Prediction of Readmissions and Mortality in Patients with Heart Failure: Lessons from the IMPEDANCE-HF Extended Trial

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. Flow chart for the IMPEDANCE‐HF extended trial. *P < 0.01 between lung impedance (LI)‐guided and control groups. IHD, ischaemic heart disease.

• 

  Figure 2. (A) Cumulative incidence of hospitalizations due to heart failure (HF, by Anderson–Gil Model). (B) The Kaplan–Meier curve of HF‐associated mortality. (C) The Kaplan–Meier curve of all‐cause mortality. Hazard ratio (HR) of hospitalizations due to heart failure evaluated by Prentice, Williams, and Peterson model was 2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2–1.8, P < 0.0001]. LI, lung impedance; RR, relative risk.

• 

  Figure 3. (A) Event‐free survival after admission for worsening heart failure (HF) according to mean improvement of pulmonary fluid content (ΔPC), assessed by lung impedance (LI). The hazard ratio (HR) of the LI‐guided patients with ΔPC ≤ median for admission due to recurrent HF was 22.1 [95% confidence interval (CI): 13.8–35.1, P < 0.01] compared with that of the LI‐guided patients with ΔPC > median. The HR of the control group with ΔPC ≤ median to experience re‐hospitalization for HF was 31.2 (95% CI: 20.0–48.8, P < 0.01) higher than that of the control group with ΔPC > median, and that of the control group with ΔPC > median was 2.0 (95% CI: 1.3–3.3, P < 0.01) higher than that of the LI‐guided group ΔPC > median. (B) Survival from HF‐associated death after admission for worsening HF according to mean ΔPC, assessed by LI. The HR of the LI‐guided patients with ΔPC ≤ median of HF death was 27.7 (95% CI: 10.2–75.1, P < 0.01) compared with that of the LI‐guided patients with ΔPC > median. The HR of the control group with ΔPC ≤ median for HF‐associated death was 34.6‐fold (95% CI: 13.7–87.4, P < 0.01) higher than that of the LI‐guided group with ΔPC > median, and that of the control group with…