Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
J Card Fail ; 2024 May 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38750689

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) score integrates types and dosages of guideline-directed pharmacotherapies for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We examined the effects of cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation according to the modified HFC (mHFC) score in 1116 patients with nonischemic HFrEF from the Danish Study to Assess the Efficacy of ICDs in Patients with Nonischemic Systolic HF on Mortality (DANISH). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were assigned scores for renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (0, no use; 1, < 50% of maximum dosage; 2, ≥ 50% of maximum dosage). The maximum score was 6, corresponding to ≥ 50% of maximum dosage for all therapies. The median baseline mHFC score was 4, and the median follow-up was 9.5 years. Compared with an mHFC score of 3-4, an mHFC score of 1-2 was associated with a higher rate of all-cause death (mHFC = 1-2: adjusted HR 1.67 [95% CI, 1.23-2.28]; mHFC = 3-4, reference; mHFC = 5-6: adjusted HR 1.07 [95% CI, 0.87-1.31]). ICD implantation did not reduce all-cause death compared with control (reference) (HR 0.89 [95% CI, 0.74-1.08]), regardless of mHFC score (mHFC = 1-2: HR 0.98 [95% CI, 0.56-1.71]; mHFC = 3-4: HR 0.89 [95% CI,0.66-1.20]; mHFC = 5-6: HR 0.85 [95% CI, 0.64-1.12]; Pinteraction, 0.65). Similarly, ICD implantation did not reduce cardiovascular death (HR 0.87 [95% CI, 0.70-1.09]), regardless of mHFC score (Pinteraction, 0.59). The ICD group had a lower rate of sudden cardiovascular death (HR, 0.60 [95% CI,0.40-0.92]); this association was not modified by mHFC score (Pinteraction, 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Lower mHFC scores were associated with higher rates of all-cause death. ICD implantation did not result in an overall survival benefit in patients with nonischemic HFrEF, regardless of mHFC score.

3.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 26(6): 1423-1431, 2024 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38733253

RESUMO

AIMS: Current guidelines recommend implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in patients with heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤35%, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-III. However, the evidence regarding the benefit of primary prevention ICD is less consistent in patients with NYHA class III. We investigated the long-term effects of primary prevention ICD implantation according to NYHA class in an extended follow-up study of the DANISH trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The DANISH trial randomized 1116 patients with non-ischaemic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to ICD implantation or usual care. Outcomes were analysed according to NYHA class at baseline (NYHA class II and III/IV). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Of the 1116 patients randomized in the DANISH trial, 597 (53.5%) were in NYHA class II at baseline, 505 (45.3%) in NYHA class III, and 14 (1.3%) in NYHA class IV. During a median follow-up of 9.5 years, NYHA class III/IV, compared with NYHA class II, were associated with a greater long-term rate of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-1.93) and cardiovascular death (HR 1.95 [1.47-2.60]). ICD implantation, compared with usual care, did not reduce the long-term rate of all-cause mortality (all participants: HR 0.89 [95% CI 0.74-1.08]; NYHA class II: HR 0.85 [0.64-1.13]; NYHA class III/IV: HR 0.89 [0.69-1.14]; pinteraction = 0.78) or cardiovascular death (all participants: HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.70-1.09]; NYHA class II: HR 0.78 [0.54-1.12]; NYHA class III/IV: HR 0.89 [0.67-1.19]; pinteraction = 0.58), irrespective of NYHA class. Similarly, NYHA class did not modify the beneficial effects of ICD implantation on sudden cardiovascular death (all participants: HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.40-0.92]; NYHA class II: HR 0.73 [0.40-1.36]; NYHA class III/IV: HR 0.52 [0.29-0.94]; pinteraction = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with non-ischaemic HFrEF, ICD implantation, compared with usual care, did not reduce the overall mortality rate, but it did reduce sudden cardiovascular death, regardless of baseline NYHA class. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00542945.


