Login
Search
Search
0 Dates
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
0 Events
CPC 2018
CPC 2019
Curso de Atualização em Medicina Cardiovascular 2019
Reunião Anual Conjunta dos Grupos de Estudo de Cirurgia Cardíaca, Doenças Valvulares e Ecocardiografia da SPC
CPC 2020
CPC 2021
CPC 2022
CPC 2023
CPC 2024
0 Topics
A. Basics
B. Imaging
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
D. Heart Failure
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
G. Aortic Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Stroke
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
I. Hypertension
J. Preventive Cardiology
K. Cardiovascular Disease In Special Populations
L. Cardiovascular Pharmacology
M. Cardiovascular Nursing
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
O. Basic Science
P. Other
0 Themes
01. History of Cardiology
02. Clinical Skills
03. Imaging
04. Arrhythmias, General
05. Atrial Fibrillation
06. Supraventricular Tachycardia (non-AF)
07. Syncope and Bradycardia
08. Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
09. Device Therapy
10. Chronic Heart Failure
11. Acute Heart Failure
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
14. Acute Cardiac Care
15. Valvular Heart Disease
16. Infective Endocarditis
17. Myocardial Disease
18. Pericardial Disease
19. Tumors of the Heart
20. Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology
21. Pulmonary Circulation, Pulmonary Embolism, Right Heart Failure
22. Aortic Disease
23. Peripheral Vascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
24. Stroke
25. Interventional Cardiology
26. Cardiovascular Surgery
27. Hypertension
28. Risk Factors and Prevention
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
30. Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations
31. Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
32. Cardiovascular Nursing
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
34. Public Health and Health Economics
35. Research Methodology
36. Basic Science
37. Miscellanea
0 Resources
Abstract
Slides
Vídeo
Report
CLEAR FILTERS
Prognostic impact of right ventricular function in advanced heart failure
Session:
Posters (Sessão 4 - Écran 4) - Insuficiência Cardíaca 4 - Vários 2
Speaker:
Ana Rita Teixeira
Congress:
CPC 2022
Topic:
D. Heart Failure
Theme:
10. Chronic Heart Failure
Subtheme:
10.2 Chronic Heart Failure – Epidemiology, Prognosis, Outcome
Session Type:
Pósters Electrónicos
FP Number:
---
Authors:
Ana Rita Teixeira; João Ferreira Reis; António Valentim Gonçalves; Rita Ilhão Moreira; Tiago Pereira da Silva; Ana Teresa Timóteo; Bárbara Lacerda Teixeira; Sofia Jacinto; Rui Cruz Ferreira
Abstract
<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="color:black">Introduction: </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="color:black">In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">HFrEF<span style="color:black">), the presence of coexistent right ventricular (RV) systolic dysfunction is associated with a worse functional capacity and outcome. However, the measurement of RV function is often overshadowed by its left counterpart.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="color:black">Objective : </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="color:black">To assess the prognostic impact of RV dysfunction in a population of advanced HF patients.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Methods: </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Prospective evaluation of adult patients with advanced HFrEF were referred to our Institution for evaluation with HF team and possible indication for urgent heart transplantation (HT) or MCS. <span style="color:black">Patients</span> were followed up for 1 year for the primary endpoint of cardiac death and HT. RV systolic dysfunction was defined by a tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) < 17 mm and/ or fractional area change (FAC) < 35%. A survival analysis was performed to evaluate the prognostic impact of RV dysfunction and survival curves were compared using the log-rank test.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Results: </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A total of 450 <span style="color:black">HFrEF</span> patients (</span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">mean age of 56±12 years, 80% male, mean LVEF of 29±4%, mean TAPSE of 19±3 mm and FAC of 37±6%), of which 30.4% had RV dysfunction. Thirty patients (6.7%) met the primary endpoint. Patients with RV dysfunction had a higher NT-proBNP value (3278.9±296.7 pg/mL, p = 0.005) and a lower LVEF (26.7±6.4 vs 31.4±5.1, p < 0.001), as well as worse cardiopulmonary fitness (CPET duration: 7.2±3.8 vs 8.6±4.1, p = 0.019; pVO<sub>2</sub>: 13.6±4.9 vs 16.2±6.1 ml/kg/min, p = 0.006; VE/VCO<sub>2</sub> slope: 41.8±11.9 vs 37.0±10.6, p = 0.015; cardiorespiratory optimal point: 33.0±8.9 vs 28.4±6.2, p < 0.001). RV dysfunction was associated with a lower survival free of events during the first follow-up year (log-rank p = 0.046).</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Conclusion: </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">RV is associated with a poor outcome in advanced HF patients, and it may improve risk stratification in this population.</span></span></span></span></p>
Slides
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
Visit our site