CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

科学研究

Abstract

Recommended Article

Optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound to evaluate coronary artery disease and percutaneous coronary intervention Lipid-rich plaque and myocardial perfusion after successful stenting in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: an optical coherence tomography study Coronary Atherosclerosis T1-Weighed Characterization With Integrated Anatomical Reference: Comparison With High-Risk Plaque Features Detected by Invasive Coronary Imaging Meta-Analysis of Death and Myocardial Infarction in the DEFINE-FLAIR and iFR-SWEDEHEART Trials Metabolic Interactions and Differences between Coronary Heart Disease and Diabetes Mellitus: A Pilot Study on Biomarker Determination and Pathogenesis Experimental basis of determining maximum coronary, myocardial, and collateral blood flow by pressure measurements for assessing functional stenosis severity before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty Comparison of Coronary Intimal Plaques by Optical Coherence Tomography in Arteries With Versus Without Internal Running Vasa Vasorum Retrospective Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Outcomes Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Medical Therapy in Stable Coronary Artery Disease With Gray Zone Fractional Flow Reserve - COMFORTABLE Retrospective Study

Original Research2017 Nov 14;70(20):2476-2486.

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Heart Failure With Preserved, Borderline, and Reduced Ejection Fraction: 5-Year Outcomes

Shah KS, Xu H, Fonarow GC et al. Keywords: ejection fraction; heart failure; outcomes; survival

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Patients with heart failure (HF) have a poor prognosis and are categorized by ejection fraction (EF).


OBJECTIVES - This study sought to characterize differences in outcomes in patients hospitalized with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (EF ≥50%), heart failure with borderline ejection fraction (HFbEF) (EF 41% to 49%), and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (EF ≤40%).


METHODS - Data from GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) were linked to Medicare data for longitudinal follow-up. Multivariable models were constructed to examine 5-year outcomes and to compare survival to median survival of the U.S. population.


RESULTS - A total of 39,982 patients from 254 hospitals who were admitted for HF between 2005 and 2009 were included: 18,299 (46%) had HFpEF, 3,285 (8.2%) had HFbEF, and 18,398 (46%) had HFrEF. Overall, median survival was 2.1 years. In risk-adjusted survival analysis, all 3 groups had similar 5-year mortality (HFrEF 75.3% vs. HFpEF 75.7%; hazard ratio: 0.99 [95% confidence interval: 0.958 to 1.022]; HFbEF 75.7% vs. HFpEF 75.7%; hazard ratio: 0.99 [95% confidence interval: 0.947 to 1.046]). In risk-adjusted analyses, the composite of mortality and rehospitalization was similar for all subgroups. Cardiovascular and HF readmission rates were higher in those with HFrEF and HFbEF compared with those with HFpEF. When compared with the U.S. population, HF patients across all age and EF groups had markedly lower median survival.


CONCLUSIONS - Among patients hospitalized with HF, patients across the EF spectrum have a similarly poor 5-year survival with an elevated risk for cardiovascular and HF admission. These findings underscore the need to improve treatment of patients with HF.

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