Assuntos
Desfibriladores Implantáveis , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Volume Sistólico , Humanos , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Insuficiência Cardíaca/fisiopatologia , Insuficiência Cardíaca/mortalidade , Masculino , Feminino , Volume Sistólico/fisiologia , Seguimentos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Dinamarca/epidemiologia , Prevenção Primária/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento , Morte Súbita Cardíaca/prevenção & controle , Morte Súbita Cardíaca/epidemiologia
4.
Chest ; 2024 Jan 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38295951

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Chronic inflammation is increasingly recognized as a risk factor for VTE, but unlike other inflammatory diseases including systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis, data on the risk of VTE in patients with sarcoidosis are sparse. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do patients with sarcoidosis have a higher long-term risk of VTE (pulmonary embolism or DVT, and each of these individually) compared with the background population? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using Danish nationwide registries, patients aged ≥ 18 years with newly diagnosed sarcoidosis (two or more inpatient/outpatient visits, 1996-2020) without prior VTE were matched 1:4 by age, sex, and comorbidities with individuals from the background population. The primary outcome was VTE. RESULTS: We included 14,742 patients with sarcoidosis and 58,968 matched individuals (median age, 44.7 years; 57.2% male). The median follow-up was 8.8 years. Absolute 10-year risks of outcomes for patients with sarcoidosis vs the background population were the following: VTE, 2.9% vs 1.6% (P < .0001), pulmonary embolism, 1.5% vs 0.7% (P < .0001), and DVT, 1.6% vs 1.0% (P < .0001), respectively. In multivariable Cox regression, sarcoidosis was associated with an increased rate of all outcomes in the first year after diagnosis (VTE: hazard ratio [HR], 4.94; 95% CI, 3.61-6.75) and after the first year (VTE: HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.45-1.87) compared with the background population. These associations persisted when excluding patients with a history of cancer and censoring patients with incident cancer during follow-up. Three-month mortality was not significantly different between patients with VTE with and without sarcoidosis (adjusted HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.61-1.15). INTERPRETATION: In this nationwide cohort study, sarcoidosis was associated with a higher long-term risk of VTE compared with a matched background population.

5.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 13(3): e031977, 2024 Feb 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38293926

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure and chronic kidney disease (CKD) may have an increased risk of death from causes competing with arrhythmic death, which could have implications for the efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). We examined the long-term effects of primary prophylactic ICD implantation, compared with usual care, according to baseline CKD status in an extended follow-up study of DANISH (Danish Study to Assess the Efficacy of ICDs in Patients With Nonischemic Systolic Heart Failure on Mortality). METHODS AND RESULTS: In the DANISH trial, 1116 patients with nonischemic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were randomized to receive an ICD (N=556) or usual care (N=550). Outcomes were analyzed according to CKD status (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥/<60 mL/min per 1.73 m2) at baseline. In total, 1113 patients had an available estimated glomerular filtration rate measurement at baseline (median estimated glomerular filtration rate 73 mL/min per 1.73 m2), and 316 (28%) had CKD. During a median follow-up of 9.5 years, ICD implantation, compared with usual care, did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality (no CKD, HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.64-1.04]; CKD, HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.75-1.38]; Pinteraction=0.31) or cardiovascular death (no CKD, HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.58-1.03]; CKD, HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.73-1.51]; Pinteraction=0.20), irrespective of baseline CKD status. Similarly, baseline CKD status did not modify the beneficial effects of ICD implantation on sudden cardiovascular death (no CKD, HR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.32-1.00]; CKD, HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.34-1.24]; Pinteraction=0.70). CONCLUSIONS: ICD implantation, compared with usual care, did not reduce the overall mortality rate, but it did reduce the rate of sudden cardiovascular death, regardless of baseline kidney function in patients with nonischemic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00542945.


Assuntos
Desfibriladores Implantáveis , Insuficiência Cardíaca Sistólica , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Insuficiência Renal Crônica , Disfunção Ventricular Esquerda , Humanos , Desfibriladores Implantáveis/efeitos adversos , Insuficiência Cardíaca Sistólica/complicações , Insuficiência Cardíaca Sistólica/terapia , Seguimentos , Fatores de Risco , Taxa de Filtração Glomerular , Morte Súbita Cardíaca/epidemiologia , Morte Súbita Cardíaca/etiologia , Morte Súbita Cardíaca/prevenção & controle , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Insuficiência Cardíaca/complicações , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/complicações , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/diagnóstico , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/terapia , Dinamarca/epidemiologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA