Nichols Gregory A, Reynolds Kristi, Kimes Teresa M, Rosales A Gabriela, Chan Wing W
Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon.
Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California.
Am J Cardiol. 2015 Oct 1;116(7):1088-92. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.07.018. Epub 2015 Jul 15.
Because heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are different clinical entities with differing demographic characteristics, common HF outcomes may occur at different rates. Comparative outcome studies have been equivocal, and studies comparing resource utilization are scant. We used an observational cohort design to study 6,513 patients hospitalized for HF who had an EF measured during the hospitalization and were discharged alive within 30 days. We excluded 677 patients with borderline EF values (41% to 49%) and categorized the remaining as HFrEF (EF ≤40%, n = 2,205) and HFpEF (EF >50%, n = 3,631). Patients were followed for up to 1 year for all-cause re-hospitalization and mortality and annualized medical resource utilization. Patients with HFrEF and HFpEF experienced similar adjusted incidence rates of re-hospitalization, but those with HFrEF had a 39% increased risk of mortality at 30 days (rate ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.76) and 25% greater risk at 1 year (rate ratio1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.41). After adjustment for covariates, patients with HFpEF incurred significantly more annualized outpatient visits (21.5 vs 20.1, p = 0.002) and emergency room visits (3.24 vs 2.94, p = 0.002) than those with HFrEF, but absolute differences were small. High inpatient and pharmacy utilization did not differ. Our study suggests that whether a patient has HFrEF or HFpEF has little bearing on risk of re-hospitalization or inpatient resource utilization in the year after an HF hospitalization. Both groups experienced high mortality, but those with HFrEF had greater risk. In conclusion, from the standpoint of resource use, HF can be considered a single entity.
由于射血分数降低的心力衰竭(HFrEF)和射血分数保留的心力衰竭(HFpEF)是具有不同人口统计学特征的不同临床实体,常见的心力衰竭结局可能以不同的发生率出现。比较结局研究尚无定论,且比较资源利用情况的研究很少。我们采用观察性队列设计,研究了6513例因心力衰竭住院且在住院期间测量了射血分数并在30天内存活出院的患者。我们排除了677例射血分数临界值(41%至49%)的患者,并将其余患者分为HFrEF(射血分数≤40%,n = 2205)和HFpEF(射血分数>50%,n = 3631)。对患者进行长达1年的全因再住院、死亡率及年化医疗资源利用情况随访。HFrEF和HFpEF患者的再住院调整发病率相似,但HFrEF患者在30天时的死亡风险增加39%(率比1.39,95%置信区间1.10至1.76),在1年时的死亡风险高25%(率比1.25,95%置信区间1.12至1.41)。在对协变量进行调整后,HFpEF患者的年化门诊就诊次数(21.5次对20.1次,p = 0.002)和急诊就诊次数(3.24次对2.94次,p = 0.002)显著多于HFrEF患者,但绝对差异较小。住院和药房的高利用率并无差异。我们的研究表明,患者是HFrEF还是HFpEF对心力衰竭住院后1年内的再住院风险或住院资源利用影响不大。两组的死亡率都很高,但HFrEF患者的风险更大。总之,从资源利用的角度来看,心力衰竭可被视为一个单一实体。