4.6 Article

The obesity paradox in heart failure: Is etiology a key factor?

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 166, 期 3, 页码 601-605

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.11.022

关键词

Heart failure; Body mass index; Etiology; Mortality; Ischemic heart disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Obesity is paradoxically associated with survival in patients with heart failure (HF). Our objective was to assess whether the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and long-term survival is associated with HF etiology (ischemic vs. non-ischemic) in a cohort of ambulatory HF patients. Methods: BMI and survival status after a median follow-up of 6.1 years (IQR 2.2-7.8) were available for 504 patients (73% men; median age 68 years [IQR 58-74]). Fifty-nine percent of patients had ischemic etiology. Median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 30% (IQR 23-39.7%). Most patients were in NYHA functional class II (51%) or III (42%). Patients were divided into four groups according to BMI: low weight (BMI <20.5 kg/m(2)), normal weight (BMI 20.5 to <25.5 kg/m(2)), overweight (BMI 25.5 to <30 kg/m(2)), and obese (BMI >= 30 kg/m(2)). Results: Mortality differed significantly across the BMI strata in non-ischemic patients (log-rank p<0.0001) but not in ischemic patients. Using normal weight patients as a reference, hazard ratios for low weight, overweight, and obese patients were 2.08 (1.16-3.75, p = 0.014), 0.88 (0.54-1.43, p = 0.60), and 0.49 (0.28-0.86, p = 0.01), respectively, for non-ischemic patients and 1.19 (0.48-2.97, p = 0.71), 0.88 (0.61-1.27, p = 0.48), and 0.96 (0.66-1.41, p = 0.85), respectively, for ischemic patients. After adjusting for age, sex, NYHA functional class, LVEF, co-morbidities, and treatment, BMI remained an independent predictor of survival in non-ischemic patients. Conclusion: Over long-term follow-up of ischemic and non-ischemic HF, the obesity paradox was only observed in patients with non-ischemic HF. (c) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据