Resumo:
En
|
Texto:
En
|
PDF:
En
Abstract Background Recently, a new heart failure (HF) classification was made considering the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) phenotype. Comprehensive assessments of the groups are required to guide patient management. Objective To determine the differences in sociodemographic, clinical, functional aerobic capacity, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) variables in patients with HF classified with different LVEFs and to explore the correlations between the variables. Methods This work is a cross-sectional descriptive and correlational study. Three groups of patients with HF (LVEF≥50%, LVEF<40%, and LVEF40-49%) were compared. Sociodemographic, clinical variables and functional aerobic capacity with Sit to Stand (STS), 6-minute walk test (6MWT), Duke Activity Status Index (DASI), Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire (MLFHQ), and Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) were considered. The Chi-square test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, and Spearman's correlation were used for statistical analysis. The statistical significance level was set at 5%. Results A total of 209 patients were admitted with a diagnosis of HF, with a more significant number of men. Marital status was a predominantly stable union in the HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) groups. A sedentary lifestyle was lower in the HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) group 59 (84.3%), p-value = 0.033, and the angina pectoris was higher in the HFpEF 30 (42.9%). Systolic blood pressure at the end of the 6MWT evidenced a higher score in HFpEF 132.0±17.25 concerning HFrEF 128.0±16.57, p-value=0.043. The fat percentage was higher in HFpEF 30.20±8.80 regarding the HFmrEF group 26.51±7.60, p-value = 0.028. Conclusion There were significant differences according to the LVEF classification in marital status, angina symptoms, fat percentage, and blood pressure at rest. Recently (HF (LVEF phenotype management sociodemographic healthrelated health related HRQOL (HRQOL crosssectional cross sectional study LVEF≥50%, LVEF50 50 (LVEF≥50% LVEF40 40 LVEF<40% LVEF4049% LVEF4049 49% 49 LVEF40-49% compared Sociodemographic STS, STS , (STS) 6minute minute 6 6MWT, MWT (6MWT) DASI, DASI (DASI) MLFHQ, MLFHQ (MLFHQ) PHQ9 PHQ (PHQ-9 considered Chisquare Chi square oneway one way ANOVA (ANOVA Spearmans Spearman s 5 5% 20 men (HFpEF midrange mid range (HFmrEF (HFrEF 84.3%, 843 84.3% 84 3 (84.3%) pvalue p value 0033 0 033 0.033 42.9%. 429 42.9% . 42 (42.9%) 13201725 132 17 25 132.0±17.2 12801657 128 16 57 128.0±16.57 pvalue=0.043. pvalue0043 value=0.043. 043 p-value=0.043 3020880 8 80 30.20±8.8 2651760 26 51 7 60 26.51±7.60 0028 028 0.028 symptoms rest LVEF≥50% LVEF5 (LVEF≥50 LVEF4 4 LVEF<40 LVEF404 LVEF40-49 (STS (6MWT (DASI (MLFHQ (PHQ- 2 84.3 (84.3% 003 03 0.03 42.9 (42.9% 1320172 13 1 132.0±17. 1280165 12 128.0±16.5 pvalue=0.043 pvalue004 value0043 value=0.043 04 p-value=0.04 302088 30.20±8. 265176 26.51±7.6 002 02 0.02 LVEF≥50 (LVEF≥5 LVEF<4 LVEF40-4 (PHQ 84. (84.3 00 0.0 42. (42.9 132017 132.0±17 128016 128.0±16. pvalue=0.04 pvalue00 value004 value=0.04 p-value=0.0 30208 30.20±8 26517 26.51±7. LVEF≥5 (LVEF≥ LVEF< LVEF40- (84. 0. (42. 13201 132.0±1 12801 128.0±16 pvalue=0.0 pvalue0 value00 value=0.0 p-value=0. 3020 30.20± 2651 26.51±7 LVEF≥ (84 (42 1320 132.0± 1280 128.0±1 pvalue=0. value0 value=0. p-value=0 302 30.20 265 26.51± (8 (4 132.0 128.0± pvalue=0 value=0 p-value= 30.2 26.51 ( 132. 128.0 pvalue= value= 30. 26.5 128. 26.