4.7 Article

Prevalence and impact of worsening renal function in patients hospitalized with decompensated heart failure: results of the prospective outcomes study in heart failure (POSH)

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 27, 期 10, 页码 1216-1222

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi859

关键词

heart failure; worsening renal function; risk factors; prognosis; hospitalization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To determine the prevalence and risk factors for worsening renal function (WRF) among patients hospitalized for decompensated heart failure (HF) and the association with subsequent re-hospitalization and mortality. Methods and results We prospectively enrolled 299 patients across eight European countries (mean age 68, 74% men). HF was defined using the European Society of Cardiology criteria, but only patients with a history of ejection fraction <= 40% on echocardiography were recruited. WRF was defined as an increase in serum creatinine > 26 mu mol/L (approximate to 0.3 mg/dL) from admission. Follow-up was 95% complete to 6 months. Nearly one-third of patients [72 of 248 patients, 29% (95% CI 26-32%)] developed WRF during hospitalization, excluding patients who had a major in-hospital complication likely to compromise renal function. The risk of WRF in this group was independently associated with serum creatinine levels on admission [odds ratio (OR) 3.02 (95% CI 1.58-5.76)], pulmonary oedema [OR 3.35 (1.79-6.27)], and a history of atrial fibrillation [OR 0.35 (0.18-0.67)]. Although the mortality of WRF patients was not increased significantly, the length of stay was 2 days longer [median 11 days (90% range (4-41) vs. 9 days (4-34), P=0.006]. The re-hospitalization rate was similar in both groups. Conclusion WRF is common in patients admitted to European hospitals with decompensated HF. Such patients have longer duration admissions, but a similar mortality and re-hospitalization rate to those without WRF (if patients experiencing a major in-hospital complication are excluded).

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