Big Chemical Encyclopedia

Chemical substances, components, reactions, process design ...

Articles Figures Tables About

New York Heart Association Functional

Identify signs and symptoms of heart failure and classify a given patient by the New York Heart Association Functional Classification and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Heart Failure Staging. [Pg.33]

NYHA FC New York Heart Association Functional Class... [Pg.60]

The New York Heart Association Functional Classification System is intended primarily to classify symptomatic HF patients according to the physician s subjective evaluation. Functional class (FC)-I patients have no limitation of physical activity, FC-II patients have slight limitation, FC-III patients have marked limitation, and FC-IV patients are unable to carry on physical activity without discomfort. [Pg.96]

Gietzen FH, Leuner CJ, Obergassel L, et al. Role of transcoronary ablation of septal hypertrophy in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, New York Heart Association functional class III or IV and outflow obstruction only under provocable conditions. Circulation 2002 106 454-459. [Pg.601]

In a 12-year observational study, 62 patients with fenfluramine-associated pulmonary hypertension were compared with 125 sex-matched patients with pulmonary hypertension unrelated to the use of fenfluramine derivatives. In most of the cases (81%), fenfluramine derivatives were used for at least 3 months. The time frame between the initiation of the therapy and the onset of dyspnea ranged from 27 days to 23 years. Both the fenfluramine-associated pulmonary hypertension group and the control group had similar levels of New York Heart Association functional class and symptoms, as well as an overall survival rate of 50% in 3 years. ... [Pg.587]

Class III or IV cardiovascular disease (New York Heart Association functional status criteria)... [Pg.228]

Tops et al. recently reported on the development of left ventricular dyssyn-chrony and heart failure symptoms during long term right ventricular pacing following AV junction ablation in 55 patients with preserved systolic function at the time of ablation (59). Patients were followed for 3.8 1.7 years. During follow-up, 27 patients (49%) developed left ventricular dyssynchrony and worsened heart failure symptoms. The New York Heart Association functional class increased from 1.8 0.6 to 2.2 0.7, p < 0.05. The left ventricular ejection... [Pg.464]

Patients with cardiac disease can be further risk stratified. New York Heart Association Functional Class, ventricular function, as measured by the ejection fraction and age, remain the best predictors of sudden death and total cardiac mortality for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and coronary artery disease (35-37). In the future, genetic profiling and inflammatory markers may allow better assessment of individual risks for SCD (35,37-39). [Pg.497]

SCD-HeFT was a prospective, randomized trial that enrolled patients with left ventricular ejection fraction < 0.35 and New York Heart Association Functional Class II-III congestive heart failure to evaluate whether amiodarone or an ICD improved survival compared to a placebo pill. The primary end point of the trial was death from any cause. Amiodarone therapy did not affect outcomes compared to placebo (54). A few studies and one meta-analysis of several large studies have shown reduction in SCD using amiodarone for LV dysfunction due to prior myocardial infarction and nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (117,136). Any long-term survival benefit from amiodarone is doubtful. [Pg.504]

The MADIT II trial addressed some of the issues raised by the MADIT. The MADIT II trial evaluated patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (history of myocardial infarction > 1 month before entry). New York Heart Association Functional Class I-III congestive heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction < 0.30 (documented within 3 months), with or without ventricular ectopy. The study enrolled 1,232 patients to assess if an ICD improve total mortality compared to optimal therapy alone. No Holter or electrophysiology test criteria were required for enrollment. Optimal medical therapy included angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers, diuretics, and lipidlowering statin drugs (172). [Pg.518]

The interaction between ICD therapy and New York Heart Association Functional Class was significant but this subanalysis must be interpreted with caution as it was not the primary endpoint of the study and a post hoc analysis. Patients with New York Heart Association Class III heart failure had no apparent benefit from an ICD while patients with New York Heart Association Class II heart failure, there was a 46% relative risk reduction (54). These results were contrary to data from DEFINITE. [Pg.520]

Class Ila Indications for an ICD (1) Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of < 0.35 at least 40 days after myocardial infarction and/or 3 months after coronary revascularization therapy. (2) ICD therapy combined with biventricular pacing in patients with New York Heart Association Functional Class III or IV receiving optimal medical therapy, in sinus rhythm with a QRS complex of at least 120ms and who have reasonable (> 1 year) expecta-... [Pg.522]

