Cargando…

Prognostic differences in long‐standing vs. recent‐onset dilated cardiomyopathy

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the outcome and prognostic factors in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and long‐standing heart failure (LDCM) vs. recent‐onset heart failure (RODCM). METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared 2019 patients with RODCM (duration <6 months, mean age 58.6 years, 70...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Silverdal, Jonas, Sjöland, Helen, Pivodic, Aldina, Dahlström, Ulf, Fu, Michael, Bollano, Entela
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8934954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35132793
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13816
_version_ 1784671941289836544
author Silverdal, Jonas
Sjöland, Helen
Pivodic, Aldina
Dahlström, Ulf
Fu, Michael
Bollano, Entela
author_facet Silverdal, Jonas
Sjöland, Helen
Pivodic, Aldina
Dahlström, Ulf
Fu, Michael
Bollano, Entela
author_sort Silverdal, Jonas
collection PubMed
description AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the outcome and prognostic factors in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and long‐standing heart failure (LDCM) vs. recent‐onset heart failure (RODCM). METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared 2019 patients with RODCM (duration <6 months, mean age 58.6 years, 70.7% male) with 1714 patients with LDCM (duration ≥6 months, median duration 3.5 years, mean age 62.5 years, 73.7% male) included in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry in the years 2003–16. Outcome measures were all‐cause, cardiovascular (CV), and non‐CV death and hospitalizations; heart transplantation; and a combined outcome of all‐cause death, heart transplantation, or heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Multivariable risk factor analyses were performed for the combined endpoint. All outcomes were more frequent in LDCM than in RODCM. The multivariable‐adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence interval) for LDCM vs. RODCM were 1.56 (1.34–1.82), P < 0.0001, for all‐cause death over a median follow‐up of 4.2 and 5.0 years, respectively; 1.67 (1.36–2.05), P < 0.0001, for CV death; 2.12 (1.14–3.91), P < 0.0001, for heart transplantation; 1.36 (1.21–1.53), P < 0.0001, for HF hospitalization; and 1.37 (1.24–1.52), P < 0.0001, for the combined outcome. A propensity score‐matched analysis yielded similar results. CV death was the main cause of mortality in LDCM and was higher in LDCM than in RODCM (P < 0.0001). Almost all co‐morbidities were significantly more frequent in LDCM than in RODCM, and the mean number of co‐morbidities increased significantly with increased duration of disease, also after age adjustment. Age, New York Heart Association functional class, ejection fraction, and left bundle branch block were prognostically adverse. The only co‐morbidity associated with the combined outcome regardless of HF duration was diabetes, in LDCM [HR 1.34 (1.15–1.56), P = 0.0002] and in RODCM [HR 1.29 (1.04–1.59), P = 0.018]. Male sex [HR 1.38 (1.18–1.63), P < 0.0001] and aspirin use [HR 1.33 (1.14–1.55), P = 0.0004] carried increased risk only in RODCM. Heart rate ≥75 b.p.m. [HR 1.20 (1.04–1.37), P = 0.01], atrial fibrillation [HR 1.24 (1.08–1.42), P = 0.0024], musculoskeletal or connective tissue disorder [HR 1.36 (1.13–1.63), P = 0.0014], and diuretic therapy [HR 1.40 (1.17–1.67), P = 0.0002] were prognostically adverse only in LDCM. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide study of patients with DCM demonstrates that longer disease duration is associated with worse prognosis. Co‐morbidities are more common in long‐standing HF than in recent‐onset HF and are associated with worse outcome. With the increased survival seen in the last decades, our results highlight the importance of careful attention to co‐morbid conditions in patients with DCM.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8934954
