Cargando…

Prognostic impact of Framingham heart failure criteria in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS: This study aims to assess prognostic impact of Framingham criteria for heart failure (FC‐HF) in patients with stable heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In the prospective Karolinska‐Rennes (KaRen) study, we assessed stable HFpEF patients after an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Löfström, Ulrika, Hage, Camilla, Savarese, Gianluigi, Donal, Erwan, Daubert, Jean‐Claude, Lund, Lars H., Linde, Cecilia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6676283/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31207140
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12458
_version_ 1783440741525094400
author Löfström, Ulrika
Hage, Camilla
Savarese, Gianluigi
Donal, Erwan
Daubert, Jean‐Claude
Lund, Lars H.
Linde, Cecilia
author_facet Löfström, Ulrika
Hage, Camilla
Savarese, Gianluigi
Donal, Erwan
Daubert, Jean‐Claude
Lund, Lars H.
Linde, Cecilia
author_sort Löfström, Ulrika
collection PubMed
description AIMS: This study aims to assess prognostic impact of Framingham criteria for heart failure (FC‐HF) in patients with stable heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In the prospective Karolinska‐Rennes (KaRen) study, we assessed stable HFpEF patients after an acute HF episode. We evaluated associations between the four descriptive models of HFpEF and the composite endpoint of all‐cause mortality and HF hospitalization. The descriptive models were FC‐HF alone, FC‐HF + natriuretic peptides (NPs) according to the PARAGON trial, FC‐HF + NPs + echocardiographic HFpEF criteria according to European Society of Cardiology HF guidelines, and FC‐HF + NPs + echocardiographic criteria according to the PARAGON trial. Out of the 539 patients enrolled in KaRen, 438 returned for the stable state revisit after 4–8 weeks, 13 (2.4%) patients died before the planned follow‐up, and 88 patients (16%) declined or were unable to return. Three hundred ninety‐nine patients have FC registered at follow‐up, and among these, the four descriptive models were met in 107 (27%), 82 (22%), 61 (21%), and 69 (22%) patients, and not met in 292 (73%). The 107 patients that had FC‐HF at stable state (descriptive model 1) could also be part of the other models because all patients in models 1–4 had to fulfil the FC‐HF. The patients in model 0 did not fulfil the criteria for FC‐HF but could have single FC. Of single FC, only pleural effusion predicted the endpoint [hazard ratio (HR) 3.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47–7.76, P = 0.004]. Patients without FC‐HF had better prognosis than patients meeting FC‐HF. The unadjusted associations between the four HFpEF descriptive models and the endpoint were HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.14–2.09, P = 0.005; HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.24–2.36, P = 0.002; HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.36–2.81, P = 0.001; and HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.45–2.91, P < 0.001, for descriptive models 1–4, respectively. No descriptive model independently predicted the endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: In ambulatory HFpEF patients, a quarter met FC‐HF, while most met NP and echocardiography criteria for HF. Residual FC‐HF tended to be associated with increased risk for mortality and HF hospitalization, further strengthened by NPs and echocardiographic criteria, highlighting its role in clinical risk assessment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6676283
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66762832019-08-06 Prognostic impact of Framingham heart failure criteria in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction Löfström, Ulrika Hage, Camilla Savarese, Gianluigi Donal, Erwan Daubert, Jean‐Claude Lund, Lars H. Linde, Cecilia ESC Heart Fail Original Research Articles AIMS: This study aims to assess prognostic impact of Framingham criteria for heart failure (FC‐HF) in patients with stable heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In the prospective Karolinska‐Rennes (KaRen) study, we assessed stable HFpEF patients after an acute HF episode. We evaluated associations between the four descriptive models of HFpEF and the composite endpoint of all‐cause mortality and HF hospitalization. The descriptive models were FC‐HF alone, FC‐HF + natriuretic peptides (NPs) according to the PARAGON trial, FC‐HF + NPs + echocardiographic HFpEF criteria according to European Society of Cardiology HF guidelines, and FC‐HF + NPs + echocardiographic criteria according to the PARAGON trial. Out of the 539 patients enrolled in KaRen, 438 returned for the stable state revisit after 4–8 weeks, 13 (2.4%) patients died before the planned follow‐up, and 88 patients (16%) declined or were unable to return. Three hundred ninety‐nine patients have FC registered at follow‐up, and among these, the four descriptive models were met in 107 (27%), 82 (22%), 61 (21%), and 69 (22%) patients, and not met in 292 (73%). The 107 patients that had FC‐HF at stable state (descriptive model 1) could also be part of the other models because all patients in models 1–4 had to fulfil the FC‐HF. The patients in model 0 did not fulfil the criteria for FC‐HF but could have single FC. Of single FC, only pleural effusion predicted the endpoint [hazard ratio (HR) 3.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47–7.76, P = 0.004]. Patients without FC‐HF had better prognosis than patients meeting FC‐HF. The unadjusted associations between the four HFpEF descriptive models and the endpoint were HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.14–2.09, P = 0.005; HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.24–2.36, P = 0.002; HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.36–2.81, P = 0.001; and HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.45–2.91, P < 0.001, for descriptive models 1–4, respectively. No descriptive model independently predicted the endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: In ambulatory HFpEF patients, a quarter met FC‐HF, while most met NP and echocardiography criteria for HF. Residual FC‐HF tended to be associated with increased risk for mortality and HF hospitalization, further strengthened by NPs and echocardiographic criteria, highlighting its role in clinical risk assessment. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-06-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6676283/ /pubmed/31207140 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12458 Text en © 2019 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Research Articles
Löfström, Ulrika
Hage, Camilla
Savarese, Gianluigi
Donal, Erwan
Daubert, Jean‐Claude
Lund, Lars H.
Linde, Cecilia
Prognostic impact of Framingham heart failure criteria in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
title Prognostic impact of Framingham heart failure criteria in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
title_full Prognostic impact of Framingham heart failure criteria in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
title_fullStr Prognostic impact of Framingham heart failure criteria in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
title_full_unstemmed Prognostic impact of Framingham heart failure criteria in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
title_short Prognostic impact of Framingham heart failure criteria in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
title_sort prognostic impact of framingham heart failure criteria in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
topic Original Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6676283/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31207140
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12458
work_keys_str_mv AT lofstromulrika prognosticimpactofframinghamheartfailurecriteriainheartfailurewithpreservedejectionfraction
AT hagecamilla prognosticimpactofframinghamheartfailurecriteriainheartfailurewithpreservedejectionfraction
AT savaresegianluigi prognosticimpactofframinghamheartfailurecriteriainheartfailurewithpreservedejectionfraction
AT donalerwan prognosticimpactofframinghamheartfailurecriteriainheartfailurewithpreservedejectionfraction
AT daubertjeanclaude prognosticimpactofframinghamheartfailurecriteriainheartfailurewithpreservedejectionfraction
AT lundlarsh prognosticimpactofframinghamheartfailurecriteriainheartfailurewithpreservedejectionfraction
AT lindececilia prognosticimpactofframinghamheartfailurecriteriainheartfailurewithpreservedejectionfraction