4.7 Article

Prognostic value of pulmonary congestion assessed by lung ultrasound imaging during heart failure hospitalisation: A two-centre cohort study

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep39426

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Boston Scientific
  2. Novartis
  3. Takeda
  4. AstraZeneca
  5. Boehringer Ingelheim
  6. GE Healthcare
  7. Relypsa
  8. Servier
  9. Bayer
  10. Johnson Johnson
  11. Resmed
  12. Pfizer
  13. Angelini
  14. Behring
  15. Menarini
  16. Merck

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pulmonary congestion assessed at discharge by lung ultrasonography predicts poor prognosis in heart failure (HF) patients. We investigated the association of B-lines with indices of hemodynamic congestion [BNP, E/e', pulmonary systolic arterial pressure (PAPs)] in HF patients, and their prognostic value overall and according to concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF), reduced (<= 40%) ejection fraction (EF), and timing of quantification during hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF). In 110 HHF patients, B-lines were highly discriminative of BNP >400 pg/ml (AUC >= 0.80 for all), and moderately discriminative of PAPs >50 mmHg (AUC = 0.68, 0.56 to 0.80); conversely, B-lines poorly discriminated average E/e' >= 15, except at discharge. B-line count significantly predicted mid-term recurrent HHF or death (overall and in subgroups), regardless of AF status, EF, and timing of quantification during HHF (all p for interaction >0.10). regardless, B-lines >= 30 at discharge were most predictive of outcome (HR = 7.11, 2.06-24.48; p = 0.002) while B-lines >= 45 early during HHF were most predictive of outcome (HR = 9.20, 1.82-46.61; p = 0.007). Lung ultrasound was able to identify patients with high BNP levels, but not with increased E/e', also showing a prognostic role regardless of AF status, EF or timing of quantification; best B-line cut-off appears to vary according to the timing of quantification during hospitalization.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available