CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Congestive Heart Failure

Abstract

Recommended Article

Aliskiren, Enalapril, or Aliskiren and Enalapril in Heart Failure Angiotensin–neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure A population-based study of 92 clinically recognised risk factors for heart failure: co-occurrence, prognosis and preventive potential Dilated cardiomyopathy: so many cardiomyopathies! The Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: An Expert Panel Consensus Association of Prior Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Midrange Ejection Fraction Heart Failure Outcomes With Volume-Guided Management 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines
|<<... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >>|

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.


OBJECTIVES - The 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).

METHODS - Patients 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.

RESULTS - Among 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.
>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