Article

Epidemiology of stroke in chronic heart failure patients with normal sinus rhythm: Findings from the DIG stroke sub-study

University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1530 3rd Avenue South, CH-19, Ste-219, Birmingham, AL 35294-2041, USA.
International journal of cardiology (Impact Factor: 6.18). 05/2009; 144(3):389-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2009.04.035
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Little is known about the epidemiology of stroke in chronic systolic and diastolic heart failure (HF) patients in normal sinus rhythm (NSR) receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Because all HF patients in the Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial (N=7788) were in NSR and nearly all were receiving ACE inhibitors, a survey-based stroke-sub-study was conducted but its findings have never been published.
DIG investigators confirmed a total 222 cases of stroke of which 144 had neurological deficit ≥24 h. We used logistic regression models to determine predictors of incident stroke among all 7788 patients and predictors of neurological deficit ≥24 h and all-cause mortality among 222 stroke patients.
Age ≥65 years (adjusted odds ratio {AOR}, 1.36; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.02-1.80; P=0.035), nonwhite race (AOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-0.99; P=0.047), hypertension (AOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.11-1.94; P=0.008), diabetes mellitus (AOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.03-1.82; P=0.030), and cardiomegaly (AOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.86; P=0.030) were independent predictors of stroke. However, among those with stroke, nonwhites had higher odds of neurological deficits ≥24 h (AOR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.01-8.07; P=0.047) and death (AOR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.30-8.30; P=0.012).
Older age, hypertension, diabetes and cardiomegaly were associated with increased incidence of stroke among HF patients with NSR receiving ACE inhibitors. The association of race and stroke, however, was complex. While nonwhite race was associated with decreased risk of stroke, among those with stroke, nonwhite race was associated with increased stroke severity and mortality.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Marjan Mujib, Jul 05, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
96 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Heart failure (HF) is a growing epidemic with the annual number of hospitalizations constantly increasing over the last decades for HF as a primary or secondary diagnosis. Despite the emergence of novel therapeutic approached that can prolong life and shorten hospital stay, HF patients will be needing rehospitalization and will often have a poor prognosis. Telemonitoring is a novel diagnostic modality that has been suggested to be beneficial for HF patients. Telemonitoring is viewed as a means of recording physiological data, such as body weight, heart rate, arterial blood pressure, and electrocardiogram recordings, by portable devices and transmitting these data remotely (via a telephone line, a mobile phone or a computer) to a server where they can be stored, reviewed and analyzed by the research team. In this systematic review of all randomized clinical trials evaluating telemonitoring in chronic HF, we aim to assess whether telemonitoring provides any substantial benefit in this patient population.
    06/2012; 2012:410820. DOI:10.1155/2012/410820
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the risk of thromboembolism in chronic heart failure is high even in the absence of atrial fibrillation, the risk to benefit ratio of anticoagulation vs. antiplatelet therapy or no antithrombotic therapy is poorly defined in this population. Post hoc analysis of large therapeutic heart failure trials has estimated the risk of thromboembolism to be between 1 and 4.5%. However, most of these studies have included some patients with atrial fibrillation, and thromboembolism was not a predefined endpoint. At present, the evidence for either anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy is limited and the results from current large-scale randomized studies are awaited. From the randomized studies carried out thus far, there is a beneficial trend in favour of anticoagulation therapy, with less hospitalization for heart failure compared with patients taking aspirin.
    Fundamental and Clinical Pharmacology 10/2009; 23(6):705-17. DOI:10.1111/j.1472-8206.2009.00776.x · 2.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The prevalence of stroke is increased in individuals with heart failure (HF). The stroke mechanism in HF may be cardiogenic embolism or cerebral hypoperfusion. Stroke risk increases with decreasing ejection fraction and low cardiac output is associated with hypotension and poor survival. We examine the relationship among blood pressure level, history of stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), and HF. We compared the prevalence of self-reported history of stroke or TIA in the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) participants with HF (as defined by current digoxin use) and without HF. We excluded participants with atrial fibrillation or missing data. We examined the relationship between HF and history of stroke/TIA within tertiles of systolic blood pressure (SBP) adjusting for patient demographic and health characteristics. Prevalent stroke/TIA were reported by 66 (26.3%) of 251 participants with and 1805 (8.5%) of 21 202 participants without HF (P<0.0001). Within each tertile of SBP, the unadjusted OR (95% CI) for prior stroke/TIA among those with HF compared with those without HF (the reference group) was, 4.0 (2.8 to 5.8) for SBP <119.5 mm Hg, 2.7 (1.8 to 3.9) for SBP >or=119.5 but <131.5 mm Hg, and 2.3 (1.6 to 3.2) for SBP >or=131.5 mm Hg. After adjustment, the relationship between prior stroke/TIA and HF remained significant only within the lowest tertile of SBP (<119.5 mm Hg; 3.0; 1.5 to 6.1). The odds of prevalent self-reported stroke/TIA are increased in participants with HF and most markedly increased in participants with low SBP. Longitudinal data are needed to determine whether this reflects stroke/TIA secondary to thromboembolism from poor cardiac function or secondary to cerebral hypoperfusion.
    Stroke 10/2009; 40(12):3706-10. DOI:10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.561670 · 6.02 Impact Factor