Cargando…

Impact of medical therapy for cardiovascular disease on left ventricular diastolic properties and remodeling()()

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) remodeling and diastolic properties are affected by both underlying cardiovascular disease/cardiovascular disease risk factors (CVDRFs) and corresponding medication therapy. However, these effects may not be apparent in patients with multiple CVDRFs. We evaluated th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sharifov, Oleg F., Denney, Thomas S., Prabhu, Sumanth D., Lloyd, Steven G., Gupta, Himanshu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6510698/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31111086
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2019.100365
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) remodeling and diastolic properties are affected by both underlying cardiovascular disease/cardiovascular disease risk factors (CVDRFs) and corresponding medication therapy. However, these effects may not be apparent in patients with multiple CVDRFs. We evaluated the effect of medication classes on hemodynamics in a patient cohort with normal LV dimensions and systolic function. METHODS: In 38 participants (61 ± 7 years, 64 ± 9% LV ejection fraction) undergoing coronary angiography, LV pressure measurement and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed. The effects of coronary artery disease (CAD), CVDRFs and their corresponding medication therapy on LV parameters were analyzed considering the number of CAD/CVDRFs and ‘adequacy’ of medication therapy to address each existing condition with specific indication-based medication classes. RESULTS: Of the patients studied, 68% had CAD, 87% had hypertension, 87% had dyslipidemia, and 45% had diabetes. Neither individual or total number of CAD/CVDRFs were associated with overall differences in LV diastolic parameters. However, those without (n = 20) and with (n = 18) ‘adequate’ medication therapy for underlying CAD/CVDRFs differed in values of LV end diastolic pressure (17 ± 4 vs. 11 ± 5 mm Hg, P < 0.001), wall stress (3.9 ± 1.6 vs. 2.2 ± 1.2 x1000 N/m(2), P < 0.001), pressure/volume ratio (0.13 ± 0.04 vs. 0.08 ± 0.03 mm Hg/ml, P < 0.01), and mass/volume ratio (0.77 ± 0.20 vs. 0.92 ± 0.24 g/ml, P < 0.05), but not in systolic blood pressure or LV mass index. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest an association between the degree of LV diastolic impairment and LV remodeling with the intensity of treatment for CAD/CVDRFs. Comprehensive treatment of all identified CAD/CVDRFs may be an important factor for the preservation of diastolic function.