射血分数中间值的心衰:一种明确的临床实体?来自强化与标准药物治疗充血性心力衰竭老年患者的试验(TIME-CHF)的见解。

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: a distinct clinical entity? Insights from the Trial of Intensified versus standard Medical therapy in Elderly patients with Congestive Heart Failure (TIME-CHF).

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland.

Division of Cardiology, Internal Medicine University Department, Kantonsspital Baselland, Bruderholz, Switzerland.

出版信息

Eur J Heart Fail. 2017 Dec;19(12):1586-1596. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.798. Epub 2017 Mar 15.

Abstract

AIMS

While the conditions of heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF, LVEF < 40%) and preserved (HFpEF, LVEF ≥ 50%) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are well characterized, it is unknown whether patients with HF and mid-range LVEF (HFmrEF, LVEF 40-49%) have to be regarded as a separate clinical entity. The aim of this study was to characterize these three populations and to compare outcome and response to therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The analysis was based on the Trial of Intensified versus standard Medical therapy in Elderly patients with Congestive Heart Failure (TIME-CHF) comprising a population with established HF including the whole spectrum of LVEF. Of the 622 patients, 108 (17%) were classified as having HFmrEF. This group was in general found to be 'intermediate' regarding clinical characteristics with a comparable and high burden of comorbidities and equally impaired quality of life but was more likely to have coronary artery disease as compared with the HFpEF group. During a median follow-up of 794 days, mortality was 39.7% without significant differences between groups. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)-guided as compared with standard therapy resulted in improved survival free of HF hospitalizations in HFrEF and HFmrEF, but not in HFpEF.

CONCLUSION

Although the 'intermediate' clinical profile of HFmrEF between HFrEF and HFpEF would support the conclusion that HFmrEF is a distinct clinical entity, we hypothesize that HFmrEF has to be categorized as HFrEF because of the high prevalence of coronary artery disease and the similar benefit of NT-proBNP-guided therapy in HFrEF and HFmrEF, in contrast to HFpEF.

摘要

目的

虽然射血分数降低型心力衰竭(HFrEF,LVEF<40%)和射血分数保留型心力衰竭(HFpEF,LVEF≥50%)的条件得到了很好的描述,但HF 伴有中间范围射血分数(HFmrEF,LVEF 40-49%)的患者是否应被视为一个单独的临床实体尚不清楚。本研究旨在描述这三种人群,并比较其结局和对治疗的反应。

方法和结果

该分析基于强化与标准药物治疗老年充血性心力衰竭试验(TIME-CHF),该试验纳入了一个已经患有 HF 的人群,包括整个 LVEF 谱。在 622 名患者中,108 名(17%)被归类为 HFmrEF。该组在临床特征方面总体上被认为是“中间”的,具有相似的高共病负担和同样受损的生活质量,但与 HFpEF 组相比,更有可能患有冠状动脉疾病。在中位随访 794 天期间,死亡率为 39.7%,各组之间无显著差异。与标准治疗相比,N 末端 B 型利钠肽前体(NT-proBNP)指导治疗可改善 HFrEF 和 HFmrEF 患者无 HF 住院的生存率,但不能改善 HFpEF 患者的生存率。

结论

尽管 HFmrEF 在 HFrEF 和 HFpEF 之间具有“中间”临床特征,但支持 HFmrEF 是一个独立的临床实体的结论,但我们假设 HFmrEF 必须归类为 HFrEF,因为冠状动脉疾病的高患病率和 NT-proBNP 指导治疗在 HFrEF 和 HFmrEF 中的相似获益,而与 HFpEF 不同。

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