Incident coronary revascularization and subsequent mortality in chronic heart failure: A propensity-matched study

Abstract

Introduction-Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is common in heart failure (HF), yet the association between incident coronary revascularization and mortality in these patients has not been examined in a propensity-matched study.Methods-In the Digitalis Investigation Group trial, 2853 patients without coronary revascularization and 120 patients with coronary revascularization during the first three years were alive at the end of three years. We used propensity scores to match 119 and 357 patients with and without coronary revascularization. Matched Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for mortality during the fourth year of follow-up, for all patients and by the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35%.Results-Coronary revascularization was associated with higher mean LVEF (36 % versus 32 %; p<0.0001) and prevalence of angina pectoris (48% versus 32%; p<0.0001) but fewer prior myocardial infarction (80% versus 87%; p=0.023), all of which were balanced post-match. All-cause mortality occurred in 5.9% and 6.2% patients respectively with and without coronary revascularization (HR for coronary revascularization, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.39-2.32; p=0.910). HR for mortality associated with coronary revascularization for patients with LVEF ≤35% and >35% were respectively 1.34 (95% CI, p=0.578) and 0.61 (95% CI, p=0.532).Conclusion-Chronic HF patients with IHD receiving coronary revascularization were more likely to have angina and higher LVEF. However, in a balanced propensity-matched cohort, there was no association between coronary revascularization and mortality. The LVEF-associated variation in mortality needs to be prospectively studied.

Telemonitoring in Chronic Heart Failure: A Systematic Review

“…Understanding the epidemiology and pathophysiology of the syndrome [ 4 ], identifying the predictors and their strength of association with outcomes, and cost-effectively using the available diagnostic modalities are essential in order to devise effective preventive interventions and implement novel therapeutic approaches to curb this epidemic [ 5 – 8 ]. Despite, however, the emergence of novel therapeutic approached that can prolong life and shorten hospital stay [ 9 – 13 ], these patients will be needing rehospitalization and will often have a poor prognosis [ 2 ].…”

Prediabetes is not an independent risk factor for incident heart failure, other cardiovascular events or mortality in older adults: Findings from a population-based cohort study

“…Using a greedy matching protocol described elsewhere, we assembled a cohort of 1421 pairs of participants with and without prediabetes who had similar propensity scores [21–23]. Absolute standardized differences were estimated to quantify bias in the means of covariates across the groups and are displayed in a Love plot [5,21–23]. An absolute standardized difference of 0% indicates no residual bias and we regard absolute standardized differences <10% is ignorable.…”

Design and rationale of studies of neurohormonal blockade and outcomes in diastolic heart failure using OPTIMIZE-HF registry linked to Medicare data

“…Propensity score of a patient to receive a drug such as ACE inhibitors will be that patient’s probability for the receipt of that drug based on his/her baseline characteristics. Propensity score for the receipt of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers and aldosterone antagonists will be separately calculated using four separate non-parsimonious multivariable logistic regression models, checking for plausible interactions [21–24]. In each model, the drug under study will be the dependent variable and all measured prognostically important confounders will be used as covariates.…”