P1508 Left ventricular diastolic function plays a different role on mortality depending on the severity of systolic dysfunction in acute heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction

Abstract

Abstract Background It remains to be clarified whether clinical significance of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function differs depending on the severity of LV systolic dysfunction in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). The aim of this study was to examine the prognostic role of LV diastolic function in AHF patients with various systolic dysfunction.Methods: We studied consecutive hospitalized AHF patients with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%. The exclusion criteria were as follows: atrial fibrillation, severe mitral regurgitation, and inadequate echo image quality. They underwent echocardiography on admission. The eligible patients (n = 289, 165 males, 76 ± 10 years) were divided into 4 groups based on LVEF and left atrial pressure (LAP) grade estimated as in the ESC guidelines: Group I (LVEF 40-49% (mildly reduced LVEF)/normal LAP, n = 28), II (mildly reduced EF/increased LAP, n = 38), III (LVEF <40% (severely reduced LVEF)/normal LAP, n = 110), and IV (severely reduced LVEF/increased LAP, n = 113). Cardiac death was examined up to 60 months.Results: In total, 58 patients (20%) died because of cardiac events during the follow-up (mean 20 ± 19 months). In patients with mildly reduced LVEF, Group I showed significantly less cardiac death ratio than II (n = 1 vs 10, Group I vs II, p = 0.03). On the other hand, in patients with severely reduced LVEF, there was no significant difference in cardiac death ratio between Group III and IV (n = 23 vs 24, Group III vs IV, p = 0.80). That is, LAP grade was a prognostic marker when the patients had mild LV systolic dysfunction, whereas it did not contribute to the prediction of cardiac mortality when patients showed severely reduced LV systolic function. Group I showed significantly better prognosis than those with severe LV systolic dysfunction regardless of LAP grade (Group III, IV) (Group I vs III, p = 0.04; Group I vs IV, p = 0.04).Conclusions: LV diastolic function may have a different clinical significance depending on the severity of LV systolic dysfunction in AHF patients.