| 1. |
- Lok, Dirk J., et al.
(författare)
-
Prognostic value of N-terminal pro C-type natriuretic peptide in heart failure patients with preserved and reduced ejection fraction
- 2014
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Oxford University Press (OUP): Policy B / Wiley. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 16:9, s. 958-966
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AimsA-type and B-type natriuretic peptides are established markers in chronic heart failure (HF). C-type natriuretic peptide (CNP) belongs to the same peptide family, but is predominantly localized in the endothelium. The prognostic role of CNP in heart failure has not been established. The aim of the study was to determine the prognostic power and clinical correlates of the N-terminal part of pro CNP (NT-proCNP) in patients with chronic HF. Methods and resultsIn 567 hospitalized heart failure patients, NT-proCNP levels were measured at hospital discharge. The primary endpoint was a combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization after 18 months. Heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) was pre-defined as an LVEF greater than40%. Mean (SD) age was 71 +/- 11years, 62% were male, mean LVEF was 32 +/- 14%, and 23% had HFpEF. In multivariate linear regression, NT-proCNP levels showed a positive correlation with NT-proBNP levels and parameters of renal function, whereas a negative correlation with female sex and vascular endothelial growth factor was observed. After 18 months follow-up, 240 patients reached the combined endpoint. We observed interaction between NT-proCNP and LVEF for outcome (P=0.046). Multivariate analyses revealed NT-proCNP to be strongly predictive for the primary endpoint [hazard ratio (HR) 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-2.67, P=0.006) in patients with HFpEF, but not in patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81-1.43, P=0.616). Finally, reclassification showed significant additive value in patients with HFpEF (Pless than0.001), but not in those with HFrEF (P=0.453). Conclusionless thanp id="ejhf140-para-0003"greater thanNT-proCNP is a strong independent marker for outcome in patients with HFpEF, but not in those with HFrEF.
|
|
| 2. |
- Luttik, Marie Louise A., et al.
(författare)
-
Long-term follow-up in optimally treated and stable heart failure patients: primary care vs. heart failure clinic. Results of the COACH-2 study
- 2014
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Oxford University Press (OUP): Policy B / Wiley: 12 months. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 16:11, s. 1241-1248
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AimsIt has been suggested that home-based heart failure (HF) management in primary care may be an alternative to clinic-based management in HF patients. However, little is known about adherence to HF guidelines and adherence to the medication regimen in these home-based programmes. The aim of the current study was to determine whether long-term follow-up and treatment in primary care is equally effective as follow-up at a specialized HF clinic in terms of guideline adherence and patient adherence, in HF patients initially managed and up-titrated to optimal treatment at a specialized HF clinic. Methods and resultsWe conducted a multicentre, randomized, controlled study in 189 HF patients (62% male, age 72 11 years), who were assigned to follow-up either in primary care (n = 97) or in a HF clinic (n = 92). After 12 months, no differences between guideline adherence, as estimated by the Guideline Adherence Indicator (GAI-3), and patient adherence, in terms of the medication possession ratio (MPR), were found between treatment groups. There was no difference in the number of deaths (n = 12 in primary care and n = 8 in the HF clinic; P = 0.48), and hospital readmissions for cardiovascular (CV) reasons were also similar. The total number of unplanned non-CV hospital readmissions, however, tended to be higher in the primary care group (n = 22) than in the HF clinic group (n = 10; P = 0.05). Conclusionsless thanp id="ejhf173-para-0003"greater thanPatients discharged after initial management in a specialized HF clinic can be discharged to primary care for long-term follow-up with regard to maintaining guideline adherence and patient adherence. However, the complexity of the HF syndrome and its associated co-morbidities requires continuous monitoring. Close collaboration between healthcare providers will be crucial in order to provide HF patients with optimal, integrated care.
|
|
