4.5 Article

The prognostic importance of different definitions of worsening renal function in congestive heart failure

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 136-141

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1054/jcaf.2002.125289

关键词

heart failure; congestive heart failure; renal failure; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Worsening renal function in patients hospitalized for heart failure portends a poor prognosis. However, criteria used to define worsening renal function are arbitrary, and the implications of different definitions remain unclear. We therefore compared the prognostic importance of various definitions of worsening renal function in 1,002 patients hospitalized for congestive heart failure (CHF). Methods and Results: The patient population was 49% female, aged 67 +/- 15 years. Twenty-three percent had a prior history of renal failure, 73% had known depressed ejection fraction, and 63% had known CHF. On admission to the hospital, 47% were receiving ACE inhibitors, 22% (3-blockers, 70% diuretics and 6% NAID's. 72% developed increased serum creatinine during the hospitalization, with 20% developing an increase of greater than or equal to0.5 mg/dL. Worsening renal function predicted both in-hospital mortality and length of stay >10 days. Even an increased creatinine of 0.1 mg/dL was associated with worse outcome. Sensitivity for death decreased from 92% to 65% as the threshold for increased creatinine was raised from 0.1 to 0.5 mg/dL, with specificity increasing from 28% to 81%. At a threshold of a 0.3 mg/dL increase, sensitivity was 81 % and specificity was 62% for death and 64% and 65% for length of stay >10 days. Adding a requirement of final creatinine of >1.5 mg/dL improved specificity. Conclusions: This analysis demonstrates that any detectable decrease in renal function is associated with increased mortality and prolonged hospital stay. This suggests that therapeutic interventions which improve renal function might be beneficial.

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

4.5
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