CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Congestive Heart Failure

Abstract

Recommended Article

The pyruvate-lactate axis modulates cardiac hypertrophy and heart failure Association of Left Ventricular Systolic Function With Incident Heart Failure in Late Life Dapagliflozin for treating chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction Rationale and design of the GUIDE-IT study: Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure Guideline‐Directed Medical Therapy for Patients With Heart Failure With Midrange Ejection Fraction: A Patient‐Pooled Analysis From the KorHF and KorAHF Registries When and how to use SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFrEF or chronic kidney disease Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Ventricular Tachyarrhythmia Burden 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

Clinical Trial2017 May 30;69(21):2606-2618.

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Seattle Heart Failure and Proportional Risk Models Predict Benefit From Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

Bilchick KC, Wang Y, Cheng A et al. Keywords: heart failure; implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; risk models

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND Recent clinical trials highlight the need for better models to identify patients at higher risk of sudden death.


OBJECTIVESThe authors hypothesized that the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) for overall survival and the Seattle Proportional Risk Model (SPRM) for proportional risk of sudden death, including death from ventricular arrhythmias, would predict the survival benefit with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

METHODSPatients with primary prevention ICDs from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) were compared with control patients with heart failure (HF) without ICDs with respect to 5-year survival using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTSAmong 98,846 patients with HF (87,914 with ICDs and 10,932 without ICDs), the SHFM was strongly associated with all-cause mortality (p < 0.0001). The ICD-SPRM interaction was significant (p < 0.0001), such that SPRM quintile 5 patients had approximately twice the reduction in mortality with the ICD versus SPRM quintile 1 patients (adjusted hazard ratios [HR]: 0.602; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.537 to 0.675 vs. 0.793; 95% CI: 0.736 to 0.855, respectively). Among patients with SHFM-predicted annual mortality ≤5.7%, those with a SPRM-predicted risk of sudden death below the median had no reduction in mortality with the ICD (adjusted ICD HR: 0.921; 95% CI: 0.787 to 1.08; p = 0.31), whereas those with SPRM above the median derived the greatest benefit (adjusted HR: 0.599; 95% CI: 0.530 to 0.677; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS The SHFM predicted all-cause mortality in a large cohort with and without ICDs, and the SPRM discriminated and calibrated the potential ICD benefit. Together, the models identified patients less likely to derive a survival benefit from primary prevention ICDs.

Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.