CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Drug-Coated Balloon-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review Orbital atherectomy for treating de novo, severely calcified coronary lesions: 3-year results of the pivotal ORBIT II trial Prediction of progression of coronary artery disease and clinical outcomes using vascular profiling of endothelial shear stress and arterial plaque characteristics: the PREDICTION Study Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for Small Coronary Vessel Disease: PICCOLETO II Randomized Clinical Trial Percutaneous Repair or Medical Treatment for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: Outcomes at 2 years Treatment of Drug-Eluting Stent In-Stent Restenosis With Drug-Eluting Balloons: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Percutaneous Pulmonary Angioplasty for Patients With Takayasu Arteritis and Pulmonary Hypertension Evolution of the Crush Technique for Bifurcation Stenting Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI as Compared with Coronary Bypass Surgery Outcomes with drug-coated balloons in small-vessel coronary artery disease

Clinical TrialVolume 6, Issue 9, September 2018

JOURNAL:JACC: Heart Failure Article Link

INTERMACS Profiles and Outcomes Among Non–Inotrope-Dependent Outpatients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

A Samman-Tahhan, JS Hedley, AA. McCue et al. Keywords: heart failure; heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; HFrEF; INTERMACS; outcomes

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - This study sought to evaluate INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) profiles for prognostic use among ambulatory non–inotrope-dependent patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

BACKGROUND - Data for INTERMACS profiles and prognoses in ambulatory patients with HFrEF are limited.

METHODS - We evaluated 3-year outcomes in 969 non–inotrope-dependent outpatients with HFrEF (EF: ≤40%) not previously receiving advanced HF therapies. Patients meeting an INTERMACS profile at baseline were classified as profile 7 (n = 348 [34.7%]); 146 patients (14.5%) were classified profile 6; and 52 patients (5.2%) were classified profile 4 to 5. Remaining patients were classified “stable Stage C” (n = 423 [42.1%]).

RESULTS -  Three-year mortality rate was 10.0% among stable Stage C patients compared with 21.8% among INTERMACS profile 7 (hazard ratio [HR] vs. Stage C: 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.64 to 3.66), 26.0% among profile 6 (HR: 3.93; 95% CI: 1.64 to 3.66), and 43.8% among profile 4 to 5 (HR: 6.35; 95% CI: 3.51 to 11.5) patients. Hospitalization rates for HF were 4-fold higher among INTERMACS profile 7 (38 per 100 patient-years; rate ratio [RR] vs. Stage C: 3.88; 95% CI: 2.70 to 5.35), 6-fold higher among profile 6 patients (54 per 100 patient-years; RR: 5.69; 95% CI: 3.72 to 8.71), and 10-fold higher among profile 4 to 5 patients (69 per 100 patient-years; RR: 9.96; 95% CI: 5.15 to 19.3) than stable Stage C patients (11 per 100 patient-years). All-cause hospitalization rates had similar trends. INTERMACS profiles offered better prognostic separation than NYHA functional classifications.

CONCLUSIONS - INTERMACS profiles strongly predict subsequent mortality and hospitalization burden in non–inotrope-dependent outpatients with HFrEF. These simple profiles could therefore facilitate and promote advanced HF awareness among clinicians and planning for advanced HF therapies.