Home  About us  Contact
 

Functional Class IV (functional + class_iv)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Which Patients with Congestive Heart Failure May Benefit from Biventricular Pacing?

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 1p2 2003
NESTOR O. GALIZIO
GALIZIO, N.O., et al.: Which Patients with Congestive Heart Failure May Benefit from Biventricular Pacing?Background: Biventricular pacing improves the clinical status and ventricular function in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) and intraventricular conduction delay. However, patient selection criteria including NYHA functional class, rhythm, PR interval, QRS duration (QRSd), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular diastolic diameter (LVDD), and other variables are not clearly defined. Objective: To determine which and how many patients referred for an initial cardiac transplantation evaluation may be eligible for biventricular pacing (BP) according to the criteria of recently completed trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods: This was a retrospective review of 200 patients, whose mean age was51 ± 13years (173 men). Sinus rhythm was present in 88% of the patients, 107 had a QRSd >120 ms, and 38% had left bundle branch block. LVDD was72.5 ± 12 mmand LVEF21.7 ± 9.3%; 54% had mitral regurgitation. Results: When NYHA class, electrocardiographic, and ventricular function criteria were considered separately, a high proportion of patients appeared to be candidates for CRT: 70.5% were in NYHA functional class III/IV, 34% had QRSd ,150 ms, 60% had LVDD ,60 mm and 53.5% LVEF ,35%. However, the proportions of patients eligible for CRT were different according to the selection criteria of recently completed trials: 18% of the patients with InSync criteria, 13% of the patients with MUSTIC SR criteria, 0.5% with MUSTIC AF criteria, 27% of patients with MIRACLE criteria, and 35% of the patients with CONTAK CD criteria (without considering indications for implantable cardioverter defibrillator). Conclusion: In this population-based study, a wide range of patients (13% to 35%) would have been candidates for CRT, according to the selection criteria of different completed trials.(PACE 2003; 26[Pt. II]:158,161) [source]

Mitral Valve Replacements in Redo Patients with Previous Mitral Valve Procedures: Mid-Term Results and Risk Factors for Survival

JOURNAL OF CARDIAC SURGERY, Issue 5 2008
Tankut Hakki Akay M.D.
Patients and Methods: Between September 1989 and December 2003, 62 redo patients have undergone mitral valve replacements due to subsequent mitral valve problems. Preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were analyzed retrospectively and evaluated for risk factors affecting hospital mortality, mid- and long-term survival. Results: The hospital mortality was 6.4%. The one-, five-, and 10-year actuarial survival rates were 94%± 2%, 89%± 6%, and 81 ± 9%. New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV, low left ventricular ejection fraction (<35%), increased left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) > 50 mm, female gender, pulmonary edema, and urgent operations were found to be risk factors in short-term survival. NYHA functional class IV, low left ventricular ejection fraction, increased LVEDD, and increased left atrial diameter (LA > 60 mm) were risk factors in mid-term survival. Conclusion: Redo mitral valve surgery with mechanical prosthesis offers encouraging short- and mid-term survival. NYHA functional class IV, low left ventricular ejection fraction, and increased left ventricular diameters were especially associated with increased short- and mid-term mortality. Earlier surgical management before the development of severe heart failure and myocardial dysfunction would improve the results of redo mitral valve surgery. [source]

Long-Term Outcomes of CRT-PM Versus CRT-D Recipients

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 2009
GIUSEPPE STABILE M.D.
Objective: To compare the rates of all-cause mortality in recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy devices without (CRT-PM) versus with defibrillator (CRT-D). Methods: Between February 1999 and July 2004, 233 patients (mean age = 69 ± 8 years, 180 men) underwent implantation of CRT-PM or CRT-D devices. New York Heart Association (NYHA) heart failure functional class II was present in 11%, class III in 69%, and class IV in 20% of patients; mean left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) was 26.5 ± 6.5 %, 48% presented with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy and 49% with ischemic heart disease. Cox multiple variable regression analysis was performed in search of predictors of death. Results: The clinical characteristics of the 117 CRT-PM and 116 CRT-D recipients were similar, except for LVEF (28.2 ± 6.2% vs 25.0 ± 6.5%, respectively; P < 0.001), and ischemic versus nonischemic etiology of heart failure (41% vs 56%, respectively P = 0.02). Over a mean follow-up of 58 ± 15 months, no significance difference in overall mortality rate was observed between the two study groups. Male sex, NYHA functional class IV, and atrial fibrillation at implant were significant predictors of death. Conclusions: There was no difference in long-term survival rate among patients with CRT-D versus CRT-PM, although CRT-D more effectively lowered the sudden death rate. Male sex, NYHA functional class IV, and atrial fibrillation predicted the worst prognosis. [source]