4.6 Article

Sex-Related Differences in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

期刊

CIRCULATION-HEART FAILURE
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.006539

关键词

coronary artery disease; death; sudden; heart failure; quality of life; sex

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: To describe characteristics and outcomes in women and men with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Methods: Baseline characteristics (including biomarkers and quality of life) and outcomes (primary outcome: composite of first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death) were compared in 4458 women and 4010 men enrolled in CHARM-Preserved (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity) (EF >= 45%), I-Preserve (Irbesartan in heart failure with Preserved ejection fraction), and TOPCAT-Americas (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist trial). Results: Women were older and more often obese and hypertensive but less likely to have coronary artery disease or atrial fibrillation. Women had more symptoms and signs of congestion and worse quality of life. Despite this, the risk of the primary outcome was lower in women (hazard ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.88]), as was the risk of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.62-0.80]), but there was no difference in the rate for first hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]). The lower risk of cardiovascular death in women, compared with men, was in part explained by a substantially lower risk of sudden death (hazard ratio, 0.53 [0.43-0.65]; P<0.001). E/A ratio was lower in women (1.1 versus 1.2). Conclusions: There are significant differences between women and men with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Despite worse symptoms, more congestion, and lower quality of life, women had similar rates of hospitalization and better survival than men. Their risk of sudden death was half that of men.

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