CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

科学研究

Abstract

Recommended Article

Management of two major complications in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory: the no-reflow phenomenon and coronary perforations Invasive Coronary Physiology After Stent Implantation: Another Step Toward Precision Medicine Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association Guiding Principles for Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Systems of Care for ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Feasibility Study Long-Term Outcomes of Biodegradable Versus Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent Implantations for Myocardial Infarction ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization: A Report by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography

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.