Class lib indications for an ICD (1) Patients optimally managed with New York Heart Association Functional Class I heart failure and nonischemic cardiomyopathy who have a left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35. (2) Syncope of unclear etiology and ECG evidence of Brugada syndrome. (3) Patients with congenital long QT interval syndrome who have reasonable expectation of survival. [Pg.523]

CMS found that ICDs for primary prevention purposes are reasonable and necessary for (1) Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, myocardial infarction at least 40 days before. New York Heart Association Functional Class 11 and III heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35. (2) Patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy treated for at least 9 months (although as short as 3 months is considered reasonable). Functional Class II or III heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35. (3). Patients with New York Heart Association Functional Class 1 heart failure, and a left ventricular ejection fraction <0.30. (4) Patients who have a QRS > 0.120, have New York Heart Association Functional Class IV heart failure, may benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy and have a left ventricular ejection fraction <0.30. [Pg.523]

The Cardiac Resynchronization in Heart Failure (CARE-HF) evaluated 813 patients with New York Heart Association Functional Class III or TV heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction and cardiac dyssynchrony (QRS interval > 120 ms) who were receiving standard pharmacologic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive medical therapy alone or with cardiac resynchronization. The primary end point (time to death from any cause or an unplanned hospitalization for a major cardiovascular event) was reached by 159 patients in the cardiac-resynchronization group, as compared with 224 patients in the medical-therapy group (39 versus. 55% hazard ratio = 0.63 95% Cl 0.51-0.77 p < 0.001). There were 82 deaths in the cardiac-resynchronization group, as compared with 120 in the medical-therapy group (20 versus 30% hazard ratio = 0.64 95% Cl 0.48-0.85 P < 0.002) (194,195). [Pg.528]

Study of patients in New York Heart Association Functional Class 111 or IV with a left ventricular ejection fraction < 0.35 and a QRS duration > 120ms. The study objectives were to determine whether optimal pharmacological therapy with (1) CRT therapy alone or (2) CRT with cardioverter-defibrillator capability is superior to optimal pharmacological therapy alone to reduce all-cause mortality and hospitalization The trial was terminated prematurely as it reached its primary endpoint with superiority in the device arms. Mortality was reduced by 40% in patients implanted with combined devices, while car-diac-resynchronization therapy alone gave an intermediate mortality of 15% (196,197). [Pg.529]

The Multicenter InSync ICD Randomized Clinical Evaluation (MIRACLE ICD) trial was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled trial of a high-risk population that included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction < 0.35, QRS duration > 130ms and New York Heart Association Functional Class III or IV despite optimal medical beatment. Patients received devices with combined CRT and ICD capabilities and were randomized to the ICD therapy on or off. At 6 months, patients assigned to CRT had a greater improvement in median quality of life score and functional class as compared to controls. No significant differences were observed in changes in left ventricular size or function, overall heart failure status, survival, and rates of hospitalization. No proarrhythmia was observed and arrhythmia termination capabilities were not impaired (82). [Pg.529]

The Multicenter InSync ICD Randomized Clinical Evaluation II (MIRACLE ICD II) was a follow-up randomized, double-blind, parallel-conlrolled clinical trial of CRT in New York Heart Association Functional Class II heart failure patients on optimal medical therapy with a left ventricular ejection fraction < 0.35, a QRS > 130ms and a Class I indication for an ICD. Patients were randomized to control group (ICD activated, CRT off) and to CRT group (ICD activated, cardiac-resynchronization therapy on). No significant differences were noted in 6-min walk distance or quality of life scores or peak V02. There were significant improvements in left ventricular diastolic and systolic volumes and in left ventricular ejection fraction (198). [Pg.529]

In SCD-HeFT, the lifetime cost effectiveness and cost utility ratios were estimated at 38 389/LYS and 41 530/quaUty adjusted LYS. A further analysis showed a cost-effectiveness ratio of 29 872/LYS for New York Heart Association Functional Class II but no incremental benefit for Functional Class III heart failure (216). Prophylactic use of single-lead, shock-only ICD seems attractive economically in patients with stable, moderately symptomatic heart failure and an ejection fraction < 0.35. [Pg.533]

Cardiovascular In 518 patients with type 2 diabetes and New York Heart Association functional heart failure class II/III, mean... [Pg.900]


See other pages where New York Heart Association Functional is mentioned: [Pg.529]    [Pg.425]    [Pg.604]    [Pg.438]    [Pg.501]   


SEARCH



Heart function

New York

New York Heart Association

© 2024 chempedia.info