• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

选择心脏移植患者:心力衰竭生存评分(HFSS)和西雅图心力衰竭模型(SHFM)的比较。

Selecting patients for heart transplantation: comparison of the Heart Failure Survival Score (HFSS) and the Seattle heart failure model (SHFM).

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.

出版信息

J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011 Nov;30(11):1236-43. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2011.05.012. Epub 2011 Jul 20.

DOI:10.1016/j.healun.2011.05.012
PMID:21764604
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Heart Failure Survival Score (HFSS) risk-stratifies patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) referred for heart transplantation using 7 parameters, including peak VO₂. The Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) is a 20-variable model that combines clinical, laboratory and therapeutic data. Although both models have excellent accuracy, only the HFSS was derived and validated in patients referred for transplantation, and the HFSS and SHFM have not been directly compared.

METHODS

We tested the accuracy of the SHFM and compared the HFSS and SHFM in 715 patients referred for heart transplantation.

RESULTS

Over a follow-up of 962 ± 912 days, 354 patients died or received an urgent heart transplantation or a ventricular assist device. One-year event-free survival was 89%, 72% and 60%, respectively, for the low-, medium- and high-risk HFSS strata, and 93%, 76%, and 58%, respectively, for the low-, medium- and high-risk SHFM strata. The HFSS and SHFM were modestly correlated (R = -0.48, p < 0.001). In receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, areas under the curves (AUCs) for the HFSS and SHFM were comparable (1 year: 0.72 vs 0.73; 2-year: 0.70 vs 0.74, respectively) and incremental to New York Heart Association class. The 1- and 2-year combined HFSS+SHFM AUCs were 0.77 and 0.76, respectively, significantly better than the HFSS or SHFM alone.

CONCLUSIONS

The HFSS and SHFM provide accurate and comparable risk stratification in CHF patients referred for transplantation. Combining the HFSS and SHFM improves predictive ability.

摘要

背景

心力衰竭生存评分(HFSS)使用 7 个参数(包括峰值 VO₂)对接受心脏移植的慢性心力衰竭(CHF)患者进行风险分层。西雅图心力衰竭模型(SHFM)是一个包含临床、实验室和治疗数据的 20 变量模型。虽然这两种模型都具有出色的准确性,但只有 HFSS 是在接受移植的患者中推导和验证的,HFSS 和 SHFM 尚未直接比较。

方法

我们测试了 SHFM 的准确性,并在 715 名接受心脏移植的患者中比较了 HFSS 和 SHFM。

结果

在 962±912 天的随访中,354 名患者死亡或接受紧急心脏移植、心室辅助装置或心脏移植。低、中、高危 HFSS 分层的 1 年无事件生存率分别为 89%、72%和 60%,低、中、高危 SHFM 分层的 1 年无事件生存率分别为 93%、76%和 58%。HFSS 和 SHFM 中度相关(R=-0.48,p<0.001)。在接收者操作特征曲线分析中,HFSS 和 SHFM 的曲线下面积(AUC)相当(1 年:0.72 与 0.73;2 年:0.70 与 0.74),且优于纽约心脏协会分级。HFSS+SHFM 的 1 年和 2 年 AUC 分别为 0.77 和 0.76,明显优于 HFSS 或 SHFM 单独使用。

