Advertisement






Click here for more guidelines.
CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2008; 52:438-445, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.04.036
© 2008 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cleland, J.
Right arrow Articles by Tavazzi, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Cleland, J.
Right arrow Articles by Tavazzi, L.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article

Predicting the Long-Term Effects of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy on Mortality From Baseline Variables and the Early Response

A Report From the CARE-HF (Cardiac Resynchronization in Heart Failure) Trial

John Cleland, MD, FRCP, FACC*,*, Nick Freemantle, PhD{dagger}, Stefano Ghio, MD{ddagger}, Friedrich Fruhwald, MD§, Aparna Shankar, PhD{dagger}, Monique Marijanowski, PhD||, Yves Verboven|| and Luigi Tavazzi, MD, FESC{ddagger}

* Department of Cardiology, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom
{dagger} Department of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
{ddagger} Department of Cardiology, Policlinico S Matteo, Pavia, Italy
§ Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
|| Medtronic Bakken Research Center B.V., Maastricht, the Netherlands.


Figure 1
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 1 Outcome in Patients With and Without Ischemic Heart Disease as the Reported Cause of LVSD

Hazard ratio for patients with ischemic heart disease compared with those without ischemic heart disease was 1.546 (95% confidence interval 1.129 to 2.118; p = 0.0066). LVSD = left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 2 Outcome in Patients According to Baseline Duration of IVMD

Values for interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) of 38 and 61 ms defined the upper and lower boundaries of the middle tercile. The hazard ratio for those in the highest versus lowest tercile was 0.473 (95% confidence interval: 0.340 to 0.657; p < 0.0001). Tr = tercile.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 3 Outcome in Patients According to Baseline NYHA Functional Class

Hazard ratio for those in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV versus III was 2.228 (95% confidence interval: 1.341 to 3.701; p = 0.0020).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 4 Outcome in Patients According to Plasma Concentration of NT-proBNP Achieved by 3 Months

Plasma concentrations of amino terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) of 812 (log: 6.7) and 2,622 (log: 7.8) pg/ml defined the upper and lower boundaries of the middle tercile. The hazard ratio for those in the highest versus lowest tercile was 5.682 (95% confidence interval: 3.819 to 8.455; p < 0.0001). Tr = tercile. BNP = brain natriuretic peptide.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 5 Outcome in Patients According to Severity of MR Index at 3 Months

Values for mitral regurgitation (MR) index of 11.1 and 24.2 units defined the upper and lower boundaries of the middle tercile. The hazard ratio for those in the highest versus lowest tercile was 2.673 (95% confidence interval: 1.881 to 3.799; p < 0.0001). Tr = tercile.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Figure 6 Mortality According to Assigned Therapy, Adjusting for Baseline Variables and Initial Response

The adjusted hazard ratio for those assigned to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was 0.672 (95% confidence interval: 0.494 to 0.914; p = 0.0113). The unadjusted hazard ratio was 0.60 (95% confidence interval: 0.47 to 0.77; p <0.0001). The curves do not differ appreciably from those derived from unadjusted data and published previously in Cleland et al. (2,3).

 




 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement