Key result
Lower resting FVC is linked to ~45% lower event-free survival in stable heart failure.
Why the study?
Do resting pulmonary function measures predict all-cause mortality in patients with stable heart failure?
Cohort (n=134)
No
Do resting pulmonary function measures predict all-cause mortality in patients with stable heart failure?
Effect estimate: Chi-square 18.9
Absolute Event Rate: 46.7% vs 84.4%
p-value: p=<0.001
Resting pulmonary function measures, including FVC, FEV1, DLCO, and VA, are significant independent predictors of all-cause mortality in patients with stable heart failure without primary pulmonary disease.
Lower FVC was associated with reduced event-free survival in stable HF; supports prognostic value but remains hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: The heart and lungs are intimately linked anatomically and physiologically, and, as a result, heart failure (HF) patients often develop changes in pulmonary function. This study examined the prognostic value of resting pulmonary function (PF) in HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: In all, 134 HF patients (enrolled from January 1, 1999 Through December 31, 2005; ejection fraction (EF) = 29% ± 11%; mean age = 55 ± 12 years; 65% male) were followed for 67 ± 34 months with death/transplant confirmed via the Social Security Index and Mayo Clinic registry. PF included forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO), and alveolar volume (VA). Patients were divided in tertiles according to PF with survival analysis via log-rank Mantel-Cox test with chi-square analysis. Groups for FVC included (1) >96%, (2) 96% to 81%, and (3) <81% predicted (chi-square = 18.9, P < 0.001). Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (BC) suggested differences between groups 1 and 3 (P < 0.001) and 2 and 3 (P = 0.008). Groups for FEV1 included (1) >94%, (2) 94% to 77%, and (3) <77% predicted (chi-square = 17.3, P <0.001). BC suggested differences between groups 1 and 3 (P <0.001). Groups for DLCO included (1) >90%, (2) 90% to 75%, and (3) <75% predicted (chi-square = 11.9, P = 0.003). BC suggested differences between groups 1 and 3 (P < 0.001). Groups for VA included (1) >97%, (2) 97% to 87%, and (3) <87% predicted (Chi-square = 8.5, P = 0.01). BC suggested differences between groups 1 and 2 (P = 0.014) and 1 and 3 (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In a well-defined cohort of HF patients, resting measures of PF are predictive of all-cause mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Olson et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=134). Resting pulmonary function (FVC, FEV1, DLCO, VA) vs. Higher tertiles of pulmonary function was evaluated on All-cause mortality or heart transplant (Chi-square 18.9, p=<0.001). Lower resting forced vital capacity (<81% predicted) significantly reduced event-free survival compared to normal capacity (>96% predicted) in stable heart failure patients (46.7% vs 84.4%, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: