Di Bari Mauro, Pozzi Claudia, Cavallini Maria Chiara, Innocenti Francesca, Baldereschi Giorgio, De Alfieri Walter, Antonini Enrico, Pini Riccardo, Masotti Giulio, Marchionni Niccolò
Department of Critical Care Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Gerontology and Geriatrics, University of Florence, via delle Oblate 4, 50141 Florence, Italy.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Oct 19;44(8):1601-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.07.022.
We sought to compare construct and predictive validity of four sets of heart failure (HF) diagnostic criteria in an epidemiologic setting.
The prevalence estimates of HF vary broadly depending on the diagnostic criteria.
Data were collected in a survey of community dwellers who were > or =65 years of age living in Dicomano, Italy. At baseline, HF was diagnosed with the criteria of the Framingham, Boston, and Gothenburg studies and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Left ventricular mass index and ejection fraction, left atrium systolic dimension, lower extremity mobility disability, summary physical performance score, and 6-min walk test were compared between HF and non-HF participants to test for construct validity of each set of criteria. Predictive validity was evaluated with follow-up assessment of cardiovascular mortality, incident disability, and HF-related hospitalizations. Comparisons were adjusted for demographics, comorbidity, and psychoaffective status.
Of 553 participants, 11.9%, 10.7%, 20.8%, and 9.0% had HF, according to Framingham, Boston, Gothenburg, and ESC criteria, respectively. In terms of construct validity, Framingham and Boston criteria discriminated HF from non-HF participants better than Gothenburg and ESC criteria across the measures of cardiac function and global performance. The Boston criteria showed a superior predictive validity because they indicated a significantly greater adjusted risk of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio3.9, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 13.2), incident disability, and hospitalizations in participants with HF.
The Boston criteria are preferable to Framingham, Gothenburg, and ESC criteria for the diagnosis of HF in older community dwellers because they have good construct validity and more accurately predict cardiovascular death, incident disability, and hospitalizations.
我们试图在流行病学背景下比较四套心力衰竭(HF)诊断标准的结构效度和预测效度。
HF的患病率估计值因诊断标准的不同而有很大差异。
收集了意大利迪科马诺年龄≥65岁的社区居民的调查数据。在基线时,根据弗明汉姆、波士顿和哥德堡研究以及欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)的标准诊断HF。比较了HF患者和非HF患者的左心室质量指数、射血分数、左心房收缩内径、下肢活动障碍、综合身体表现评分和6分钟步行试验,以检验每套标准的结构效度。通过对心血管死亡率、新发残疾和HF相关住院情况的随访评估来评估预测效度。对人口统计学、合并症和心理情感状态进行了比较调整。
在553名参与者中,根据弗明汉姆、波士顿、哥德堡和ESC标准,分别有11.9%、10.7%、20.8%和9.0%的人患有HF。在结构效度方面,在心脏功能和整体表现的测量指标上,弗明汉姆和波士顿标准比哥德堡和ESC标准能更好地区分HF患者和非HF患者。波士顿标准显示出更好的预测效度,因为它们表明HF患者发生心血管死亡(风险比3.9,95%置信区间1.2至13.2)、新发残疾和住院的调整风险显著更高。
在老年社区居民中诊断HF时,波士顿标准优于弗明汉姆、哥德堡和ESC标准,因为它们具有良好的结构效度,并且能更准确地预测心血管死亡、新发残疾和住院情况。