Key result
A multi-marker risk score including age, troponin T, and cystatin C strongly predicted all-cause mortality (HR 4.2) and showed similar prognostic efficacy to NT-proBNP in older patients with HFrEF.
Why the study?
Does a multi-marker risk score (age, troponin T, cystatin C) improve prediction of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to NT-proBNP in older patients with HFrEF?
Cohort (n=124)
No
Does a multi-marker risk score (age, troponin T, cystatin C) improve prediction of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to NT-proBNP in older patients with HFrEF?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May aid risk stratification similarly to NT-proBNP in older HFrEF; leaves open clinical utility of multi-marker scores.
BACKGROUND: Due to increasing co-morbidity associated with aging, heart failure (HF) has become more prevalent and heterogeneous in older individuals, and non-cardiovascular (CV) mortality has increased. Previously, we defined a multi-marker modality that included cystatin C (CysC), troponin T (TnT), and age. Here, we validated this multi-marker risk score by evaluating its predictions of all-cause mortality and CV mortality in an independent population of older individuals with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 124 patients, median age 73 years, that had HFrEF. We determined all-cause mortality and CV mortality at a 3-year follow-up. We compared the risk score to the N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) for predicting all-cause mortality and CV mortality. RESULTS: High risk scores were associated with both all-cause mortality (HR 4.2, 95% CI 2.2-8.1, p < 0.001) and CV mortality (HR 3.6, 95% CI 1.7-8.0, p = 0.0015). Receiver operating characteristics showed similar efficacy for the risk score and NT-proBNP in predicting all-cause mortality (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65-0.81 vs. HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65-0.81, p = 0.99) and CV mortality (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.59-0.76 vs. HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.75, p = 0.95). When the risk score was added to the NT-proBNP, the continuous net reclassification improvement was 56% for predicting all-cause mortality (95% CI 18-95%, p = 0.004) and 45% for predicting CV mortality (95% CI 2-89%, p = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: In HFrEF, a risk score that included age, TnT, and CysC showed efficacy similar to the NT-proBNP for predicting all-cause mortality and CV mortality in an older population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bjurman et al. (2014) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=124). Multi-marker risk score (age, troponin T, cystatin C) vs. NT-proBNP was evaluated on All-cause mortality (moderate-high vs low risk score) (HR 4.2, 95% CI 2.2-8.1, p=<0.001). A multi-marker risk score including age, troponin T, and cystatin C strongly predicted all-cause mortality (HR 4.2) and showed similar prognostic efficacy to NT-proBNP in older patients with HFrEF.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: