Background Population-based estimates of cardiac dysfunction and clinical heart failure (HF) remain undefined among Hispanics/Latino adults. Methods and Results Participants of Hispanic/Latino origin across the US, aged 45–74 years were enrolled into the Echocardiographic Study of Latinos (ECHO-SOL) and underwent a comprehensive echocardiography exam to define left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD). Clinical HF was defined according to self-report; and those with cardiac dysfunction but without clinical HF were characterized as having subclinical or unrecognized cardiac dysfunction. Of 1,818 ECHO-SOL participants (mean age 56.4 years; 42.6% male) , 49.7% had LVSD and/or LVDD. LVSD prevalence was 3.6%, while LVDD was detected in 50.3%. Participants with LVSD were more likely to be males and current smokers (all p<0.05). Female sex, hypertension, diabetes, higher body-mass index and renal dysfunction were more common among those with LVDD (all p<0.05). In age-sex adjusted models, individuals of Central American and Cuban backgrounds were almost two-fold more likely to have LVDD compared to those of Mexican backgrounds. Prevalence of clinical HF with LVSD (HF with reduced EF) was 7.3%; prevalence of clinical HF with LVDD (HF with preserved EF) was 3.6%. 96.1% of the cardiac dysfunction seen was subclinical or unrecognized. Compared to those with clinical cardiac dysfunction, prevalent coronary heart disease was the only factor independently associated with subclinical or unrecognized cardiac dysfunction (odds ratio: 0.1; 95% confidence interval: 0.1–0.4). Conclusions Among Hispanics/Latinos, most cardiac dysfunction is subclinical or unrecognized, with a high prevalence of diastolic dysfunction. This identifies a high-risk population for the development of clinical HF.

Background Diabetic patients have a worse prognosis than nondiabetic patients after myocardial infarction. Although exercise improves risk factors, exercise capacity, and mortality, it is still unclear if these benefits are the same as in nondiabetics. Furthermore, although exercise tolerance is predicted by systolic and diastolic dysfunction in nondiabetics, its role as a predictor of exercise capacity in diabetics remains unclear. Hypothesis Diabetics and nondiabetics see a similar improvement in their cardiac risk factors and exercise parameters from exercise‐based cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Methods A series of 370 diabetics and 942 nondiabetics entered a 36‐session outpatient CR program after interventions for coronary heart disease or after bypass or cardiac valve surgery. The program consisted of physical exercise, lifestyle modification, and pharmacotherapy. Results Quality of life, weight, blood pressure, and lipid profiles improved significantly in both groups during the 12‐week program. Baseline metabolic equivalents (METs) were lower in diabetics vs nondiabetics at the start of CR (2.4 vs 2.7, P < 0.001). Although both groups increased their exercise capacity, diabetics had less improvement (change in METs 1.7 vs 2.6, P < 0.001). Significant predictors for improvement after CR included age, sex, and weight, as well as both systolic and diastolic function. After adjustment for these, diabetes remained a significant predictor of reduced improvement in exercise capacity. Conclusions Diabetics saw a significant benefit in quality of life, weight, exercise tolerance, and cardiac risk factors, but to a lesser extent when compared with nondiabetics. The mechanisms for poorer improvement in diabetics following CR also include noncardiac factors and require further study.

No abstract

No abstract