Waheed Salman, Chaves Paulo H M, Gardin Julius M, Cao Jie Jane
Saint Francis Hospital, Roslyn, NY (S.W., J.J.C.) University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS (S.W.).
Benjamin Leon Center for Geriatric Research and Education, Florida International University, Miami, FL (P.M.C.).
J Am Heart Assoc. 2015 Dec 8;4(12):e002308. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.115.002308.
Impaired pulmonary function (IPF) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) are prevalent in the elderly and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The main objectives of this study were to examine the relative impact and joint association of IPF and LVSD with heart failure, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and their impact on risk classification using a continuous net reclassification index.
We followed 2342 adults without prevalent cardiovascular disease (mean age, 76 years) from the Cardiovascular Health Study for a median of 12.6 years. LVSD was defined as LV ejection fraction <55%. IPF was defined as: forced expiratory volume in 1 second:forced vital capacity <70%, and predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second <80%. Outcomes included heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and composite outcome. LVSD was detected in 128 subjects (6%), IPF in 441 (19%) and both in 38 (2%). Compared to those without LVSD or IPF, there was a significantly increased cardiovascular risk for groups of LVSD only, IPF only, and LVSD plus IPF, adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) 2.1 (1.5-3.0), 1.7 (1.4-2.1), and 3.2 (2.0-5.1) for HF; 1.8 (1.2-2.6), 1.4 (1.1-1.8), and 2.8 (1.7-4.7) for cardiovascular mortality; 1.3 (1.0-1.8), 1.7 (1.4-1.9), and 2.1 (1.5-3.0) for all-cause mortality, and 1.6 (1.3-2.1), 1.7 (1.5-1.9), and 2.4 (1.7-3.3) for composite outcome, respectively. Risk classification improved significantly for all outcomes when IPF was added to the adjusted model with LVSD or LVSD to IPF.
While risk of cardiovascular outcomes was the highest among elderly with both LVSD and IPF, risk was comparable between subjects with IPF alone and those with LVSD alone. This observation, combined with improved risk classification by adding IPF to LVSD or LVSD to IPF, underscore the importance of comprehensive heart and lung evaluation in cardiovascular outcome assessment.
肺功能受损(IPF)和左心室收缩功能障碍(LVSD)在老年人中普遍存在,且与显著的发病率和死亡率相关。本研究的主要目的是探讨IPF和LVSD与心力衰竭、心血管死亡率和全因死亡率的相对影响及联合关联,以及它们使用连续净重新分类指数对风险分类的影响。
我们对心血管健康研究中2342名无心血管疾病病史的成年人(平均年龄76岁)进行了为期12.6年的随访。LVSD定义为左心室射血分数<55%。IPF定义为:1秒用力呼气量:用力肺活量<70%,且预计1秒用力呼气量<80%。结局包括心力衰竭住院、心血管死亡率、全因死亡率和复合结局。128名受试者(6%)检测到LVSD,441名(19%)检测到IPF,38名(2%)同时检测到两者。与无LVSD或IPF的受试者相比,仅LVSD组、仅IPF组和LVSD加IPF组的心血管风险显著增加,调整后的风险比(95%CI):心力衰竭为2.1(1.5 - 3.0)、1.7(1.4 - 2.1)和3.2(2.0 - 5.1);心血管死亡率为1.8(1.2 - 2.6)、1.4(1.1 - 1.8)和2.8(1.7 - 4.7);全因死亡率为1.3(1.0 - 1.8)、1.7(1.4 - 1.9)和2.1(1.5 - 3.0);复合结局为1.6(1.3 - 2.1)、1.7(1.5 - 1.9)和2.4(1.7 - 3.3)。当在调整模型中加入IPF到LVSD或LVSD到IPF时,所有结局的风险分类均显著改善。
虽然在同时患有LVSD和IPF的老年人中心血管结局风险最高,但仅患有IPF的受试者和仅患有LVSD的受试者之间风险相当。这一观察结果,加上通过在LVSD中加入IPF或在IPF中加入LVSD改善了风险分类,强调了在心血管结局评估中进行心肺综合评估的重要性。