CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

The right ventricle in pulmonary hypertension Real-world clinical utility and impact on clinical decision-making of coronary computed tomography angiography-derived fractional flow reserve: lessons from the ADVANCE Registry Prognostic Implication of Thermodilution Coronary Flow Reserve in Patients Undergoing Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement Patient and Hospital Characteristics of Mitral Valve Surgery in the United States Relationship between fractional flow reserve value and the amount of subtended myocardium Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Three-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 2 Trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease High-Resolution Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Techniques for the Identification of Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction Independent Association of Lipoprotein(a) and Coronary Artery Calcification With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW

Review Article19 December 2020

JOURNAL:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/e Article Link

Is Acute heart failure a distinctive disorder? An analysis from BIOSTAT-CHF

BA Davison, S Senger, IE Sama et al. Keywords: acute heart failure; HF outpatients; diagnosis; treatment;

ABSTRACT

AIMS -This retrospective analysis sought to identify markers that might distinguish between acute heart failure (HF) and worsening HF in chronic outpatients.


METHODS AND RESULTS -The BIOSTAT‐CHF index cohort included 2516 patients with new or worsening HF symptoms: 1694 enrolled as inpatients (acute HF) and 822 as outpatients (worsening HF in chronic outpatients). A validation cohort included 935 inpatients and 803 outpatients. Multivariable models were developed in the index cohort using clinical characteristics, routine laboratory values, and proteomics data to examine which factors predict adverse outcomes in both conditions and to determine which factors differ between acute HF and worsening HF in chronic outpatients, validated in the validation cohort.

Patients with acute HF had substantially higher morbidity and mortality (6 months mortality was 12..3% for acute HF and 4..7% for worsening HF in chronic outpatients). Multivariable models predicting 180‐day mortality and 180‐day HF re‐admission differed substantially between acute HF and worsening HF in chronic outpatients. CA‐125 was the strongest single biomarker to distinguish acute HF from worsening HF in chronic outpatients, but only yielded a C‐index of 0..71. A model including multiple biomarkers and clinical variables achieved a high degree of discrimination with a C‐index of 0..913 in the index cohort and 0..901 in the validation cohort.


CONCLUSION - The study identifies different characteristics and predictors of outcome in acute HF patients as compared to outpatients with chronic HF developing worsening HF. The markers identified may be useful in better diagnosing acute HF and may become targets for treatment development.