4.8 Article

Uric acid and survival in chronic heart failure - Validation and application in metabolic, functional, and Hemodynamic staging

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 107, 期 15, 页码 1991-1997

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000065637.10517.A0

关键词

heart failure; prognosis; hemodynamics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Serum uric acid (UA) could be a valid prognostic marker and useful for metabolic, hemodynamic, and functional (MFH) staging in chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods and Results-For the derivation study, 112 patients with CHF (age 59+/-12 years, peak oxygen consumption [ (V) over dot O-2] 17+/-7 mL/kg per minute) were recruited. In separate studies, we validated the prognostic value of UA (n = 182) and investigated the relationship between MFH score and the decision to list patients for heart transplantation (n = 120). In the derivation study, the best mortality predicting UA cutoff (at 12 months) was 565 mumol/L (9.50 mg/dL) (independently of age, peak V. O2, left ventricular ejection fraction, diuretic dose, sodium, creatinine, and urea; P<0.0001). In the validation study, UA ≥565 μmol/L predicted mortality (hazard ratio, 7.14; P<0.0001). In 16 patients (from both studies) with UA greater than or equal to565 mumol/L, left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to25% and peak (V) over dot O-2 less than or equal to14 mL/kg per min (MFH score 3), 12-month survival was lowest (31%) compared with patients with 2 (64%), 1 (77%), or no (98%, P<0.0001) risk factor. In an independent study, 51% of patients with MFH score 2 and 81% of patients with MFH score 3 were listed for transplantation. The positive predictive value of not being listed for heart transplantation with an MFH score of 0 or 1 was 100%. Conclusions-High serum UA levels are a strong, independent marker of impaired prognosis in patients with moderate to severe CHF. The relationship between serum UA and survival in CHF is graded. MFH staging of patients with CHF is feasible.

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

4.8
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