4.4 Review

Impact of Baseline Systolic Blood Pressure on Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Advanced Chronic Systolic Heart Failure (Insights from the BEST Trial)

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 106, 期 2, 页码 221-227

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.02.032

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland [R01-HL085561, R01-HL097047]
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Bethesda

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) on outcomes in patients with advanced chronic systolic heart failure (HF) has not been studied using a propensity-matched design. Of the 2,706 participants in the Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial (BEST) with chronic HF, New York Heart Association class III to IV symptoms and left ventricular ejection fraction <= 35%, 1,751 had SBP <= 120 mm Hg (median 108, range 70 to 120) and 955 had SBP >120 mm Hg (median 134, range 121 to 192). Propensity scores for SBP >120 mm Hg, calculated for each patient, were used to assemble a matched cohort of 545 pairs of patients with SBPs <= 120 and >120 mm Hg who were balanced in 65 baseline characteristics. Matched Cox regression models were used to estimate associations between SBP <= 120 mm Hg and outcomes over 4 years of follow-up. Matched participants had a mean age +/- SD of 62 +/- 12 years, 24% were women, and 24% were African-American. HF hospitalization occurred in 38% and 32% of patients with SBPs <= 120 and >120 mm Hg, respectively (hazard ratio 1.33 SBP <= 120 was compared to >120 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.69, p = 0.023). All-cause mortality occurred in 28% and 30% of matched patients with SBPs <= 120 and >120 mm Hg, respectively (hazard ratio 1.13 SBP <= 120 compared to >120 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.49, p = 0.369). In conclusion, in patients with advanced chronic systolic HF, baseline SBP <= 120 mm Hg is associated with increased risk of HF hospitalization, but had no association with all-cause mortality. Published by Elsevier Inc. (Am J Cardiol 2010;106:221-227)

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

4.4
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