrictive group patients had greater baseline ESVi and %WMA and lower EF than nonrestrictive group, and six-month greater LV dilation (EDVi, ESVi: p < 0.001 for EDVi and ESVi), smaller decrease in %WMA decrease (p < 0.01), and larger EF impairment (p < 0.008). Among the restrictive group, patients (n = 56) with pre-discharge persistent restrictive filling (n = 56) showed six-month greater LV enlargement (p < 0.001) and EF impairment (p < 0.009) than those (n = 91) with reversible restrictive filling. Baseline %WMA and EDVi, together with pre-discharge persistent restrictive filling, predicted severe (>20%) LV dilation. Four-year survival was 93% in nonrestrictive patients versus 88% in the restrictive group (p < 0.06), and 93% in pre-discharge reversible restrictive versus 79% in persistent restrictive (p < 0.0003). The single best predictor of mortality, by Cox analysis, was pre-discharge persistent restrictive filling (chi-square 14.88). CONCLUSIONS:Left ventricular dilation may occur even after uncomplicated AMI and may be paralleled by an improvement in LV filling. However, a baseline restrictive filling that persists at pre-discharge identifies more compromised patients at higher risk for six-month remodeling and four-year mortality.
Authors: B A Popescu; F Antonini-Canterin; P L Temporelli; P Giannuzzi; E Bosimini; F Gentile; A P Maggioni; L Tavazzi; R Piazza; L Ascione; I Stoian; E Cervesato; A C Popescu; G L Nicolosi Journal: Heart Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Punsak Wuthiwaropas; Diego Bellavia; Mohamed Omer; Ray W Squires; Christopher G Scott; Patricia A Pellikka Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-11-18 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Jum Suk Ko; Myung Ho Jeong; Min Goo Lee; Shin Eun Lee; Won Yu Kang; Soo Hyun Kim; Keun-Ho Park; Doo Sun Sim; Nam Sik Yoon; Hyun Ju Yoon; Young Joon Hong; Hyung Wook Park; Ju Han Kim; Youngkeun Ahn; Jeong Gwan Cho; Jong Chun Park; Jung Chaee Kang Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 3.243