Quantifying the paradoxical effect of higher systolic blood pressure on mortality in chronic heart failure.
ABSTRACT Although higher blood pressures are generally recognised to be an adverse prognostic marker in risk assessment of cardiology patients, its relationship to risk in chronic heart failure (CHF) may be different.
To examine systematically published reports on the relationship between blood pressure and mortality in CHF.
Medline and Embase were used to identify studies that gave a hazard or relative risk ratio for systolic blood pressure in a stable population with CHF. Included studies were analysed to obtain a unified hazard ratio and quantify the degree of confidence.
10 studies met the inclusion criteria, giving a total population of 8088, with 29 222 person-years of follow-up. All studies showed that a higher systolic blood pressure (SBP) was a favourable prognostic marker in CHF, in contrast to the general population where it is an indicator of poorer prognosis. The decrease in mortality rates associated with a 10 mm Hg higher SBP was 13.0% (95% CI 10.6% to 15.4%) in the heart failure population. This was not related to aetiology, ACE inhibitor or beta blocker use.
SBP is an easily measured, continuous variable that has a remarkably consistent relationship with mortality within the CHF population. The potential of this simple variable in outpatient assessment of patients with CHF should not be neglected. One possible application of this information is in the optimisation of cardiac resynchronisation devices.
- SourceAvailable from: Per Anton SirnesBlood pressure 06/2013; · 1.26 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with or without a defibrillator reduces morbidity and mortality in selected patients with heart failure (HF) but response can be variable. We sought to identify pre-implantation variables that predict the response to CRT in a meta-analysis using individual patient-data. An individual patient meta-analysis of five randomized trials, funded by Medtronic, comparing CRT either with no active device or with a defibrillator was conducted, including the following baseline variables: age, sex, New York Heart Association class, aetiology, QRS morphology, QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and systolic blood pressure. Outcomes were all-cause mortality and first hospitalization for HF or death. Of 3782 patients in sinus rhythm, median (inter-quartile range) age was 66 (58-73) years, QRS duration was 160 (146-176) ms, LVEF was 24 (20-28)%, and 78% had left bundle branch block. A multivariable model suggested that only QRS duration predicted the magnitude of the effect of CRT on outcomes. Further analysis produced estimated hazard ratios for the effect of CRT on all-cause mortality and on the composite of first hospitalization for HF or death that suggested increasing benefit with increasing QRS duration, the 95% confidence bounds excluding 1.0 at ∼140 ms for each endpoint, suggesting a high probability of substantial benefit from CRT when QRS duration exceeds this value. QRS duration is a powerful predictor of the effects of CRT on morbidity and mortality in patients with symptomatic HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction who are in sinus rhythm. QRS morphology did not provide additional information about clinical response. NCT00170300, NCT00271154, NCT00251251.European Heart Journal 07/2013; · 14.10 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Clinicians are sometimes advised to make decisions using thresholds in measured variables, derived from prognostic studies. We studied why there are conflicting apparently-optimal prognostic thresholds, for example in exercise peak oxygen uptake (pVO2), ejection fraction (EF), and Brain Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) in heart failure (HF). Studies testing pVO2, EF or BNP prognostic thresholds in heart failure, published between 1990 and 2010, listed on Pubmed. First, we examined studies testing pVO2, EF or BNP prognostic thresholds. Second, we created repeated simulations of 1500 patients to identify whether an apparently-optimal prognostic threshold indicates step change in risk. 33 studies (8946 patients) tested a pVO2 threshold. 18 found it prognostically significant: the actual reported threshold ranged widely (10-18 ml/kg/min) but was overwhelmingly controlled by the individual study population's mean pVO2 (r = 0.86, p<0.00001). In contrast, the 15 negative publications were testing thresholds 199% further from their means (p = 0.0001). Likewise, of 35 EF studies (10220 patients), the thresholds in the 22 positive reports were strongly determined by study means (r = 0.90, p<0.0001). Similarly, in the 19 positives of 20 BNP studies (9725 patients): r = 0.86 (p<0.0001). Second, survival simulations always discovered a "most significant" threshold, even when there was definitely no step change in mortality. With linear increase in risk, the apparently-optimal threshold was always near the sample mean (r = 0.99, p<0.001). This study cannot report the best threshold for any of these variables; instead it explains how common clinical research procedures routinely produce false thresholds. First, shifting (and/or disappearance) of an apparently-optimal prognostic threshold is strongly determined by studies' average pVO2, EF or BNP. Second, apparently-optimal thresholds always appear, even with no step in prognosis. Emphatic therapeutic guidance based on thresholds from observational studies may be ill-founded. We should not assume that optimal thresholds, or any thresholds, exist.PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(1):e81699. · 3.73 Impact Factor