Circulation. Heart failure · 2016
Predicting Heart Failure With Preserved and Reduced Ejection Fraction: The International Collaboration on Heart Failure Subtypes.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ho Jennifer E, Enserro Danielle, Brouwers Frank P, Kizer Jorge R, Shah Sanjiv J, Psaty Bruce M, Bartz Traci M, Santhanakrishnan Rajalakshmi, Lee Douglas S, Chan Cheeling, Liu Kiang, Blaha Michael J, Hillege Hans L, van der Harst Pim, van Gilst Wiek H, Kop Willem J, Gansevoort Ron T, Vasan Ramachandran S, Gardin Julius M, Levy Daniel, Gottdiener John S, de Boer Rudolf A, Larson Martin G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a prevalent and deadly disease, and preventive strategies focused on at-risk individuals are needed. Current HF prediction models have not examined HF subtypes. We sought to develop and validate risk prediction models for HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF, HFrEF).
METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 28,820 participants from 4 community-based cohorts, 982 developed incident HFpEF and 909 HFrEF during a median follow-up of 12 years. Three cohorts were combined, and a 2:1 random split was used for derivation and internal validation, with the fourth cohort as external validation. Models accounted for multiple competing risks (death, other HF subtype, and unclassified HF). The HFpEF-specific model included age, sex, systolic blood pressure, body mass index, antihypertensive treatment, and previous myocardial infarction; it had good discrimination in derivation (c-statistic 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.82) and validation samples (internal: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.77-0.82 and external: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.71-0.80). The HFrEF-specific model additionally included smoking, left ventricular hypertrophy, left bundle branch block, and diabetes mellitus; it had good discrimination in derivation (c-statistic 0.82; 95% CI, 0.80-0.84) and validation samples (internal: 0.80; 95% CI, 0.78-0.83 and external: 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80). Age was more strongly associated with HFpEF, and male sex, left ventricular hypertrophy, bundle branch block, previous myocardial infarction, and smoking with HFrEF (P value for each comparison ≤0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: We describe and validate risk prediction models for HF subtypes and show good discrimination in a large sample. Some risk factors differed between HFpEF and HFrEF, supporting the notion of pathogenetic differences among HF subtypes.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 28,820 participants from 4 community-based cohorts, 982 developed incident HFpEF and 909 HFrEF during a median follow-up of 12 years. Three cohorts were combined, and a 2:1 random split was used for derivation and internal validation, with the fourth cohort as external validation. Models accounted for multiple competing risks (death, other HF subtype, and unclassified HF). The HFpEF-specific model included age, sex, systolic blood pressure, body mass index, antihypertensive treatment, and previous myocardial infarction; it had good discrimination in derivation (c-statistic 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.82) and validation samples (internal: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.77-0.82 and external: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.71-0.80). The HFrEF-specific model additionally included smoking, left ventricular hypertrophy, left bundle branch block, and diabetes mellitus; it had good discrimination in derivation (c-statistic 0.82; 95% CI, 0.80-0.84) and validation samples (internal: 0.80; 95% CI, 0.78-0.83 and external: 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80). Age was more strongly associated with HFpEF, and male sex, left ventricular hypertrophy, bundle branch block, previous myocardial infarction, and smoking with HFrEF (P value for each comparison ≤0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: We describe and validate risk prediction models for HF subtypes and show good discrimination in a large sample. Some risk factors differed between HFpEF and HFrEF, supporting the notion of pathogenetic differences among HF subtypes.