From the University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland, OH (A.B., J.C.F.); Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH (A.B.); Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology (B.F., B.K.) and Penn Cardiovascular Institute (B.F., B.K., E.V., C.O., T.P.C.), Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson (N.K.S.); and Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (J.C.F.).
Circulation. 2014 Jun 10;129(23):2380-7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006855. Epub 2014 May 5.
We hypothesized that patients with heart failure (HF) who recover left ventricular function (HF-Recovered) have a distinct clinical phenotype, biology, and prognosis compared with patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) and those with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF).
The Penn Heart Failure Study (PHFS) is a prospective cohort of 1821 chronic HF patients recruited from tertiary HF clinics. Participants were divided into 3 categories based on echocardiograms: HF-REF if EF was <50%, HF-PEF if EF was consistently ≥50%, and HF-Recovered if EF on enrollment in PHFS was ≥50% but prior EF was <50%. A significant portion of HF-Recovered patients had an abnormal biomarker profile at baseline, including 44% with detectable troponin I, although in comparison, median levels of brain natriuretic factor, soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase receptor-1, troponin I, and creatinine were greater in HF-REF and HF-PEF patients. In unadjusted Cox models over a maximum follow-up of 8.9 years, the hazard ratio for death, transplantation, or ventricular assist device placement in HF-REF patients was 4.1 (95% confidence interval, 2.4-6.8; P<0.001) and in HF-PEF patients was 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.5; P=0.013) compared with HF-Recovered patients. The unadjusted hazard ratio for cardiac hospitalization in HF-REF patients was 2.0 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.7; P<0.001) and in HF-PEF patients was 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-2.0; P=0.15) compared with HF-Recovered patients. Results were similar in adjusted models.
HF-Recovered is associated with a better biomarker profile and event-free survival than HF-REF and HF-PEF. However, these patients still have abnormalities in biomarkers and experience a significant number of HF hospitalizations, suggesting persistent HF risk.
我们假设,与射血分数降低性心力衰竭(HF-REF)和射血分数保留性心力衰竭(HF-PEF)患者相比,左心室功能恢复(HF-Recovered)的心力衰竭患者具有独特的临床表型、生物学特征和预后。
宾州心力衰竭研究(PHFS)是一项前瞻性队列研究,共纳入 1821 例来自三级心力衰竭诊所的慢性心力衰竭患者。根据超声心动图将参与者分为 3 类:EF<50%为 HF-REF;EF 持续≥50%为 HF-PEF;PHFS 纳入时 EF≥50%但之前 EF<50%为 HF-Recovered。HF-Recovered 患者中有相当一部分在基线时存在异常生物标志物谱,包括 44%可检测到肌钙蛋白 I,尽管相比之下,HF-REF 和 HF-PEF 患者的脑利钠肽、可溶性 Fms 样酪氨酸激酶受体-1、肌钙蛋白 I 和肌酐中位数水平更高。在最大 8.9 年的随访中,未经调整的 Cox 模型显示,HF-REF 患者的死亡、移植或心室辅助装置植入风险比为 4.1(95%置信区间,2.4-6.8;P<0.001),HF-PEF 患者为 2.3(95%置信区间,1.2-4.5;P=0.013),而 HF-Recovered 患者为 1.0。HF-REF 患者的心脏住院风险比为 2.0(95%置信区间,1.5-2.7;P<0.001),HF-PEF 患者为 1.3(95%置信区间,0.90-2.0;P=0.15),而 HF-Recovered 患者为 1.0。调整模型的结果相似。
与 HF-REF 和 HF-PEF 相比,HF-Recovered 与更好的生物标志物谱和无事件生存率相关。然而,这些患者的生物标志物仍存在异常,并经历了大量的心力衰竭住院治疗,表明持续存在心力衰竭风险。