Suppr超能文献

用于预测接受心脏再同步治疗的患者中植入式心脏复律除颤器的长期获益的风险评分的适用性。

Applicability of a risk score for prediction of the long-term benefit of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy.

机构信息

Cardiology Department, Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Papworth Everard, Cambridge CB23 3RE, UK

Green Lane Cardiovascular Services, Level 3, Auckland City Hospital, Grafton, Auckland 1023, New Zealand.

出版信息

Europace. 2016 Aug;18(8):1187-93. doi: 10.1093/europace/euv352. Epub 2015 Nov 12.

Abstract

AIMS

The Goldenberg risk score, comprising five clinical risk factors (New York Heart Association class >2, atrial fibrillation, QRS duration >120 ms, age >70 years, and urea >26 mg/dL), may help identify patients in whom the survival benefit of the defibrillator may be limited. We aim at assessing whether this score can accurately predict the long-term all-cause mortality risk of patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and identify those who are more likely to benefit from the defibrillator.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this retrospective observational cohort study, 638 patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy who had CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) (n = 224) vs. CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P) (n = 414) implantation were prospectively followed up for survival outcomes. The long-term outcome of patients with CRT-D vs. CRT-P was compared within risk score categories and in patients with severe renal dysfunction. Mean follow-up in surviving and deceased patients was 62.7 and 32.5 months, respectively. This score showed higher discriminative performance in all-cause mortality prediction in CRT-D vs. CRT-P patients (area under the curve 0.718 ± 0.041 vs. 0.650 ± 0.032, respectively, P = 0.001). In those with scores 0-2, a CRT-D device decreased mortality rates in the first 4 years of follow-up compared with CRT-P (11.3 vs. 24.7%, P = 0.041), but this effect attenuated with longer follow-up duration (21.2 vs. 32.7%, P = 0.078). In this group, the benefit of CRT-D during the follow-up was seen after adjusting for traditional mortality predictors (hazard ratio 0.339, P = 0.001). No significant differences in mortality rates were seen in patients with score ≥3 (57.9% with CRT-D vs. 56.9%, P = 0.8) and those with severe renal dysfunction (92.9% in CRT-D vs. 76.2%, P = 0.17). Similar results were seen following propensity score matching.

CONCLUSION

A simple risk stratification score comprising five clinical risk factors may help identify CRT patients who are more likely to benefit from the presence of the defibrillator.

摘要

目的

由五个临床危险因素(纽约心脏协会心功能分级>2 级、心房颤动、QRS 时限>120ms、年龄>70 岁、血尿素氮>26mg/dL)组成的 Goldberger 风险评分可能有助于确定生存获益可能受限的患者,这些患者植入除颤器的获益可能有限。我们旨在评估该评分是否能够准确预测接受心脏再同步治疗(CRT)患者的长期全因死亡率风险,并确定那些更有可能从除颤器中获益的患者。

方法和结果

在这项回顾性观察性队列研究中,前瞻性随访了 638 例接受 CRT-除颤器(CRT-D)(n=224)与 CRT-起搏器(CRT-P)(n=414)植入的缺血性或非缺血性扩张型心肌病患者的生存结局。比较了 CRT-D 与 CRT-P 患者在风险评分类别内和严重肾功能障碍患者中的长期预后。存活和死亡患者的平均随访时间分别为 62.7 和 32.5 个月。与 CRT-P 相比,该评分在 CRT-D 患者中的全因死亡率预测中具有更高的区分性能(曲线下面积分别为 0.718±0.041 与 0.650±0.032,P=0.001)。在评分 0-2 分的患者中,与 CRT-P 相比,CRT-D 装置在随访的前 4 年降低了死亡率(11.3%与 24.7%,P=0.041),但随着随访时间的延长,这种效果减弱(21.2%与 32.7%,P=0.078)。在该组中,在调整了传统死亡率预测因素后,CRT-D 在随访期间的获益仍然存在(风险比 0.339,P=0.001)。评分≥3 分的患者(CRT-D 为 57.9%,CRT-P 为 56.9%,P=0.8)和严重肾功能障碍患者(CRT-D 为 92.9%,CRT-P 为 76.2%,P=0.17)的死亡率无显著差异。倾向性评分匹配后也得到了类似的结果。

结论

由五个临床危险因素组成的简单风险分层评分可能有助于确定更有可能从除颤器中获益的 CRT 患者。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验