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89349542022-03-24 Prognostic differences in long‐standing vs. recent‐onset dilated cardiomyopathy Silverdal, Jonas Sjöland, Helen Pivodic, Aldina Dahlström, Ulf Fu, Michael Bollano, Entela ESC Heart Fail Original Articles AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the outcome and prognostic factors in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and long‐standing heart failure (LDCM) vs. recent‐onset heart failure (RODCM). METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared 2019 patients with RODCM (duration <6 months, mean age 58.6 years, 70.7% male) with 1714 patients with LDCM (duration ≥6 months, median duration 3.5 years, mean age 62.5 years, 73.7% male) included in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry in the years 2003–16. Outcome measures were all‐cause, cardiovascular (CV), and non‐CV death and hospitalizations; heart transplantation; and a combined outcome of all‐cause death, heart transplantation, or heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Multivariable risk factor analyses were performed for the combined endpoint. All outcomes were more frequent in LDCM than in RODCM. The multivariable‐adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence interval) for LDCM vs. RODCM were 1.56 (1.34–1.82), P < 0.0001, for all‐cause death over a median follow‐up of 4.2 and 5.0 years, respectively; 1.67 (1.36–2.05), P < 0.0001, for CV death; 2.12 (1.14–3.91), P < 0.0001, for heart transplantation; 1.36 (1.21–1.53), P < 0.0001, for HF hospitalization; and 1.37 (1.24–1.52), P < 0.0001, for the combined outcome. A propensity score‐matched analysis yielded similar results. CV death was the main cause of mortality in LDCM and was higher in LDCM than in RODCM (P < 0.0001). Almost all co‐morbidities were significantly more frequent in LDCM than in RODCM, and the mean number of co‐morbidities increased significantly with increased duration of disease, also after age adjustment. Age, New York Heart Association functional class, ejection fraction, and left bundle branch block were prognostically adverse. The only co‐morbidity associated with the combined outcome regardless of HF duration was diabetes, in LDCM [HR 1.34 (1.15–1.56), P = 0.0002] and in RODCM [HR 1.29 (1.04–1.59), P = 0.018]. Male sex [HR 1.38 (1.18–1.63), P < 0.0001] and aspirin use [HR 1.33 (1.14–1.55), P = 0.0004] carried increased risk only in RODCM. Heart rate ≥75 b.p.m. [HR 1.20 (1.04–1.37), P = 0.01], atrial fibrillation [HR 1.24 (1.08–1.42), P = 0.0024], musculoskeletal or connective tissue disorder [HR 1.36 (1.13–1.63), P = 0.0014], and diuretic therapy [HR 1.40 (1.17–1.67), P = 0.0002] were prognostically adverse only in LDCM. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide study of patients with DCM demonstrates that longer disease duration is associated with worse prognosis. Co‐morbidities are more common in long‐standing HF than in recent‐onset HF and are associated with worse outcome. With the increased survival seen in the last decades, our results highlight the importance of careful attention to co‐morbid conditions in patients with DCM. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-02-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8934954/ /pubmed/35132793 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13816 Text en © 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Silverdal, Jonas
Sjöland, Helen
Pivodic, Aldina
Dahlström, Ulf
Fu, Michael
Bollano, Entela
Prognostic differences in long‐standing vs. recent‐onset dilated cardiomyopathy
title Prognostic differences in long‐standing vs. recent‐onset dilated cardiomyopathy
title_full Prognostic differences in long‐standing vs. recent‐onset dilated cardiomyopathy
title_fullStr Prognostic differences in long‐standing vs. recent‐onset dilated cardiomyopathy
title_full_unstemmed Prognostic differences in long‐standing vs. recent‐onset dilated cardiomyopathy
title_short Prognostic differences in long‐standing vs. recent‐onset dilated cardiomyopathy
title_sort prognostic differences in long‐standing vs. recent‐onset dilated cardiomyopathy
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8934954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35132793
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13816
work_keys_str_mv AT silverdaljonas prognosticdifferencesinlongstandingvsrecentonsetdilatedcardiomyopathy
AT sjolandhelen prognosticdifferencesinlongstandingvsrecentonsetdilatedcardiomyopathy
AT pivodicaldina prognosticdifferencesinlongstandingvsrecentonsetdilatedcardiomyopathy
AT dahlstromulf prognosticdifferencesinlongstandingvsrecentonsetdilatedcardiomyopathy
AT fumichael prognosticdifferencesinlongstandingvsrecentonsetdilatedcardiomyopathy
AT bollanoentela prognosticdifferencesinlongstandingvsrecentonsetdilatedcardiomyopathy