Key result
Hospitalized heart failure patients in China and Sweden demonstrated different clinical phenotypes and therapies, but had comparable age- and sex-adjusted 6-month all-cause mortality (HR 0.80) among those aged 50-74 years.
Why the study?
Heart failure clinical phenotype and prognosis may vary across different racial populations.
Does the clinical phenotype and prognosis of hospitalized heart failure patients differ between cohorts in China and Sweden?
Cohort (n=2,588)
Yes
Does the clinical phenotype and prognosis of hospitalized heart failure patients differ between cohorts in China and Sweden?
Hazard Ratio: 0.8 (95% CI 0.55–1.19)
Absolute Event Rate: 8.7% vs 11%
p-value: p=0.273
Hospitalized heart failure patients in China and Sweden exhibit distinct clinical phenotypes and treatment patterns, but have similar 6-month mortality when adjusted for age and sex.
BACKGROUND: Clinical phenotype and prognosis of heart failure (HF) may be variable among different racial populations. Therefore, a patient-level comparison of hospitalized HF patients in two university hospitals from China and Sweden was performed. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study was a pooled data analysis of the patients prospectively enrolled in two single-center studies in China (n = 949) and Sweden (n = 1639) from 2011 to 2015. Clinical characteristics and 6-month all-cause mortality were collected. Higher systolic blood pressure (126.1 ± 20.3 vs. 114.2 ± 15.4 mmHg, p < 0.001) and NT-proBNP level (4540 vs. 3251 pg/mL, p = 0.013) were found in the Swedish cohort, also more patients with ischemic heart disease (32.0% vs. 19.2%), hypertension (64.2% vs. 36.8%), valvular heart disease (40.9% vs.31.6%) and atrial fibrillation (55.3% vs. 39.6%) (all p < 0.001). The use of ACEIs/ARBs (48.8% vs. 80.8%) or beta-blockers (58.8% vs. 86.5%) (both p < 0.001) was lower in Chinese cohort. Given younger age in Chinese cohort (61.6 vs. 76.4 years, p < 0.001), age-stratified analyses were conducted, as there were similar patient numbers in 50-74 years in Chinese (n = 550) and Swedish (n = 554) cohorts, therefore baseline characteristics and prognosis were further compared. The age- and sex-adjusted outcome (HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.55-1.19], p = 0.273) was comparable between the two populations. The NT-proBNP and eGFR independently predicted 6-month mortality in both Chinese (HR [95% CI] 1.006 [1.003-1.008], 0.986 [0.976-0.999]) and Swedish cohort (1.003 [1.000-1.007], 0.988 [0.976-0.999]). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-level comparison of real-world HF populations from China and Sweden demonstrated different clinical phenotypes and therapy but similar prognosis and their predictors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Feng et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=2,588). Chinese cohort vs. Swedish cohort was evaluated on 6-month all-cause mortality (age 50-74 years subgroup) (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55-1.19, p=0.273). Hospitalized heart failure patients in China and Sweden demonstrated different clinical phenotypes and therapies, but had comparable age- and sex-adjusted 6-month all-cause mortality (HR 0.80) among those aged 50-74 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: