Myocardial contraction fraction predicts mortality in the oldest old.
Echocardiography
Elderly
Ventricular function
Journal
International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature
ISSN: 2352-9067
Titre abrégé: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 101649525
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
21
07
2022
revised:
14
11
2022
accepted:
23
11
2022
entrez:
1
12
2022
pubmed:
2
12
2022
medline:
2
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
People over the age of 85 are the world's most rapidly growing age group. Ejection fraction (EF) may be limited prognostically in this population and myocardial contraction fraction (MCF) may be more accurate. The objective of this longitudinal study was to assess the prognosis of MCF in an age-homogenous, community-dwelling population of subjects. Subjects were recruited from the Jerusalem Longitudinal Cohort Study. Echocardiography was performed with a portable echocardiograph at the subjects place of residence. Standard echocardiographic assessment of cardiac structure and function including MCF was performed. Values of EF and MCF above and below the median for males and females were defined as normal and abnormal in categorical analysis. 5-year mortality was assessed via a centralized government database. 418 subjects (199 males, 219 females) were enrolled in the study of whom 113 (27 %) died at the time of 5-year follow-up. Subjects who died had significantly lower MCF (32 ± 14 % vs 36 ± 12 %; p < 0.004) and EF (51.6 ± 11.6 % vs 56.3 ± 9.4 %; p < 0.0001) than survivors. The association between MCF and mortality remained significant on clinical multivariate analysis as both a categorical and continuous variable while EF was only significant as a continous variable. When both EF and MCF were added to the model only MCF as a categorical variable remained significant. MCF assessed by home echocardiography provides additional prognostic information to EF and may be a superior predictor of 5-year mortality in a community-dwelling population of the oldest old.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
People over the age of 85 are the world's most rapidly growing age group. Ejection fraction (EF) may be limited prognostically in this population and myocardial contraction fraction (MCF) may be more accurate. The objective of this longitudinal study was to assess the prognosis of MCF in an age-homogenous, community-dwelling population of subjects.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Subjects were recruited from the Jerusalem Longitudinal Cohort Study. Echocardiography was performed with a portable echocardiograph at the subjects place of residence. Standard echocardiographic assessment of cardiac structure and function including MCF was performed. Values of EF and MCF above and below the median for males and females were defined as normal and abnormal in categorical analysis. 5-year mortality was assessed via a centralized government database.
Results
UNASSIGNED
418 subjects (199 males, 219 females) were enrolled in the study of whom 113 (27 %) died at the time of 5-year follow-up. Subjects who died had significantly lower MCF (32 ± 14 % vs 36 ± 12 %; p < 0.004) and EF (51.6 ± 11.6 % vs 56.3 ± 9.4 %; p < 0.0001) than survivors. The association between MCF and mortality remained significant on clinical multivariate analysis as both a categorical and continuous variable while EF was only significant as a continous variable. When both EF and MCF were added to the model only MCF as a categorical variable remained significant.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
MCF assessed by home echocardiography provides additional prognostic information to EF and may be a superior predictor of 5-year mortality in a community-dwelling population of the oldest old.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36452440
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2022.101158
pii: S2352-9067(22)00207-X
pmc: PMC9703609
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
101158Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Oct 1;42(7):1199-205
pubmed: 14522480
Int J Epidemiol. 2009 Dec;38(6):1464-9
pubmed: 19056807
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 22;70(8):942-954
pubmed: 28818204
JAMA. 1998 Feb 25;279(8):585-92
pubmed: 9486752
Circulation. 2011 Mar 1;123(8):933-44
pubmed: 21262990
Eur J Epidemiol. 1995 Dec;11(6):675-84
pubmed: 8861852
Am J Cardiol. 2017 Mar 15;119(6):923-928
pubmed: 28073429
Am J Cardiol. 1999 Oct 1;84(7):829-32
pubmed: 10513783
Am Heart J. 2010 Sep;160(3):471-8
pubmed: 20826255
Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2020 Feb;10(1):12-23
pubmed: 32175223
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016 Apr;29(4):277-314
pubmed: 27037982
J Card Fail. 2019 Jun;25(6):450-456
pubmed: 30928539
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Dec 01;18(12):1414-1422
pubmed: 28165128
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Mar 6;49(9):972-81
pubmed: 17336721
Circulation. 2002 Apr 23;105(16):1928-33
pubmed: 11997279
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 May;2(3):191-8
pubmed: 19808592
J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Jun 1;7(11):
pubmed: 29858363
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Jul 17;40(2):325-9
pubmed: 12106939
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Mar;13(3):873-878
pubmed: 32139035
Echocardiography. 2019 Oct;36(10):1825-1833
pubmed: 31573711
Blood Press. 2010 Apr;19(2):86-91
pubmed: 20367546
Am J Cardiol. 2012 Mar 15;109(6):901-5
pubmed: 22189012
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jan;28(1):1-39.e14
pubmed: 25559473
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Feb 11;63(5):447-56
pubmed: 24184245
Am J Cardiol. 1986 Feb 15;57(6):450-8
pubmed: 2936235
J Card Fail. 2018 Aug;24(8):504-511
pubmed: 30010028