Journals / Türk Kardiyoloji Derneği Arşivi / 2020 / Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of clinical characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction with atrial fibrillation versus sinus rhythm: Insights from the APOLLON registry

Atriyal fibrilasyon ve sinüs ritminde olan korunmuş ejeksiyon fraksiyonlu kalp yetersizliği hastalarının klinik özelliklerinin karşılaştırılması: APOLLON çalışmasından sonuçlar

Pages
234–245
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Compared to the patients with SR, those with AF were older (70 years vs 66 years; p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) and compare them with those of HFpEF patients without AF.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: This study was a sub-group analysis of a multicenter, observational, and cross-sectional registry conducted in Turkey (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03026114).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Compared to the patients with SR, those with AF were older (70 years vs 66 years; p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) and compare them with those of HFpEF patients without AF. Methods: This study was a sub-group analysis of a multicenter, observational, and cross-sectional registry conducted in Turkey (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03026114). Patients with HFpEF were divided into 2 groups: HFpEF with AF and HFpEF with sinus rhythm (SR), and the clinical characteristics of the groups were compared. Results: In a total of 819 HFpEF patients (median age: 67 years; 58% women), 313 (38.2%) had AF. Compared to the patients with SR, those with AF were older (70 years vs 66 years; p

Özet

Amaç: Atriyal fibrilasyonu (AF) bulunan korunmuş ejeksiyon fraksiyonlu kalp yetersizliği (KEF-KY) hastalarının klinik özelliklerini değerlendirmeyi ve bu hastaların klinik özelliklerini AF’si bulunmayan KEF-KY hastalarıyla karşılaştırmayı amaçladık. Yöntemler: Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de yürütülmüş olan, daha kapsamlı, çok merkezli, gözlemsel ve kesitsel bir kayıt çalışmasının alt grup analizi olarak tasarlandı (NCT03026114). KEF-KY hastaları; AF ritminde olan KEF-KY hastaları ve sinüs ritminde (SR) olan KEF-KY hastaları olarak iki gruba ayrılarak, bu hastaların klinik karakteristik özellikleri karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Toplam 819 KEF-KY hastası (ortanca yaş 67 yıl, %58 kadın) içinde, 313 (%38.2) hastada AF mevcuttu. SR olan hastalara kıyasla, AF mevcut olan hastalar daha yaşlı (70’e karşı 66 yıl, p

🔖

Cite This Article

BİTEKER, M., ÇELİK, O., BEKAR, L., ÇAKIR, O., ÇELİK, Y., SANCAR, K. M., KAHRAMAN, S., DOĞAN, V., KAYA, B. C., BAŞARAN, Ö., TEKİNALP, M., RENCÜZOĞULLARI, İ., ÖZLEK, B., ÖZLEK, E., SEVİNÇ, S., ÇİL, C., ÖSKEN, A., MERT, G. Ö., ZENCİRKİRAN, H., U, K. (2022). Comparison of clinical characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction with atrial fibrillation versus sinus rhythm: Insights from the APOLLON registry. Türk Kardiyoloji Derneği Arşivi, Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 3, 234–245. https://ajindex.com/articles/631986

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Lloyd-Jones DM, Larson MG, Leip EP, Beiser A, D’Agostino RB, Kannel WB, et al. Lifetime risk for developing congestive heart failure: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 2002;106:3068–72
  2. Steinberg JS. Atrial fibrillation: an emerging epidemic? Heart 2004;90:239–40
  3. Yancy CW, Lopatin M, Stevenson LW, De Marco T, Fonarow GC; ADHERE Scientific Advisory Committee and Investigators. Clinical presentation, management, and in-hospital outcomes of patients admitted with acute decompensated heart failure with preserved systolic function: a report from the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) Database. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:76–84
  4. Oktay AA, Rich JD, Shah SJ. The emerging epidemic of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Curr Heart Fail Rep 2013;10:401–10
  5. Yılmaz MB, Çelik A, Çavuşoğlu Y, Bekar L, Onrat E, Eren M, et al. Snapshot evaluation of heart failure in Turkey: Baseline characteristics of SELFIE-TR. [Article in Turkish] Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars 2019;47:198–206
  6. Bhatia RS, Tu JV, Lee DS, Austin PC, Fang J, Haouzi A, et al. Outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a population-based study. N Engl J Med 2006;355:260–9
  7. McManus DD, Hsu G, Sung SH, Saczynski JS, Smith DH, Magid DJ, et al. Atrial fibrillation and outcomes in heart failure with preserved versus reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Heart Assoc 2013;2:e005694
  8. Zakeri R, Chamberlain AM, Roger VL, Redfield MM. Temporal relationship and prognostic significance of atrial fibrillation in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction: a community-based study. Circulation 2013;128:1085–93
  9. Bursi F, Weston SA, Redfield MM, Jacobsen SJ, Pakhomov S, Nkomo VT, et al. Systolic and diastolic heart failure in the community. JAMA 2006;296:2209–16
  10. Lenzen MJ, Scholte op Reimer WJ, Boersma E, Vantrimpont PJ, Follath F, Swedberg K, et al. Differences between patients with a preserved and a depressed left ventricular function: a report from the EuroHeart Failure Survey. Eur Heart J 2004;25:1214–20
  11. Benjamin EJ, Levy D, Vaziri SM, D’Agostino RB, Belanger AJ, Wolf PA. Independent risk factors for atrial fibrillation in a population-based cohort. The Framingham Heart Study. JAMA 1994;271:840–4
  12. Huxley RR, Lopez FL, Folsom AR, Agarwal SK, Loehr LR, Soliman EZ, et al. Absolute and attributable risks of atrial fibrillation in relation to optimal and borderline risk factors: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Commu