Impact of mid-range ejection fraction on clinical outcomes in STEMI

  • Alkhalil M & al.
  • Int J Cardiol
  • 15 Jul 2020

  • curated by Sarfaroj Khan
  • UK Clinical Digest
Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals. Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals.

Takeaway

  • Patients presenting with mid-range ejection fraction (mrEF) following ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were at an increased risk of death, heart failure hospitalisation and ventricular arrhythmias vs those with preserved EF over long-term follow-up.
  • Suboptimal medical therapy in mrEF was linked to increased adverse clinical outcomes, particularly in patients with renal dysfunction

Why this matters

  • Findings support the need for dedicated clinical pathways to manage patients with mrEF after STEMI.

Study design

  • A retrospective analysis of 533 patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
  • Primary endpoint: composite of death, re-admission with heart failure, sustained ventricular arrhythmia requiring hospitalisation or implantable cardioverter defibrillator over 3 years follow-up.
  • Funding: None.

Key results

  • Preserved EF (≥50%), mrEF (40-49%) and reduced EF (
  • A stepwise increase was noted in the primary endpoint according to EF category: preserved EF (8%); mid-range EF (17%); and reduced EF (30%; P<.001>
  • The risk was significantly higher with mrEF vs preserved EF (HR, 4.08; 95% CI, 2.38-6.99; P<.001>
  • Suboptimal medical therapy was associated with an increased future risk in patients with mrEF (HR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.18-5.83; P=.018).
  • The proportion of patients with mrEF who experienced the primary endpoint was significantly different according to the kidney function status and recommended medical therapy:
    • 8% (preserved renal function on recommended therapy);
    • 20% (preserved renal function with suboptimal therapy);
    • 33% (abnormal renal function on recommended therapy); and
    • 50% (abnormal renal function with suboptimal therapy; P
  • Patients with mrEF and abnormal renal function receiving suboptimal therapy had an increased risk vs those with preserved renal function receiving recommended therapy (HR, 8.44; 95% CI, 2.83-25.18; P<.001>

Limitations

  • Retrospective design.