Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Symptom burden and secondary prevention in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction : a nationwide register-based study in Sweden

Hamilton, Eleonora ; Jernberg, Tomas ; Alfredsson, Joakim ; Christersson, Christina ; Erlinge, David LU orcid ; Lindmark, Krister ; Omerovic, Elmir ; Desta, Liyew and Reitan, Christian (2026) In Open Heart 13(1).
Abstract

Background There is a lack of contemporary data describing patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction post myocardial infarction (MI) in terms of symptom burden and secondary prevention measures. The aim of this study was to describe patients with various degrees of LV systolic dysfunction after a first MI, their symptom burden, quality of life and adherence to recommended secondary prevention measures in a nationwide patient material. Methods Patients (n=49564) registered in the Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease registry between 2011 and 2018, diagnosed with a first acute MI, discharged alive and with no previous heart failure, were stratified by degree of LV... (More)

Background There is a lack of contemporary data describing patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction post myocardial infarction (MI) in terms of symptom burden and secondary prevention measures. The aim of this study was to describe patients with various degrees of LV systolic dysfunction after a first MI, their symptom burden, quality of life and adherence to recommended secondary prevention measures in a nationwide patient material. Methods Patients (n=49564) registered in the Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease registry between 2011 and 2018, diagnosed with a first acute MI, discharged alive and with no previous heart failure, were stratified by degree of LV systolic dysfunction. Results Compared with patients with normal ejection fraction (EF≥50%), patients with a reduced EF (<30%) more often experienced shortness of breath (32.3% vs 5.6%, adjusted OR (95%CI): 7.45 (6.22 to 8.92)), had more often been readmitted (48.1% vs 31.2%, 1.87 (1.61 to 2.19)) and were more often on sick leave (26.6% vs 9.5%, 3.35 (2.45 to 4.58)), whereas there were no significant differences regarding chest pain and quality of life at the follow-up visit after 11–13 months. Patients with EF <30% had participated in education programme (44.9% vs 55.5%, 0.70 (0.60 to 0.81)) and physical therapy (11.3% vs 14.9%, 0.68 (0.58 to 0.79)) and have been physically active at least 30min per day for at least 5days per week (35.5% vs 40.2%, 0.86 (0.73 to 1.01)) to a lesser extent. Conclusion Contemporary representative data show that LV systolic dysfunction after MI is associated with a very high symptom burden and worse secondary prevention after 11–13 months.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Acute Coronary Syndrome, Coronary Artery Disease, Epidemiology, HEART FAILURE, Risk Factors
in
Open Heart
volume
13
issue
1
article number
e003506
publisher
BMJ Publishing Group
external identifiers
  • scopus:105029183065
  • pmid:41611310
ISSN
2398-595X
DOI
10.1136/openhrt-2025-003506
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
c3a9f4a6-8d90-437d-ae6d-b3742d96ad95
date added to LUP
2026-02-19 13:19:49
date last changed
2026-02-20 03:00:08
@article{c3a9f4a6-8d90-437d-ae6d-b3742d96ad95,
  abstract     = {{<p>Background There is a lack of contemporary data describing patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction post myocardial infarction (MI) in terms of symptom burden and secondary prevention measures. The aim of this study was to describe patients with various degrees of LV systolic dysfunction after a first MI, their symptom burden, quality of life and adherence to recommended secondary prevention measures in a nationwide patient material. Methods Patients (n=49564) registered in the Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease registry between 2011 and 2018, diagnosed with a first acute MI, discharged alive and with no previous heart failure, were stratified by degree of LV systolic dysfunction. Results Compared with patients with normal ejection fraction (EF≥50%), patients with a reduced EF (&lt;30%) more often experienced shortness of breath (32.3% vs 5.6%, adjusted OR (95%CI): 7.45 (6.22 to 8.92)), had more often been readmitted (48.1% vs 31.2%, 1.87 (1.61 to 2.19)) and were more often on sick leave (26.6% vs 9.5%, 3.35 (2.45 to 4.58)), whereas there were no significant differences regarding chest pain and quality of life at the follow-up visit after 11–13 months. Patients with EF &lt;30% had participated in education programme (44.9% vs 55.5%, 0.70 (0.60 to 0.81)) and physical therapy (11.3% vs 14.9%, 0.68 (0.58 to 0.79)) and have been physically active at least 30min per day for at least 5days per week (35.5% vs 40.2%, 0.86 (0.73 to 1.01)) to a lesser extent. Conclusion Contemporary representative data show that LV systolic dysfunction after MI is associated with a very high symptom burden and worse secondary prevention after 11–13 months.</p>}},
  author       = {{Hamilton, Eleonora and Jernberg, Tomas and Alfredsson, Joakim and Christersson, Christina and Erlinge, David and Lindmark, Krister and Omerovic, Elmir and Desta, Liyew and Reitan, Christian}},
  issn         = {{2398-595X}},
  keywords     = {{Acute Coronary Syndrome; Coronary Artery Disease; Epidemiology; HEART FAILURE; Risk Factors}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{1}},
  publisher    = {{BMJ Publishing Group}},
  series       = {{Open Heart}},
  title        = {{Symptom burden and secondary prevention in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction : a nationwide register-based study in Sweden}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2025-003506}},
  doi          = {{10.1136/openhrt-2025-003506}},
  volume       = {{13}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}