首页> 外文期刊>ESC Heart Failure >Prognostic impact of Framingham heart failure criteria in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
【24h】

Prognostic impact of Framingham heart failure criteria in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

机译:捕获射血分数的心力衰竭中的帧素心力衰竭标准的预后影响

获取原文
           

摘要

Aims This study aims to assess prognostic impact of Framingham criteria for heart failure (FC‐HF) in patients with stable heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and results In the prospective Karolinska‐Rennes (KaRen) study, we assessed stable HFpEF patients after an acute HF episode. We evaluated associations between the four descriptive models of HFpEF and the composite endpoint of all‐cause mortality and HF hospitalization. The descriptive models were FC‐HF alone, FC‐HF?+?natriuretic peptides (NPs) according to the PARAGON trial, FC‐HF?+?NPs?+?echocardiographic HFpEF criteria according to European Society of Cardiology HF guidelines, and FC‐HF?+?NPs?+?echocardiographic criteria according to the PARAGON trial. Out of the 539 patients enrolled in KaRen, 438 returned for the stable state revisit after 4–8?weeks, 13 (2.4%) patients died before the planned follow‐up, and 88 patients (16%) declined or were unable to return. Three hundred ninety‐nine patients have FC registered at follow‐up, and among these, the four descriptive models were met in 107 (27%), 82 (22%), 61 (21%), and 69 (22%) patients, and not met in 292 (73%). The 107 patients that had FC‐HF at stable state (descriptive model 1) could also be part of the other models because all patients in models 1–4 had to fulfil the FC‐HF. The patients in model 0 did not fulfil the criteria for FC‐HF but could have single FC. Of single FC, only pleural effusion predicted the endpoint [hazard ratio (HR) 3.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47–7.76, P ?=?0.004]. Patients without FC‐HF had better prognosis than patients meeting FC‐HF. The unadjusted associations between the four HFpEF descriptive models and the endpoint were HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.14–2.09, P ?=?0.005; HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.24–2.36, P ?=?0.002; HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.36–2.81, P ?=?0.001; and HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.45–2.91, P ??0.001, for descriptive models 1–4, respectively. No descriptive model independently predicted the endpoint. Conclusions In ambulatory HFpEF patients, a quarter met FC‐HF, while most met NP and echocardiography criteria for HF. Residual FC‐HF tended to be associated with increased risk for mortality and HF hospitalization, further strengthened by NPs and echocardiographic criteria, highlighting its role in clinical risk assessment.
机译:目的本研究旨在评估稳定心力衰竭(HF)患者心力衰竭(FC-HF)的预后对患者(HF)的患者的预后影响(HF)(HFPEF)。方法和结果在前瞻性Karolinska-rennes(凯伦)研究中,我们在急性HF剧集后评估了稳定的HFPEF患者。我们评估了HFPEF的四种描述性模型与全因死亡率和HF住院的综合终点之间的关联。根据Paragon试验,FC-HFα+ NPS(NPS)的描述性模型是FC-HF,FC-HFα+?NPS?+?超声心动图HFPEF标准,根据欧洲心脏病学和FC -HF?+?NPS?+?超声心动图标准根据Paragon试验。在539名患者中,在凯伦注册,438次恢复4-8次稳定国家重新审查,在4-8周后,13例(2.4%)患者在计划后续行动前死亡,88名患者(16%)下降或无法返回。三百九十九名患者在随访中注册了FC,其中四种描述性模型在107(27%),82(22%),61(21%)和69名(22%)患者中满足了四种描述性模型,而不是在292(73%)中遇到。在稳定状态(描述性模型1)中具有FC-HF的107名患者也可以是其他模型的一部分,因为1-4模型中的所有患者必须满足FC-HF。 0型患者0患者没有满足FC-HF的标准,但可以具有单一的FC。单个Fc,只有胸腔积液预测终点[危险比(HR)3.38,95%置信区间(CI)1.47-7.76,p?= 0.004]。没有FC-HF的患者比患者患者具有更好的预后。四个HFPEF描述模型和终点之间的未调整关联是HR 1.54,95%CI 1.14-2.09,P?= 0.005; HR 1.71,95%CI 1.24-2.36,p?= 0.002; HR 1.95,95%CI 1.36-2.81,P?= 0.001;和HR 2.05,95%CI 1.45-2.91,P?<Δ0.001,分别用于描述模型1-4。没有描述性模型,独立地预先预测端点。结论在车身HFPEF患者中,季度达到FC-HF,而最符合HF的NP和超声心动图标准。残留的FC-HF往往与增加的死亡率和HF住院风险增加,通过NPS和超声心动图标准进一步加强,突出了其在临床风险评估中的作用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号