CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Congestive Heart Failure

Abstract

Recommended Article

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) Cardiovascular Aging and Heart Failure: JACC Review Topic of the Week Metformin Lowers Body Weight But Fails to Increase Insulin Sensitivity in Chronic Heart Failure Patients without Diabetes: a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study Lateral Wall Dysfunction Signals Onset of Progressive Heart Failure in Left Bundle Branch Block Heart Failure With Mid-Range (Borderline) Ejection Fraction: Clinical Implications and Future Directions Clinical epidemiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in comparatively young hospitalized patients Clinical Phenogroups in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Detailed Phenotypes, Prognosis, and Response to Spironolactone Diagnostic performance of congestion score index evaluated from chest radiography for acute heart failure in the emergency department: A retrospective analysis from the PARADISE cohort
|<<... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ...>>|

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