Combined risk stratification using heart rate and systolic blood pressure effectively identifies chronic heart failure patients at high risk for all-cause mortality, particularly highlighting the poor prognosis of SBP <89 mmHg regardless of heart rate.
May aid risk stratification in chronic HF; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: The appropriate target ranges of heart rate (HR) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) for the management of chronic heart failure (CHF) patients remain to be elucidated in a large-scale cohort study. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined 3,029 consecutive CHF patients with sinus rhythm (SR) (mean age, 67.9 years) registered in the Chronic Heart Failure Analysis and Registry in the Tohoku District-2 Study (CHART-2; NCT00418041). There were 357 deaths (11.8%) during the median follow-up of 3.1 years. We first performed the classification and regression tree analysis for mortality, identifying SBP <89 mmHg, HR >70 beats/min and SBP <115 mmHg as the primary, secondary and tertiary discriminators, respectively. According to these, we divided the patients into low- (n=1,131), middle- (n=1,624) and high-risk (n=274) groups with mortality risk <10%, 10-20% and >20%, respectively. The low-risk group was characterized by SBP >115 mmHg and HR <70 beats/min and the high-risk group by SBP <89 mmHg regardless of HR values or SBP 89-115 mmHg and HR >76 beats/min. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that the hazard ratio of all-cause death for low-, middle- and high-risk groups was 1.00 (reference), 1.48 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10-1.99, P=0.009) and 2.44 (95% CI 1.66-3.58, P<0.001), respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed that age ≥70 years, diabetes, or reduced left ventricular function had higher hazard ratios in the high-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate the usefulness of combined risk stratification of HR and SBP in CHF patients with SR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Miura et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: