BACKGROUND: The aims of this study are to evaluate the rate of progression of preclinical (Stage A and B) heart failure, identify associated characteristics, and evaluate long-term outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective review of the Olmsted County Heart Function Study. Individuals categorized as Stage A or B heart failure at initial visit that returned for a second visit 4 years later were included. Logistic regression analyses evaluated group differences with adjustment for age and sex. RESULTS: At visit 1, 413 (32%) individuals were classified as Stage A and 413 (32%) as Stage B. By visit 2, 146 (35%) individuals from Stage A progressed with the vast majority (n=142) progressing to Stage B. In comparison, a total of 23 (6%) individuals progressed from Stage B. A greater rate of progression was seen for Stage A compared with Stage B (8.7 per 100 person-years [95% CI, 7.4-10.2] versus 1.4 per 100 person-years [95% CI, 0.9-2.1]; P<0.001). NT-proBNP correlated with progression for Stage B (P=0.01), but not for Stage A (P=0.39). A multivariate model found female sex (odds ratio, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.05-2.58]; P=0.03), increased E/e' (odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.02-1.26], P=0.02), and beta blocker use (odds ratio, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.25-3.82], P=0.006) were associated with progression for Stage A. There was a signal that cardiovascular mortality was higher in individuals who progressed, although not statistically significant (P=0.06 for Stage A and P=0.05 for Stage B). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant progression of preclinical heart failure in a community population, with progression rates higher for Stage A. NT-proBNP correlated with progression for Stage B, but not for Stage A. No statistically significant differences in long-term outcomes were seen. Study results have clinical implications important to help guide future heart failure screening and prevention strategies.
BACKGROUND: The aims of this study are to evaluate the rate of progression of preclinical (Stage A and B) heart failure, identify associated characteristics, and evaluate long-term outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective review of the Olmsted County Heart Function Study. Individuals categorized as Stage A or B heart failure at initial visit that returned for a second visit 4 years later were included. Logistic regression analyses evaluated group differences with adjustment for age and sex. RESULTS: At visit 1, 413 (32%) individuals were classified as Stage A and 413 (32%) as Stage B. By visit 2, 146 (35%) individuals from Stage A progressed with the vast majority (n=142) progressing to Stage B. In comparison, a total of 23 (6%) individuals progressed from Stage B. A greater rate of progression was seen for Stage A compared with Stage B (8.7 per 100 person-years [95% CI, 7.4-10.2] versus 1.4 per 100 person-years [95% CI, 0.9-2.1]; P<0.001). NT-proBNP correlated with progression for Stage B (P=0.01), but not for Stage A (P=0.39). A multivariate model found female sex (odds ratio, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.05-2.58]; P=0.03), increased E/e' (odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.02-1.26], P=0.02), and beta blocker use (odds ratio, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.25-3.82], P=0.006) were associated with progression for Stage A. There was a signal that cardiovascular mortality was higher in individuals who progressed, although not statistically significant (P=0.06 for Stage A and P=0.05 for Stage B). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant progression of preclinical heart failure in a community population, with progression rates higher for Stage A. NT-proBNP correlated with progression for Stage B, but not for Stage A. No statistically significant differences in long-term outcomes were seen. Study results have clinical implications important to help guide future heart failure screening and prevention strategies.
Authors: Clyde W Yancy; Mariell Jessup; Biykem Bozkurt; Javed Butler; Donald E Casey; Monica M Colvin; Mark H Drazner; Gerasimos S Filippatos; Gregg C Fonarow; Michael M Givertz; Steven M Hollenberg; JoAnn Lindenfeld; Frederick A Masoudi; Patrick E McBride; Pamela N Peterson; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Cheryl Westlake Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sharon Ann Hunt; William T Abraham; Marshall H Chin; Arthur M Feldman; Gary S Francis; Theodore G Ganiats; Mariell Jessup; Marvin A Konstam; Donna M Mancini; Keith Michl; John A Oates; Peter S Rahko; Marc A Silver; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Clyde W Yancy; Elliott M Antman; Sidney C Smith; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; David P Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Alice K Jacobs; Rick Nishimura; Joseph P Ornato; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-09-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Thomas J Wang; Jane C Evans; Emelia J Benjamin; Daniel Levy; Elizabeth C LeRoy; Ramachandran S Vasan Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-08-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Vijaya K Munagala; Steven J Jacobsen; Douglas W Mahoney; Richard J Rodeheffer; Kent R Bailey; Margaret M Redfield Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Margaret M Redfield; Steven J Jacobsen; John C Burnett; Douglas W Mahoney; Kent R Bailey; Richard J Rodeheffer Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-01-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Martin Huelsmann; Stephanie Neuhold; Michael Resl; Guido Strunk; Helmut Brath; Claudia Francesconi; Christopher Adlbrecht; Rudolf Prager; Anton Luger; Richard Pacher; Martin Clodi Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-06-27 Impact factor: 24.094