Determinants of left ventricular systolic function recovery after an acute coronary syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Ischemic heart disease is a major cause of heart failure in western societies. However, the factors that may influence left ventricular function (LVF) recovery after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are still unclear. OBJECTIVE: To identify variables that may influence LVF evolution one year after ACS. METHODS: 104 patients hospitalized with ACS between 7/1/2001 and 12/31/2002 and with systolic dysfunction--defined as an echocardiographic ejection fraction (EF) < or = 45%--were randomly allocated to a planned coronary follow-up program (FUP) or a general cardiology clinic (GC); patients from both groups were also randomly referred to a structured cardiac rehabilitation program (CRP). EF was re-assessed at one year. We compared differences between patients who recovered left ventricular function (EF > 45%; group 1) and those who did not (group 2). RESULTS: One year after discharge, 44.2% of the patients had recovered function. There were no significant differences between the groups in gender (77.7 vs. 76.5% male), age (56 vs. 59 years), hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking habits or family history. A previous history of cardiovascular events was more frequent in group 2 (11.1% vs. 35.3%, p = 0.03). Cardiac catheterization was performed before discharge in 88.8% and 88.2% in groups 1 and 2 respectively (p = NS); no differences were found in coronary anatomy between the two groups. Angioplasty was performed in 54.2% in group 1 and 50% in group 2 (p = NS). There were no differences in the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (83.3% vs. 87.5%), beta-blockers (87.5% vs. 87.5%), nitrates (37.5% vs. 33.3%), aspirin (95.8% vs. 95.8%), statins (79.1% vs. 75%) or diuretics (20.8% vs. 45.8%). There was no significant difference in LVF recovery between patients randomized to FUP or GC (38.5% vs. 54.5%). 87.5% of patients who completed the CRP had normal EF at one year compared to 32.7% of patients not referred to the program (p = 0.009). Although EF improved in both groups, this improvement was greater in patients who completed a CRP (EF 8% vs. 5%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: A previous cardiovascular event and completion of a CRP were the only variables that influenced LVF recovery. Thus, enrollment in a CRP, in addition to standard therapy, could be an important therapeutic measure in patients with systolic dysfunction after ACS; our data suggest that these programs should be more widely used.