TY - JOUR
T1 - Analysis of clinical and echocardiographic predictors of prognosis following left ventricular remodeling surgery
AU - Asher, Craig R.
AU - Garcia, Mario
AU - Starling, Randall C.
AU - Amrousy, Mahmoud El
AU - Maragos, Stavros
AU - Vargo, Rita L.
AU - Scalia, Gregory M.
AU - Thomas, James D.
AU - McCarthy, Patrick M.
PY - 1997
Y1 - 1997
N2 - Left ventricular remodeling surgery (LVR) is an innovative operative procedure that has improved the functional capacity of many pts. with dilated cardiomyopathy. It is unknown whether preoperative clinical and echocardiographic variables can identify patients that will benefit most from this procedure. METHODS: During the period 5/96-10/96, 30 LVR were performed at our institution. Multiple clinical and echocardiographic factors were analyzed in a multivariable logistic regression model to predict outcomes. Echocardiogaphic analysis included detailed parameters of systolic and diastolic function. RESULTS: Of the 30 pts. that underwent LVR (7 F, 23 M), we analyzed 29. One pt. was excluded due to preoperative LVAD insertion. Baseline characteristics for the group included: mean age: 56.2 +/- 8.7; LVEF: 13.8% +/- 5.2, LVIDd: 8.0 +/- 1.1cm, VO2 max - 13.4 +/- 2.3 and peak mitral e wave: 100 cm/s. At follow-up of 2-7 months, 9 (31%) pts. reached 1 or more of 4 endpoints including need for LVAD, transplantation, relisting for transplantation or need for inotropic support. None of the variables assessed reached univariate or multivariate significance predicting these outcomes. In addition, there was no correlation between improvement in LVEF and outcome. CONCLUSION: Our initial experience with LVR demonstrates clinical improvement in most pts. However, clinical and resting echocardiographic parameters are not useful predicting outcomes.
AB - Left ventricular remodeling surgery (LVR) is an innovative operative procedure that has improved the functional capacity of many pts. with dilated cardiomyopathy. It is unknown whether preoperative clinical and echocardiographic variables can identify patients that will benefit most from this procedure. METHODS: During the period 5/96-10/96, 30 LVR were performed at our institution. Multiple clinical and echocardiographic factors were analyzed in a multivariable logistic regression model to predict outcomes. Echocardiogaphic analysis included detailed parameters of systolic and diastolic function. RESULTS: Of the 30 pts. that underwent LVR (7 F, 23 M), we analyzed 29. One pt. was excluded due to preoperative LVAD insertion. Baseline characteristics for the group included: mean age: 56.2 +/- 8.7; LVEF: 13.8% +/- 5.2, LVIDd: 8.0 +/- 1.1cm, VO2 max - 13.4 +/- 2.3 and peak mitral e wave: 100 cm/s. At follow-up of 2-7 months, 9 (31%) pts. reached 1 or more of 4 endpoints including need for LVAD, transplantation, relisting for transplantation or need for inotropic support. None of the variables assessed reached univariate or multivariate significance predicting these outcomes. In addition, there was no correlation between improvement in LVEF and outcome. CONCLUSION: Our initial experience with LVR demonstrates clinical improvement in most pts. However, clinical and resting echocardiographic parameters are not useful predicting outcomes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748841030&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748841030&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:33748841030
SN - 0894-7317
VL - 10
SP - 427
JO - Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography
JF - Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography
IS - 4
ER -