结论

HFSS 和 SHFM 为接受移植的 CHF 患者提供了准确且可比的风险分层。结合 HFSS 和 SHFM 可提高预测能力。

相似文献

1
Selecting patients for heart transplantation: comparison of the Heart Failure Survival Score (HFSS) and the Seattle heart failure model (SHFM).选择心脏移植患者:心力衰竭生存评分(HFSS)和西雅图心力衰竭模型(SHFM)的比较。
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011 Nov;30(11):1236-43. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2011.05.012. Epub 2011 Jul 20.
2
Comparison of peak exercise oxygen consumption and the Heart Failure Survival Score for predicting prognosis in women versus men.比较峰值运动耗氧量与心力衰竭生存评分对女性和男性预后的预测作用。
Am J Cardiol. 2007 Feb 1;99(3):399-403. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.08.046. Epub 2006 Dec 14.
3
Prognostic impact of the addition of peak oxygen consumption to the Seattle Heart Failure Model in a transplant referral population.在移植推荐人群中,加入峰值摄氧量对西雅图心力衰竭模型预后的影响。
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012 Aug;31(8):817-24. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2012.04.006.
4
Usefulness of peak exercise oxygen consumption and the heart failure survival score to predict survival in patients >65 years of age with heart failure.峰值运动耗氧量和心力衰竭生存评分对预测65岁以上心力衰竭患者生存率的效用。
Am J Cardiol. 2009 Apr 1;103(7):998-1002. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.12.010. Epub 2009 Feb 7.
5
Validation of the Seattle Heart Failure Model in a community-based heart failure population and enhancement by adding B-type natriuretic peptide.西雅图心力衰竭模型在社区心力衰竭人群中的验证及通过添加B型利钠肽进行的改进
Am J Cardiol. 2007 Aug 15;100(4):697-700. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.03.083. Epub 2007 Jun 26.
6
Validation of peak exercise oxygen consumption and the Heart Failure Survival Score for serial risk stratification in advanced heart failure.晚期心力衰竭连续风险分层中峰值运动耗氧量及心力衰竭生存评分的验证
Am J Cardiol. 2005 Mar 15;95(6):734-41. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.11.024.
7
Selection of patients for heart transplantation in the current era of heart failure therapy.当前心力衰竭治疗时代心脏移植患者的选择
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Mar 3;43(5):787-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.08.058.
8
Is it time for a cardiac allocation score? First results from the Eurotransplant pilot study on a survival benefit-based heart allocation.是否到了制定心脏分配评分的时候了?基于生存获益的心脏分配的 Eurotransplant 试点研究的初步结果。
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013 Sep;32(9):873-80. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2013.03.015. Epub 2013 Apr 28.
9
Heart failure survival score continues to predict clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure receiving beta-blockers.心力衰竭生存评分持续预测接受β受体阻滞剂治疗的心力衰竭患者的临床结局。
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2004 Dec;23(12):1414-22. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2003.10.002.
10
Prediction of mode of death in heart failure: the Seattle Heart Failure Model.心力衰竭死亡方式的预测:西雅图心力衰竭模型
Circulation. 2007 Jul 24;116(4):392-8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.687103. Epub 2007 Jul 9.

引用本文的文献

1
The Colorado Heart Failure Acuity Risk Model: A Mortality Model for Waitlisted Cardiac Transplant Patients.科罗拉多心力衰竭急性风险模型:一种针对心脏移植等待名单上患者的死亡率模型。
JACC Adv. 2024 Dec 13;4(1):101449. doi: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101449. eCollection 2025 Jan.
2
Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion-to-Systolic Pulmonary Artery Pressure Ratio as a Prognostic Factor in Heart Transplant Patients.三尖瓣环平面收缩期位移与收缩期肺动脉压比值作为心脏移植患者的预后因素。
Medicina (Kaunas). 2024 Jun 30;60(7):1078. doi: 10.3390/medicina60071078.
3
Development a nomogram prognostic model for survival in heart failure patients based on the HF-ACTION data.
基于 HF-ACTION 数据开发心力衰竭患者生存预测列线图模型。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024 Jul 19;24(1):197. doi: 10.1186/s12911-024-02593-1.
4
Rationale and Design of a Multicenter Trial on Exploratory Analysis of the Effects of Advance Care Planning Guided by the Prediction Program of Heart Failure Prognosis on Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure - ACQUAINT-Trial.一项关于心力衰竭预后预测程序指导的预先护理计划对心力衰竭患者生活质量影响的探索性分析多中心试验的原理与设计——ACQUAINT试验
Circ Rep. 2024 Jun 8;6(7):276-280. doi: 10.1253/circrep.CR-24-0041. eCollection 2024 Jul 10.
5
Outcome of Heart Transplant Candidates Based on a High Volume Heart Transplant Center Experience in Iran.基于伊朗一家高容量心脏移植中心经验的心脏移植候选者的结局
Int J Organ Transplant Med. 2022;13(2):17-25.
6
Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in the Age of New Heart Failure Therapies: Still a Powerful Tool?新心力衰竭治疗时代的心肺运动试验:仍是一项强大的工具吗?
Biomedicines. 2023 Aug 6;11(8):2208. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11082208.
7
Marginal versus Standard Donors in Heart Transplantation: Proper Selection Means Heart Transplant Benefit.心脏移植中边缘供体与标准供体的比较:正确选择意味着心脏移植获益。
J Clin Med. 2022 May 9;11(9):2665. doi: 10.3390/jcm11092665.
8
The Utility of Pentraxin and Modified Prognostic Scales in Predicting Outcomes of Patients with End-Stage Heart Failure.五聚素与改良预后量表在预测终末期心力衰竭患者预后中的作用
J Clin Med. 2022 May 4;11(9):2567. doi: 10.3390/jcm11092567.
9
Listing criteria for heart transplantation in the Netherlands.荷兰心脏移植的列入标准。
Neth Heart J. 2021 Dec;29(12):611-622. doi: 10.1007/s12471-021-01627-x. Epub 2021 Sep 15.
10
Differences in the prognoses of patients referred to an advanced heart failure center from hospitals with different bed volumes.不同床位数医院转诊至心力衰竭中心患者的预后差异。
Sci Rep. 2020 Dec 3;10(1):21071. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78162-z.