CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Congestive Heart Failure

Abstract

Recommended Article

Impact of Myocardial Scar on Prognostic Implication of Secondary Mitral Regurgitation in Heart Failure Association of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program With Mortality Among Medicare Beneficiaries Hospitalized for Heart Failure, Acute Myocardial Infarction, and Pneumonia Effect of SGLT2-Inhibitors on Epicardial Adipose Tissue: A Meta-Analysis Nuclear Imaging of the Cardiac Sympathetic Nervous System: A Disease-Specific Interpretation in Heart Failure The year in cardiology: heart failure: The year in cardiology 2019 Effect of Luseogliflozin on Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Atrial Fibrillation and the Prognostic Performance of Biomarkers in Heart Failure Positive recommendation for angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor: First medication approval for heart failure without "reduced ejection fraction"
|<<... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ...>>|

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.


>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top