MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3012063279 · doi:10.1016/j.echo.2019.12.016

Association of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction with Mortality and Hospitalizations

2020· article· en· W3012063279 sur OpenAlexafffund
Paul Angaran, Paul Dorian, Andrew C.T. Ha, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, Wendy Tsang, Howard Leong‐Poi, Anna Woo, Bryan Dias, Xuesong Wang, Peter C. Austin, Douglas S. Lee

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the American Society of Echocardiography · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Établissements canadiensLondon Health Sciences CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesWestern UniversityUniversity Health NetworkSt. Michael's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareUniversity Health NetworkHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
Mots-clésMedicineEjection fractionInterquartile rangeHazard ratioCardiologyInternal medicineHeart failureConfidence interval

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

•Greater degrees of reduced LVEF are related to progressively higher risks.•Lower LVEF causes a higher risk of events even for noncardiac hospital admission.•Vigilance is required for quality treatment of reduced LVEF in any clinical setting. BackgroundAlthough echocardiography is widely used to measure left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), its prognostic value has not been demonstrated in a broad range of patients including those acutely hospitalized for cardiac or noncardiac causes. We determined whether greater degrees of left ventricular systolic dysfunction were associated with progressively increasing risks of death or cardiovascular hospitalizations among patients in hospital or outpatient settings.MethodsA total of 27,323 patients with LVEF measured and 19,445 matched controls were followed for 223,034 person-years. Outcomes of total mortality, cardiovascular death, cardiovascular hospitalizations, and heart failure hospitalizations were examined using cause-specific hazard competing-risks analysis.ResultsIn the study cohort (median age, 68 [interquartile range, 58-77], 14,828 women [31.7%]), the hazard ratios (95% CI) for all-cause death were 1.67 (1.57-1.77), 1.30 (1.24-1.36), and 1.17 (1.11-1.23) when LVEF was <25%, 25%-35%, or 36%-45% compared with LVEF 46%-55% (all P < .001). Rates of cardiovascular death were similarly higher with lower LVEF. The hazard ratios for cardiovascular hospitalization were 1.35 (1.27-1.42), 1.21 (1.16-1.27), and 1.13 (1.07-1.18) for LVEFs <25%, 25%-35%, and 36%-45%, respectively (all P < .001). The rate of heart failure hospitalizations was amplified, with hazard ratios of 1.71 (1.59-1.85), 1.39 (1.31-1.48), and 1.21 (1.13-1.29) for LVEFs <25%, 25%-35%, or 36%-45% (all P < .001). The rate of mortality and hospitalizations increased comparably with greater reductions in LVEF during both inpatient cardiac or noncardiac admissions (P < .001).ConclusionsQuantitative echocardiographic LVEF stratified the risk of death and hospitalization in a wide range of clinical settings, including during noncardiac admissions. Although echocardiography is widely used to measure left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), its prognostic value has not been demonstrated in a broad range of patients including those acutely hospitalized for cardiac or noncardiac causes. We determined whether greater degrees of left ventricular systolic dysfunction were associated with progressively increasing risks of death or cardiovascular hospitalizations among patients in hospital or outpatient settings. A total of 27,323 patients with LVEF measured and 19,445 matched controls were followed for 223,034 person-years. Outcomes of total mortality, cardiovascular death, cardiovascular hospitalizations, and heart failure hospitalizations were examined using cause-specific hazard competing-risks analysis. In the study cohort (median age, 68 [interquartile range, 58-77], 14,828 women [31.7%]), the hazard ratios (95% CI) for all-cause death were 1.67 (1.57-1.77), 1.30 (1.24-1.36), and 1.17 (1.11-1.23) when LVEF was <25%, 25%-35%, or 36%-45% compared with LVEF 46%-55% (all P < .001). Rates of cardiovascular death were similarly higher with lower LVEF. The hazard ratios for cardiovascular hospitalization were 1.35 (1.27-1.42), 1.21 (1.16-1.27), and 1.13 (1.07-1.18) for LVEFs <25%, 25%-35%, and 36%-45%, respectively (all P < .001). The rate of heart failure hospitalizations was amplified, with hazard ratios of 1.71 (1.59-1.85), 1.39 (1.31-1.48), and 1.21 (1.13-1.29) for LVEFs <25%, 25%-35%, or 36%-45% (all P < .001). The rate of mortality and hospitalizations increased comparably with greater reductions in LVEF during both inpatient cardiac or noncardiac admissions (P < .001). Quantitative echocardiographic LVEF stratified the risk of death and hospitalization in a wide range of clinical settings, including during noncardiac admissions.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,213

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,243
Écart entre enseignants0,232 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations67
Publié2020
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the American Society of EchocardiographyMême sujetCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsTravaux en français237 207