This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Fruhwald, F. M. Articles by Klein, W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fruhwald, F. M. Articles by Klein, W. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Cardiomyopathy Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Long-Term Outcome and Prognostic Factors in Dilated Cardiomyopathy

Preliminary Results

Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Karl-Franzens-University, Graz, Austria

Johann Dusleag, M.D.

Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Karl-Franzens-University, Graz, Austria

Bernd Eber, M.D., F.A.C.A.

Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Karl-Franzens-University, Graz, Austria

Sonja Fruhwald, M.D.

Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Karl-Franzens-University, Graz, Austria

Robert Zweiker, M.D.

Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Karl-Franzens-University, Graz, Austria

Werner Klein, M.D.

Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Karl-Franzens-University, Graz, Austria

To investigate long-term follow-up and identify prognostic factors in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) the authors investigated 167 consecutive patients on an outpatient basis. All patients underwent left- and right-heart catheterization; follow-up comprised clinical and echocardiographic investigations.

Results: After a mean follow-up period of ninety-three ± thirty-six months 82 patients (49%; 71 men, 11 women, mean age fifty-five ± eleven years) were alive. 29 of them (27 men, 2 women, mean age fifty-two ± nine) showed normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after a mean follow-up period of one hundred four ± forty months. The remaining 53 patients (44 men, 9 women, mean age fifty-six ± eleven) revealed LVEF similar to that of the first examination. Eighty-five patients died (51%; 73 men, 12 women). Causes of death were the following: progressive heart failure, 24; sudden death, 23; stroke, 3; pulmonary embolism, 2; noncardiac death, 4; unknown causes, 29. The median period from the onset of first symptoms until definite diagnosis was two months in patients with stable conditions, three months in those with normalization of LVEF and twenty-four months in those who died, respectively (P < 0.01). At the time of diagnosis, patients with stable outcome had a mean LVEF (LVEF 1) of 37%, those who returned to normal had 40% (ns). Patients who died had a mean LVEF 1 of 32% and therefore differed significantly from both groups of survivors (P < 0.001). Left ventricular enddiastolic pressure (LVEDP) at the time of diagnosis was highest in patients who died (22 mmHg) and therefore differed significantly from both groups of survivors (normalization: 16 mmHg, stable patients: 18 mmHg, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: According to their results, time until diagnosis, LVEF, and LVEDP are prognostic indicators. No difference was noted between the groups concerning etiology, medical treatment, or functional classification according to the New York Heart Association.

Angiology, Vol. 45, No. 9, 763-770 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/000331979404500903


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?