4.6 Article

Survival associated with two sets of diagnostic criteria for congestive heart failure

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 160, 期 7, 页码 628-635

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh268

关键词

follow-up studies; heart failure, congestive; prognosis; survival

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [1-T32-HL07902, HL43201, N01-HC-85079-86] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG09556] Funding Source: Medline
  3. CCR NIH HHS [RC-HL35129, RC-HL15103] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Congestive heart failure (CHF) definitions vary across epidemiologic studies. The Framingham Heart Study criteria include CHF signs and symptoms assessed by a physician panel. In the Cardiovascular Health Study, a committee of physicians adjudicated CHF diagnoses, confirmed by signs, symptoms, clinical tests, and/or medical therapy. The authors used data from the Cardiovascular Health Study, a population-based cohort study of 5,888 elderly US adults, to compare CHF incidence and survival patterns following onset of CHF as defined by Framingham and/or Cardiovascular Health Study criteria. They constructed an inception cohort of nonfatal, hospitalized CHF patients. Of 875 participants who had qualifying CHF hospitalizations between 1989 and 2000, 54% experienced a first CHF event that fulfilled both sets of diagnostic criteria (concordant), 31% fulfilled only the Framingham criteria (Framingham only), and 15% fulfilled only the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria (Cardiovascular Health Study only). No significant survival difference was found between the Framingham-only group (hazard ratio = 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.71, 1.07) or the Cardiovascular Health Study-only group (hazard ratio = 0.89, 95% confidence interval: 0.68, 1.15) and the concordant group (referent). Compared with Cardiovascular Health Study central adjudication, Framingham criteria for CHF identified a larger group of participants with incident CHF, but all-cause mortality rates were similar across these diagnostic classifications.

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