Evaluation of the pharmacotherapeutic impact on contractility recovery in patients with newly diagnosed, acute onset dilated cardiomyopathy.

In patients with acute onset dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) an improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) can occur as an effect of complex therapy. The aim of the study was to evaluate a pharmacotherapeutic impact on LVEF recovery in newly diagnosed DCM heart failure (HF) patients. A total of 2436 patients hospitalized due to acute decompensated HF were retrospectively analyzed. Finally, 24 patients with newly diagnosed DCM (51.4 ±â€…16.3 years, New York Heart Association 2.3 ±â€…0.7, LVEF 25 ±â€…10%) were observed (13.4 ±â€…16.0 months) in terms of the result of complex therapy. Patients were divided according to LVEF improvement on follow-up echocardiography: "recovery group" (LVEF improvement > 5%; n = 13) and "nonrecovery group" (∆LVEF ≤ 5%; n = 11). Evaluation of baseline parameters showed lower LVEF (19 ±â€…6 vs 31 ±â€…10%; P = .0048) and lower incidence of arterial hypertension (27% vs 73%; P = .043) in "recovery" group. After follow-up period LVEF was similar in both groups; however, significant LVEF improvement was demonstrated only in the "recovery group" (19 ±â€…6% to 34 ±â€…8%; P < .001). Only the "recovery group" showed significant HF symptoms reduction (New York Heart Association class: 2.5 ±â€…0.7 to 1.6 ±â€…0.6; P = .003). The "recovery group" had prescribed higher doses of loop diuretic (equivalent dose of furosemidum: 80 ±â€…38 mg vs 43 ±â€…24 mg; P = .025). Despite optimal therapy, significant LVEF improvement is observed only in the half of the patients with newly diagnosed DCM with HF with reduced EF. Prescription of higher doses of loop diuretics may have positive effect on the reduction of symptoms in newly diagnosed DCM HF patients. Lack of other risk factors such as arterial hypertension may increase the chance of LVEF recovery.

Heart Failure with Improved Ejection Fraction: Insight into the Variable Nature of Left Ventricular Systolic Function.

The progress of contemporary cardiovascular therapy has led to improved survival in patients with myocardial disease. However, the development of heart failure (HF) represents a common clinical challenge, regardless of the underlying myocardial pathology, due to the severely impaired quality of life and increased mortality comparable with malignant neoplasms. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the main index of systolic function and a key predictor of mortality among HF patients, hence its improvement represents the main indicator of response to instituted therapy. The introduction of complex pharmacotherapy for HF, increased availability of cardiac-implantable electronic devices and advances in the management of secondary causes of HF, including arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy, have led to significant increase in the proportion of patients with prominent improvement or even normalization of LVEF, paving the way for the identification of a new subgroup of HF with an improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF). Accumulating data has indicated that these patients share far better long-term prognoses than patients with stable or worsening LVEF. Due to diverse HF aetiology, the prevalence of HFimpEF ranges from roughly 10 to 40%, while the search for reliable predictors and genetic associations corresponding with this clinical presentation is under way. As contemporary guidelines focus mainly on the management of HF patients with clearly defined LVEF, the present review aimed to characterize the definition, epidemiology, predictors, clinical significance and principles of therapy of patients with HFimpEF.

New-generation drug eluting stent vs. bare metal stent in saphenous vein graft - 1 year outcomes by a propensity score ascertainment (SVG Baltic Registry).

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the efficacy of the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with new-designed drug-eluting stent (new-DES) vs. bare metal stent (BMS) of saphenous vein grafts (SVG) stenosis is scarce. The primary objective was to compare one-year clinical outcomes of PCI in stenosis of SVG using new-DES vs. BMS in a real-world population. METHODS AND RESULTS: We carried out a multi-center registry comparing new-DES with BMS in all consecutive patients undergoing PCI of SVG. The primary composite endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 1 year. This observation included 792 consecutive patients (mean age 69 ±â€¯8.9y), treated with either new-DES (n = 379, 47.9%) or BMS (n = 413, 52.1%). Among patients treated with new-DES compared with BMS, there was a lower risk of MACCE (21.4% vs. 28.3%, HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.95, p = 0.025) as well as myocardial infarction (MI) (6.3% vs. 12.1%; HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.82, p = 0.005) at 1 year. After propensity score adjustment, the similar, significant reduction in MACCE and MI was observed in favor of new-DES (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46-0.96, p = 0.030; and HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31-0.92, p = 0.020, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing PCI of SVG, the use of new-DES is associated with a reduced 1-year rate of MACCE and MI compared to BMS.