Division of Cardiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States of America.
Division of Cardiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Int J Cardiol. 2018 Dec 1;272:250-254. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.08.046. Epub 2018 Aug 15.
An operational consensus definition of Stage D heart failure (HF) is currently lacking.
We evaluated 512 outpatients (median age, 63 years; 35.0% women; 45.5% white and 45.9% black; median ejection fraction was 25%; 67.4% had coronary artery disease) with HF and reduced (≤40%) ejection fraction. We applied 3 hypothetical definitions for Stage D: (1) designation as "Stage D" or "advanced" HF by treating physician; (2) INTERMACS profiles, defining Stage D as profiles 2-6; and (3) European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Association (ESC-HFA) criteria.
Physicians, INTERMACS profiles, and ESC-HFA criteria identified 64 (12.5%), 93 (18.2%), and 67 (13.1%) patients, respectively, as Stage D, with modest concordance between definitions (κ = 0.37). After a median of 3.1 years, 97 patients died (3-year mortality 20.4%). Among patients identified as Stage D by physicians, 3-year mortality was 43.7% vs. 17.0% for non-Stage D patients (age-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 3.17; 95%CI 1.94-5.18; P < 0.001). The corresponding mortalities for the INTERMACS-based definition were 41.0% vs. 16.2% (HR 3.28; 95%CI 2.11-5.11; P < 0.001) and for ESC-HFA criteria 33.5% vs. 18.6% (HR 2.02; 95%CI 1.22-3.33; P = 0.006); the INTERMACS-based definition provided the best prognostic separation. Results were similar with an alternative INTERMACS-based definition considering only profiles 2-5 as Stage D HF. The INTERMACS-based definition best separated all-cause and HF-specific hospitalization and composite endpoint risk between Stage D and non-Stage D patients also.
INTERMACS profiles provide a practical alternative for the identification of Stage D HF in ambulatory populations with systolic HF. The ESC-HFA criteria offer limited prognostic information.
目前缺乏心力衰竭(HF)D 期的操作性共识定义。
我们评估了 512 名门诊患者(中位年龄 63 岁;35.0%为女性;45.5%为白人,45.9%为黑人;中位射血分数为 25%;67.4%有冠心病),这些患者 HF 合并射血分数降低(≤40%)。我们应用了 3 种假设的 D 期定义:(1)由治疗医生指定为“D 期”或“晚期”HF;(2)INTERMACS 谱,将 D 期定义为谱 2-6;(3)欧洲心脏病学会心力衰竭协会(ESC-HFA)标准。
医生、INTERMACS 谱和 ESC-HFA 标准分别识别出 64 例(12.5%)、93 例(18.2%)和 67 例(13.1%)患者为 D 期,不同定义之间的一致性尚可(κ=0.37)。中位随访 3.1 年后,97 例患者死亡(3 年死亡率 20.4%)。在医生诊断为 D 期的患者中,3 年死亡率为 43.7%,而非 D 期患者为 17.0%(年龄调整后的危险比[HR]3.17;95%CI 1.94-5.18;P<0.001)。基于 INTERMACS 定义的死亡率分别为 41.0%和 16.2%(HR 3.28;95%CI 2.11-5.11;P<0.001),基于 ESC-HFA 标准的死亡率分别为 33.5%和 18.6%(HR 2.02;95%CI 1.22-3.33;P=0.006);基于 INTERMACS 的定义提供了最佳的预后分层。采用仅考虑谱 2-5 的替代 INTERMACS 定义,结果相似。该定义还能最佳区分 D 期和非 D 期患者的全因和 HF 特异性住院及复合终点风险。
INTERMACS 谱为门诊人群中收缩性 HF 患者 D 期 HF 的识别提供了一种实用的替代方法。ESC-HFA 标准提供的预后信息有限。