4.7 Article

Stay Home! Stay Safe! First Post-Discharge Cardiologic Evaluation of Low-Risk-Low-BNP Heart Failure Patients in COVID-19 Era

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10102126

关键词

B-type natriuretic peptide; heart failure; management; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that low pre-discharge BNP levels were associated with low rates of cardiovascular events in HF patients, independently of the frequency of follow-up. Additionally, age, creatinine, and BNP were identified as independent predictors of events in HF patients.
Background. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a deep impact on periodic outpatient evaluations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of low brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) values in predicting adverse events in heart failure (HF) patients in order to evaluate implications for safe delay of outpatient visits. Methods. This was a retrospective study. One-thousand patients (mean age: 72 +/- 10 years, 561 women) with HF and BNP values <250 pg/mL at discharge were included. A 6-month follow-up was performed. The primary endpoint was a combination of deaths and readmissions for HF within 6-month after discharge. Results. At 6-month follow-up, 104 events (10.4%) were recorded (65 HF readmissions and 39 all-cause deaths). Univariate Cox analysis identified as significant predictors of outcome were age (p < 0.001, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.044), creatinine (p = 0.001, HR = 1.411), and BNP (p < 0.001, HR = 1.010). Multivariate Cox regression confirmed that BNP (p < 0.001, HR = 1.009), creatinine (p = 0.016, HR = 1.247), and age (p = 0.013, HR = 1.027) were independent predictors of events in HF patients with BNP values 100 pg/mL and creatinine >1.0 mg/dL showed increased events rates (from 4.3% to 19.0%) as compared to those with lower values (p < 0.000, HR = 4.014). Conclusions. Low pre-discharge BNP levels were associated with low rates of cardiovascular events in HF patients, independently of the frequency of follow-up.

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