Skip Navigation

European Journal of Heart Failure 2005 7(4):490-497; doi:10.1016/j.ejheart.2004.06.005
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clements, I. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Clements, I. P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2005 European Society of Cardiology

Combined systolic and diastolic dysfunction in the presence of preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

Ian P. Clements*

Division of Cardiovascular Diseases and Internal Medicine Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, United States

* Tel.: +1 507 284 8917; Fax: +1 507 284 2107. E-mail address: lovejoy.margery{at}mayo.edu


   Abstract

Background: Heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) suggests isolated diastolic dysfunction.

Aim: The purpose of this study was to determine if systolic and diastolic dysfunction occurred with preserved LVEF.

Methods: Equilibrium resting radionuclide ventriculograms from 439 patients with an LVEF ≥0.50 were used to determine LV peak filling rate (PFR) and peak ejection rate (PER) in end-diastolic volumes per second and LV end-systolic volume (ml). Patients with low-normal (n=147; range, 0.50–0.58; mean±S.D., 0.53±0.02), intermediate-normal (161, 0.59–0.64, 0.61±0.02), and high-normal (131, 0.65–0.94, 0.72±0.06) LVEF were compared.

Results: From low-normal to intermediate-normal to high-normal LVEF, LV end-systolic volume decreased (93±36, 71±33, 43±26, respectively, P<0.0001), PFR increased (2.31±0.74, 2.58±0.74, 3.15±0.94, P<0.0001), PER increased (–2.78±0.50, –3.13±0.47, –3.83±0.84, P<0.0001), the percentages of patients with abnormal PFR decreased (66, 56, 40, P<.0001), and the percentage with abnormal PER decreased (47, 14, 5, P<0.0001). Of 193 patients with preserved LVEF and abnormally low PFR, 65 (34%) had abnormally low PER.

Conclusions: The results indicate that a preserved LVEF was often associated with LV systolic dysfunction (enlarged LV end-systolic volume and low PER) and LV diastolic dysfunction (decreased PFR).

Key Words: Diastole • Radionuclide • Systole • Ventriculography

Received December 4, 2003; Revised April 6, 2004; Accepted June 29, 2004


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.