Suppr超能文献

老年急性射血分数保留或降低心力衰竭患者的康复干预。

Rehabilitation Intervention in Older Patients With Acute Heart Failure With Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction.

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Department of Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

出版信息

JACC Heart Fail. 2021 Oct;9(10):747-757. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2021.05.007. Epub 2021 Jul 7.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed for treatment interactions by ejection fraction (EF) subgroup (≥45% [heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); vs <45% [heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)]).

BACKGROUND

The REHAB-HF trial showed that an early multidomain rehabilitation intervention improved physical function, frailty, quality-of-life, and depression in older patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF).

METHODS

Three-month outcomes were: Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), 6-min walk distance (6MWD), and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Six-month end points included all-cause rehospitalization and death and a global rank of death, all-cause rehospitalization, and SPPB. Prespecified significance level for interaction was P ≤ 0.1.

RESULTS

Among 349 total participants, 185 (53%) had HFpEF and 164 (47%) had HFrEF. Compared with HFrEF, HFpEF participants were more often women (61% vs 43%) and had significantly worse baseline physical function, frailty, quality of life, and depression. Although interaction P values for 3-month outcomes were not significant, effect sizes were larger for HFpEF vs HFrEF: SPPB +1.9 (95% CI: 1.1-2.6) vs +1.1 (95% CI: 0.3-1.9); 6MWD +40 meters (95% CI: 9 meters-72 meters) vs +27 (95% CI: -6 meters to 59 meters); KCCQ +9 (2-16) vs +6 (-2 to 14). All-cause rehospitalization rate was nominally lower with intervention in HFpEF but not HFrEF [effect size 0.83 (95% CI: 0.64-1.09) vs 0.99 (95% CI: 0.74-1.33); interaction P = 0.40]. There were significantly greater treatment benefits in HFpEF vs HFrEF for all-cause death [interaction P = 0.08; intervention rate ratio 0.63 (95% CI: 0.25-1.61) vs 2.21 (95% CI: 0.78-6.25)], and the global rank end point (interaction P = 0.098) with benefit seen in HFpEF [probability index 0.59 (95% CI: 0.50-0.68)] but not HFrEF.

CONCLUSIONS

Among older patients hospitalized with ADHF, compared with HFrEF those with HFpEF had significantly worse impairments at baseline and may derive greater benefit from the intervention. (A Trial of Rehabilitation Therapy in Older Acute Heart Failure Patients [REHAB-HF]; NCT02196038).

摘要

目的

本研究通过射血分数(EF)亚组(≥45%[射血分数保留型心力衰竭(HFpEF);与<45%[射血分数降低型心力衰竭(HFrEF)]评估治疗相互作用。

背景

REHAB-HF 试验表明,早期多领域康复干预可改善急性失代偿性心力衰竭(ADHF)住院老年患者的身体功能、虚弱、生活质量和抑郁。

方法

3 个月的结局为:简短体能测试(SPPB)、6 分钟步行距离(6MWD)和堪萨斯城心肌病问卷(KCCQ)。6 个月的终点包括全因再住院和死亡以及全因再住院、死亡和 SPPB 的全球排名。交互的预设显著性水平为 P≤0.1。

结果

在 349 名参与者中,185 名(53%)为 HFpEF,164 名(47%)为 HFrEF。与 HFrEF 相比,HFpEF 患者更常见为女性(61%比 43%),且基线身体功能、虚弱、生活质量和抑郁情况明显更差。尽管 3 个月结局的交互 P 值没有意义,但 HFpEF 与 HFrEF 相比,效果大小更大:SPPB+1.9(95%CI:1.1-2.6)比+1.1(95%CI:0.3-1.9);6MWD+40 米(95%CI:9 米-72 米)比+27(95%CI:-6 米至 59 米);KCCQ+9(2-16)比+6(-2 至 14)。HFpEF 干预组全因再住院率名义上较低,但 HFrEF 组则不然[效应量 0.83(95%CI:0.64-1.09)比 0.99(95%CI:0.74-1.33);交互 P=0.40]。HFpEF 与 HFrEF 相比,全因死亡的治疗获益更大[交互 P=0.08;干预率比 0.63(95%CI:0.25-1.61)比 2.21(95%CI:0.78-6.25)],以及全球排名终点(交互 P=0.098)HFpEF 有益[概率指数 0.59(95%CI:0.50-0.68)],但 HFrEF 则不然。

结论

在因 ADHF 住院的老年患者中,与 HFrEF 相比,HFpEF 患者的基线损伤更严重,可能从干预中获得更大的益处。(一项老年急性心力衰竭患者康复治疗试验[REHAB-HF];NCT02196038)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a81f/8487922/a488b57ae7d2/nihms-1709053-f0001.jpg

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