Why the study?
Heart failure has an ever-increasing incidence, prompting the need to assess predictors of adverse clinical events and create and evaluate a novel personalized prognostic scoring system.
Does the GLVC scoring system predict survival and hospitalization in patients with heart failure?
Does the GLVC scoring system predict survival and hospitalization in patients with heart failure?
The novel GLVC scoring system, incorporating strain, LV diameter, oxygen pulse, and hs-CRP, is an effective tool for predicting adverse clinical events in patients with heart failure.
Background Heart failure (HF) is the only cardiovascular disease with an ever-increasing incidence. Aims The aim of this study was to assess the predictors of adverse clinical events (CE) and the creation and evaluation of the prognostic value of a novel personalized scoring system in patients with HF. Methods The study included 113 HF patients (median age 64 years (IQR 58–69); 57.52% male). The new novel prognostic score named GLVC (G, global longitudinal peak strain (GLPS); L, left ventricular diastolic diameter (LVDD); V, oxygen pulse (VO 2 /HR); and C, high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP)) was created. The Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank test were used to compare the CE. Results Results from final analyses showed that low GLPS (< 13.9%, OR = 2.66, 95% CI = 1.01–4.30, p = 0.002), high LVDD (> 56 mm, OR = 2.37, 95% CI = 1.01–5.55, p = 0.045), low oxygen pulse (< 10, OR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.17–6.70, p = 0.019), and high hs-CRP (> 2.38 µg/ml, OR = 2.93, 95% CI = 1.31–6.54, p = 0.007) were independent prognostic factors for adverse CE in HF population. All the patients were stratified into a low-risk or high-risk group according to a novel “GLVC” scoring system. The Kaplan–Meier analyses demonstrated that patients in the high-risk group were more predisposed to having higher adverse clinical events compared to patients in the low-risk group. Conclusions A novel and comprehensive personalized “GLVC” scoring system is an easily available and effective tool for predicting the adverse outcomes in HF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chuda et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: