Abstract 4141581: Surgical revascularization of ischemic heart failure: a comparison between patients with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Introduction: Despite surgical myocardial revascularization(CABG) in patients with ischemic HF and reduced EF(HFrEF) is strongly supported, there is only limited evidence to guide revascularization in patients with HF and preserved EF(HFpEF). Research Questions: Should CHF be considered an independent risk-factor in patients undergoing CABG, irrespectively of preoperative LVEF? Aims: To determine the prognostic role of preserved versus reduced EF on the outcomes of patients with ischemic HF undergoing CABG. Methods: Between 2005-2019, 4079 consecutive patients with multivessel CAD underwent isolated, on-pump CABG at a single institution. Preoperative CHF was ascertained according to clinical symptoms, laboratory values and medical therapy. Preserved LV function was defined as EF≥50%. Accordingly, the study population was divided into 4 groups: Group I [NoHFpEF,2663 pts(65%)], Group II [HFpEF,214 pts(5%)], Group III [NoHFrEF,970 pts(24%)], and Group IV [HFrEF,232 pts(6%)]. A deterministic record linkage with the National Health Institute Database allowed unique identification of long-term mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events[acute MI, repeated PCI and HF admission(MACE)]. Results: Patients with HFpEF presented with a similar preoperative clinical profile compared to NoHF patients, while the incidence of comorbidities significantly increased through reduced EF groups. Completeness of revascularization was consistent across the study groups. Perioperative morbidity was similar between HFpEF and NoHF patients, but progressively increased in reduced EF groups. Moreover, 30-day mortality was comparable between HFpEF and Group I(1.4%vs1.2%, P=NS), but significantly increased in Group III(3.1%) and IV(5.6%, p<0.01 ). Finally, HFpEF showed a 10-years survival comparable to Group III(63%vs61%, p=NS) but significantly reduced to Group I(75%, p<0.01 ). On the contrary, 10-year freedom from MACE was comparable between HFpEF and Group I(60%vs 67%, p=0.34), and significantly higher than Group III and IV(47% and 38% respectively, p<0.01 – Figure1 ). Conclusions: HFpEF patients undergoing CABG showed comparable perioperative results to non-HF patients and significantly better long-term outcomes compared to HFrEF patients.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2024-11-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.150.suppl_1.4141581
Primary Topic
Cardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4141581: Surgical revascularization of ischemic heart failure: a comparison between patients with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Mariangela D’Ovidio, Lorenzo Menicanti, Andrea Daprati, Matteo Scarpanti et al.
Circulation
Cardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
article

Abstract 4141581: Surgical revascularization of ischemic heart failure: a comparison between patients with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Mariangela D’Ovidio, Lorenzo Menicanti, Andrea Daprati, Matteo Scarpanti, Andrea Garatti, Alessandro Parolari, Marco Guazzi, Alberto Canziani, Elisa Gastino, Carlo De Vincentiis, Francesca Rusconi, Stefano Buratti
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Despite surgical myocardial revascularization(CABG) in patients with ischemic HF and reduced EF(HFrEF) is strongly supported, there is only limited evidence to guide revascularization in patients with HF and preserved EF(HFpEF). Research Questions: Should CHF be considered an independent risk-factor in patients undergoing CABG, irrespectively of preoperative LVEF? Aims: To determine the prognostic role of preserved versus reduced EF on the outcomes of patients with ischemic HF undergoing CABG. Methods: Between 2005-2019, 4079 consecutive patients with multivessel CAD underwent isolated, on-pump CABG at a single institution. Preoperative CHF was ascertained according to clinical symptoms, laboratory values and medical therapy. Preserved LV function was defined as EF≥50%. Accordingly, the study population was divided into 4 groups: Group I [NoHFpEF,2663 pts(65%)], Group II [HFpEF,214 pts(5%)], Group III [NoHFrEF,970 pts(24%)], and Group IV [HFrEF,232 pts(6%)]. A deterministic record linkage with the National Health Institute Database allowed unique identification of long-term mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events[acute MI, repeated PCI and HF admission(MACE)]. Results: Patients with HFpEF presented with a similar preoperative clinical profile compared to NoHF patients, while the incidence of comorbidities significantly increased through reduced EF groups. Completeness of revascularization was consistent across the study groups. Perioperative morbidity was similar between HFpEF and NoHF patients, but progressively increased in reduced EF groups. Moreover, 30-day mortality was comparable between HFpEF and Group I(1.4%vs1.2%, P=NS), but significantly increased in Group III(3.1%) and IV(5.6%, p<0.01 ). Finally, HFpEF showed a 10-years survival comparable to Group III(63%vs61%, p=NS) but significantly reduced to Group I(75%, p<0.01 ). On the contrary, 10-year freedom from MACE was comparable between HFpEF and Group I(60%vs 67%, p=0.34), and significantly higher than Group III and IV(47% and 38% respectively, p<0.01 – Figure1 ). Conclusions: HFpEF patients undergoing CABG showed comparable perioperative results to non-HF patients and significantly better long-term outcomes compared to HFrEF patients.

CirculationVol. 150(Suppl_1)
University of Milan (IT), IRCCS Policlinico San Donato (IT), Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Santi Paolo e Carlo
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
Cardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.