Pāriet uz galveno navigāciju Pāriet uz meklēšanu Pāriet uz galveno saturu

Acute heart failure congestion and perfusion status – impact of the clinical classification on in-hospital and long-term outcomes; insights from the ESC-EORP-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

  • the ESC-EORP-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry Investigators
  • Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy
  • Université Paris Cité
  • Associazione Nazionale Medici Cardiologi Ospedalieri
  • European Society of Cardiology
  • University of Helsinki
  • St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana - Roma
  • Guglielmo da Saliceto Hospital
  • CIBERCV
  • General Hospital Murska Sobota
  • Wrocław Medical University
  • Wrocław Military Hospital
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
  • University of Cyprus
  • University of Zurich
  • University of Belgrade
  • Karolinska Institutet

Zinātniskās darbības rezultāts: Devums žurnālamZinātniskais raksts (žurnālā)koleģiāli recenzēts

316 Atsauces (Scopus)

Kopsavilkums

Aims: Classification of acute heart failure (AHF) patients into four clinical profiles defined by evidence of congestion and perfusion is advocated by the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)guidelines. Based on the ESC-EORP-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry, we compared differences in baseline characteristics, in-hospital management and outcomes among congestion/perfusion profiles using this classification. Methods and results: We included 7865 AHF patients classified at admission as: ‘dry-warm’ (9.9%), ‘wet-warm’ (69.9%), ‘wet-cold’ (19.8%) and ‘dry-cold’ (0.4%). These groups differed significantly in terms of baseline characteristics, in-hospital management and outcomes. In-hospital mortality was 2.0% in ‘dry-warm’, 3.8% in ‘wet-warm’, 9.1% in ‘dry-cold’ and 12.1% in ‘wet-cold’ patients. Based on clinical classification at admission, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality were: ‘wet-warm’ vs. ‘dry-warm’ 1.78 (1.43–2.21) and ‘wet-cold’ vs. ‘wet-warm’ 1.33 (1.19–1.48). For profiles resulting from discharge classification, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality were: ‘wet-warm’ vs. ‘dry-warm’ 1.46 (1.31–1.63) and ‘wet-cold’ vs. ‘wet-warm’ 2.20 (1.89–2.56). Among patients discharged alive, 30.9% had residual congestion, and these patients had higher 1-year mortality compared to patients discharged without congestion (28.0 vs. 18.5%). Tricuspid regurgitation, diabetes, anaemia and high New York Heart Association class were independently associated with higher risk of congestion at discharge, while beta-blockers at admission, de novo heart failure, or any cardiovascular procedure during hospitalization were associated with lower risk of residual congestion. Conclusion: Classification based on congestion/perfusion status provides clinically relevant information at hospital admission and discharge. A better understanding of the clinical course of the two entities could play an important role towards the implementation of targeted strategies that may improve outcomes.

OriģinālvalodaAngļu
Lapas (no-līdz)1338-1352
Lapu skaits15
ŽurnālsEuropean Journal of Heart Failure
Sējums21
Izdevuma numurs11
DOIs
Publikācijas statussPublicēts - 1 nov. 2019

ANO IAM

Šis izpildes rezultāts palīdz sasniegt šādus ANO ilgtspējīgas attīstības mērķus (IAM)

  1. 3. IAM — Laba Veselība un Labbūtība
    3. IAM — Laba Veselība un Labbūtība

Nospiedums

Uzziniet vairāk par pētniecības tēmām “Acute heart failure congestion and perfusion status – impact of the clinical classification on in-hospital and long-term outcomes; insights from the ESC-EORP-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry”. Kopā tie veido unikālu nospiedumu.

Citēt šo