Key result
Successive enrollment periods over 3 decades were associated with a 42% risk reduction per period for death or cardiac transplant (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.50-0.67; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does contemporary evidence-based heart failure treatment improve survival in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy compared to historical eras?
Cohort (n=603)
Does contemporary evidence-based heart failure treatment improve survival in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy compared to historical eras?
Hazard Ratio: 0.58 (95% CI 0.5–0.67)
p-value: p=<0.001
Contemporary evidence-based heart failure treatments over the past 3 decades have led to a dramatic improvement in survival and reduction in sudden death for patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Temporal survival gains in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy support contemporary therapies; extends era comparisons but remains observational and hypothesis-generating.
Castelli et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (n=603). Successive enrollment periods (evidence-based treatment eras) vs. Previous enrollment period was evaluated on combined end point including death (heart failure related, sudden death, and noncardiac) or cardiac transplant (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50-0.67, p=<0.001). Successive enrollment periods over 3 decades were associated with a 42% risk reduction per period for death or cardiac transplant (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.50-0.67; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: