Differences in management and outcome of ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy

Abstract

Background

Ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM and NICM) both cause heart failure, but the different etiologies may result in differences in management and outcome, which were explored in this study.

Methods

Cohort study of 168 consecutive patients (90 ICM, 78 NICM) recruited from a tertiary referral heart failure clinic followed for 40 ±19 months.

Results

Patients with ICM were older than NICM with worse NYHA functional state but similar left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and dimensions at baseline. Similar proportions (> 80%) in both groups were on a beta-blocker and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor and/or angiotensin-II-receptor blocker (ACE inhibitor ± ARB) by end of study. Mean LVEF improved in both groups over time (27.3 ± 11.9% vs. 33.1 ± 12.6%, p < 0.05). Overall 40-month mortality was 17%. In univariate analysis of patients < 80 years old, ICM, NYHA class, serum creatinine, ACE inhibitor ± ARB, and amiodarone use were predictors of mortality, but only serum creatinine was significant in multivariate analysis, with a 2.9-fold relative risk of death (95%CI, 1.34–6.42, p < 0.01) for creatinine ≥ 120 μmol/L compared to < 120 μmol/L.

Conclusions

Mortality of patients with cardiomyopathy remains high and is strongly related to serum creatinine. NICM patients were younger and showed greater improvement in symptoms and left ventricular function in long-term follow-up.

Introduction

Over the last 50 years there has been an improvement in survival after the onset of heart failure of 12% per decade [1]. These improvements have been attributed in part to the availability of disease modifying medications of proven efficacy [1], [2], [3], [4], particularly angiotensin-converting-enzymes (ACE) inhibitors and beta-blockers [5]. Despite the favorable trend in survival, the prognosis of heart failure in community studies remains poor with five-year mortality rate approximating 50% [1].

It is estimated that 2.3% of Americans aged over 20 years (∼ 4.9 million), have congestive heart failure, with 550,000 new cases diagnosed each year [6]. According to the US National Health and Nutritional surveys, heart failure prevalence rate rises with increasing age, affecting 2% of people aged 40–59 years and 10% of people aged above 70 years [7]. In 2002, there were 970,000 hospital discharges for heart failure. The estimated direct and indirect cost of congestive heart failure for the United States in 2005 was $27.9 billion. In the United Kingdom, 3% of people aged over 45 years have heart failure [8].

Ischemic heart disease is the most common etiology of heart failure [2], but management guidelines do not significantly differentiate ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) from non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) [2], [9], [10]. In clinical studies, the proportion of heart failure caused by ICM as assessed by perfusion study, coronary angiography or history of myocardial infarction varies from 52% to 67% [11], [12], [13], and is lower in younger age groups [11].

In assessing the impact of treatment of heart failure in clinical trials, the magnitude of improvement has not been identical in the two etiologies [12], [13], [14], [15]. In the CIBIS II study of bisoprolol, there was no difference in absolute mortality for the NICM subgroup [15], with most of the survival benefit confined to ICM. Similarly, in the MERIT-HF study of metoprolol CR/XL, most of the survival benefit was attributed to ICM, though the authors acknowledged the study was not designed nor powered to separately analyze survival in NICM [12]. The absolute mortality for NICM in these trials was usually lower than ICM, but differences in management of these two etiologies were not systematically analyzed.

We conducted a longitudinal observational study in a teaching hospital heart failure clinic to assess whether the previously described differences in outcome between ICM and NICM persist with contemporary medical management.