4.7 Article

Long-term Prognostic Value of Estimated Plasma Volume in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-50427-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Taiwan University Hospital Hsinchu Branch [108-HCH001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plasma volume, estimated by several indirect methods, has been viewed as a biological surrogate for intravascular fluid status. The clinical implication of estimated plasma volume status (ePVS) for long term outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains unclear. We investigate the prognostic value of ePVS calculated by Strauss formula and its association with cardiovascular events and mortality in a prospective HFpEF cohort. There were 449 individuals met the inclusion criteria of our cohort. Estimated plasma volume variation (Delta ePVS) and its instantaneous derivatives were calculated by the Strauss formula. Our study endpoints were events of heart failure hospitalization and mortality. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression analysis were applied to determine the power of Delta ePVS and baseline ePVS in predicting long term cardiovascular outcomes. Both baseline ePVS and Delta ePVS were independent predictors of heart failure hospitalization and mortality. Kaplan-Meier estimates of these outcomes stratified by optimal cut-off value showed that HFpEF individuals with higher baseline ePVS and Delta ePVS were associated with elevated risk of composite endpoint of heart failure hospitalization and mortality. This study demonstrated the prognostic value of a novel biological surrogate, instantaneous derivatives ePVS, in predicting long term cardiovascular outcomes in HFpEF population. Monitoring instantaneous plasma volume may assist in identifying patients at high risk for future cardiovascular events. Further prospective studies validating the role of ePVS in predicting long-term prognosis in patients with HFpEF are warranted.

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

4.7
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