CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

科学研究

Abstract

Recommended Article

Open sesame technique in percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction Stent Thrombosis Risk Over Time on the Basis of Clinical Presentation and Platelet Reactivity: Analysis From ADAPT-DES Incidence and prognostic implication of unrecognized myocardial scar characterized by cardiac magnetic resonance in diabetic patients without clinical evidence of myocardial infarction Complete or Culprit-Only Revascularization for Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Deficiency of GATA3-Positive Macrophages Improves Cardiac Function Following Myocardial Infarction or Pressure Overload Hypertrophy Association between Coronary Collaterals and Myocardial Viability in Patients with a Chronic Total Occlusion 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Prognostic and Practical Validation of Current Definitions of Myocardial Infarction Associated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
|<<... 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 ...>>|

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.



>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