CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

充血性心力衰竭

科研文章

荐读文献

A pragmatic approach to the use of inotropes for the management of acute and advanced heart failure: An expert panel consensus Effects of Dapagliflozin on Symptoms, Function and Quality of Life in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: Results from the DAPA-HF Trial Association of Prior Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Midrange Ejection Fraction Circulating sST2 and catestatin levels in patients with acute worsening of heart failure: a report from the CATSTAT-HF study The spectrum of heart failure: value of left ventricular ejection fraction and its moving trajectories How to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the HFA–PEFF diagnostic algorithm: a consensus recommendation from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Ventricular Tachyarrhythmia Burden Risk of Mortality Following Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation Association of loop diuretics use and dose with outcomes in outpatients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies involving 96,959 patients Frailty Is Intertwined With Heart Failure: Mechanisms, Prevalence, Prognosis, Assessment, and Management

Clinical TrialVolume 6, Issue 9, September 2018

JOURNAL:JACC: Heart Failure Article Link

INTERMACS Profiles and Outcomes Among Non–Inotrope-Dependent Outpatients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

A Samman-Tahhan, JS Hedley, AA. McCue et al. Keywords: heart failure; heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; HFrEF; INTERMACS; outcomes

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - This study sought to evaluate INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) profiles for prognostic use among ambulatory non–inotrope-dependent patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

BACKGROUND - Data for INTERMACS profiles and prognoses in ambulatory patients with HFrEF are limited.

METHODS - We evaluated 3-year outcomes in 969 non–inotrope-dependent outpatients with HFrEF (EF: ≤40%) not previously receiving advanced HF therapies. Patients meeting an INTERMACS profile at baseline were classified as profile 7 (n = 348 [34.7%]); 146 patients (14.5%) were classified profile 6; and 52 patients (5.2%) were classified profile 4 to 5. Remaining patients were classified “stable Stage C” (n = 423 [42.1%]).

RESULTS -  Three-year mortality rate was 10.0% among stable Stage C patients compared with 21.8% among INTERMACS profile 7 (hazard ratio [HR] vs. Stage C: 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.64 to 3.66), 26.0% among profile 6 (HR: 3.93; 95% CI: 1.64 to 3.66), and 43.8% among profile 4 to 5 (HR: 6.35; 95% CI: 3.51 to 11.5) patients. Hospitalization rates for HF were 4-fold higher among INTERMACS profile 7 (38 per 100 patient-years; rate ratio [RR] vs. Stage C: 3.88; 95% CI: 2.70 to 5.35), 6-fold higher among profile 6 patients (54 per 100 patient-years; RR: 5.69; 95% CI: 3.72 to 8.71), and 10-fold higher among profile 4 to 5 patients (69 per 100 patient-years; RR: 9.96; 95% CI: 5.15 to 19.3) than stable Stage C patients (11 per 100 patient-years). All-cause hospitalization rates had similar trends. INTERMACS profiles offered better prognostic separation than NYHA functional classifications.

CONCLUSIONS - INTERMACS profiles strongly predict subsequent mortality and hospitalization burden in non–inotrope-dependent outpatients with HFrEF. These simple profiles could therefore facilitate and promote advanced HF awareness among clinicians and planning for advanced HF therapies.