Key result
Diagnosis of incident congestive heart failure using Framingham-only criteria showed no significant survival difference compared to concordant criteria (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.71-1.07).
Why the study?
Does the choice of diagnostic criteria (Framingham vs. Cardiovascular Health Study) affect the observed survival patterns in elderly patients with incident congestive heart failure?
Population
875 elderly US adults with nonfatal, hospitalized congestive heart failure
Comparison
Diagnosis of congestive heart failure fulfilling… vs Diagnosis of congestive heart failure fulfilling…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
May support similar survival with Framingham-only incident HF diagnoses in elderly; leaves open effects on incidence estimates and trial eligibility.
Cohort (n=875)
Does the choice of diagnostic criteria (Framingham vs. Cardiovascular Health Study) affect the observed survival patterns in elderly patients with incident congestive heart failure?
Effect estimate: HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.71-1.07)
Although Framingham criteria identify more incident congestive heart failure cases than Cardiovascular Health Study criteria, all-cause mortality rates are similar regardless of which diagnostic classification is met.
Gina D. Schellenbaum (2004) conducted a cohort in Congestive heart failure (n=875). Framingham criteria vs. Cardiovascular Health Study criteria and concordant criteria was evaluated on Survival / all-cause mortality (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.07). Diagnosis of incident congestive heart failure using Framingham-only criteria showed no significant survival difference compared to concordant criteria (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.71-1.07).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: