English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

P2443 – Table 1. Multivariate analysis Group 1 (n=6113) Group 2 (n=1922) Group 3 (n=1390) OR [CI95] p-value OR [CI95] p-value OR [CI95] p-value Invasive strategy 0.2 [0.1–0.4] <0.001 IH beta-blockers 0.3 [0.1–0.6] 0.003 IH beta-blockers 0.4 [0.2–0.8] 0.005 Invasive strategy 0.1 [0.1–0.2] <0.001 IH ACEi 0.5 [0.2–0.9] 0.039 IH spironolactone 0.5 [0.3–0.9] 0.024 Invasive strategy 0.2 [0.1–0.3] <0.001 ACEi, angiotensin conversion enzyme inhibitors; IH, In Hospital. P2443 | BEDSIDE Beta blocker therapy a major protector in patients with acute coronary syndromes and moderately reduced ejection fraction patients: a nationwide retrospective study F. Montenegro Sa, C. Ruivo, L. Graca Santos, A. Antunes, J. Morais on behalf of Portuguese Registry Of Acute Coronary Syndrome Investigators. Hospital Santo Andre, Cardiology, Leiria, Portugal Introduction: Beta blockers are an established therapy for heart failure (HF) patients with ejection fraction (EF) <40% as well as part of the cocktail for patients with ACS irrespective of left ventricular dysfunction. HF with moderately reduced EF (40–49% mrEF) is a newly defined entity, without specific therapy indications. Aim: To compare which therapeutic decisions have a positive impact on inhospital mortality, in patients with ACS stratified according to ejection fraction. Methods: The authors analyzed a cohort of patients with ACS enrolled in a multicenter national registry between 2010 and 2016, and stratified according to their EF. Patients with previously known HF or with no echocardiography EF estimation were excluded. 9429 patients were included and classified in three groups; Group1: EF>50%, (n=6113, 65%); Group 2: EF 40–49% (n=1922, 20%); Group 3 (3) EF<40% (n=1390, 15%). To exclude confounding factors, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed, including pharmacological treatment and also pre-hospital, clinical and laboratorial data, ACS classification and coronary anatomy when known. Results: Overall mortality was 2.8% (n=263): Group1: 0.9% (n=53), Group 2: 2.4% (n=37) and Group 3: 11.4% (n=159), p-value <0.001. Multivariate analysis results are shown in the table. After multivariate analysis, in-hospital beta blockers administration had a positive impact in prognosis for group 2 and 3. Conclusion: Post-ACS mrEF patients seem to be an intermediate risk group in which beta blocker administration had a positive impact on survival. An invasive strategy was a survival predictor for all groups, regardless of EF. P2444 | BEDSIDE Prediction of heart failure and atrial fibrillation using the CHARGE-AF and ARIC risk scores S. Ramkumar1, H. Yang2, Y. Wang2, M. Nolan2, K. Negishi2, T.H. Marwick1. 1Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia; 2Menzies Research Institute, Hobart, Australia Introduction: The CHARGE-AF is a clinical score which gives an assessment of 5 year risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF). Heart failure (HF) shares a similar risk factor profile to atrial fibrillation. AF risk assessment tools such as the CHARGE-AF score share similar characteristics to other HF risk scores such as the ARIC score. Aim: We aimed to compare the CHARGE-AF score to the ARIC score in prediction of HF and AF in patients with risk factors. Methods: A community based study of 503 participants (mean±SD age 70.8±4.7yrs, male 48% with median±IQR follow up 12 months±3) ≥65 years were recruited if they had presence of 1 or more risk factor for HF (hypertension (HTN), diabetes mellitus (DM), obesity, previous chemotherapy, previous history of ischaemic heart disease (IHD)). HF and AF risk was assessed using the CHARGEAF and ARIC scores. Baseline ECG and echocardiography was performed in all participants. HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction was diagnosed as per ESC guidelines. AF was diagnosed by local doctors during the follow up period, by 12 lead ECG during outpatient clinics or using a single lead portable ECG monitoring device (Remon, Semacare, China). Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were compared between both scores using the Hanley and McNeil method. Results: The baseline median CHARGE-AF and ARIC scores were 7.5% (3.8– 11.3%) and 5.9% (2.6–9.3%) respectively. During the follow up period 55 patients developed HF. 173/503 participants completed portable ECG monitoring follow up and 43 (25%) were diagnosed with subclinical AF. Patients with HF were older with higher rates of DM, HTN and IHD (p<0.05). Patients with AF were older, more likely to be male and had higher baseline CHARGE-AF score (p<0.05). In patients with HF and AF, echocardiography showed impaired global longitudinal strain and increased left atrial volume (p<0.05). For HF, there was modest discriminative ability using both CHARGE-AF and ARIC scores and no significant Table 1. Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves comparing CHARGE-AF and ARIC for heart failure and atrial fibrillation AUC (CHARGE-AF) 95% CI AUC (ARIC) 95% CI Comparison of AUC p value p value p value Heart Failure 0.65 0.58–0.73 0.65 0.58–0.73 0.89

european heart journal

P2442Assessment of iron overload and cardiac disease in patients with transfusion-dependent myelodysplastic syndromes with cardiac magnetic resonance new sequences