Suppr超能文献

心力衰竭伴射血分数降低的门诊患者中 D 期心力衰竭的定义和结局。

Definitions of Stage D heart failure and outcomes among outpatients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States of America.

Division of Cardiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.

出版信息

Int J Cardiol. 2018 Dec 1;272:250-254. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.08.046. Epub 2018 Aug 15.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

An operational consensus definition of Stage D heart failure (HF) is currently lacking.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

摘要

背景

目前缺乏心力衰竭(HF)D 期的操作性共识定义。

方法

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。

结果

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。

结论

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。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验