Key result
VMT score of 3 is linked to ~4-fold higher 1-year mortality in HFmrEF.
Why the study?
The prognostic value of the visually assessed time difference between mitral valve and tricuspid valve opening (VMT) score in patients with HFmrEF was uncertain.
Does the visually assessed time difference between mitral valve and tricuspid valve opening (VMT) score predict 1-year mortality in patients with HFmrEF?
Cohort (n=379)
Does the visually assessed time difference between mitral valve and tricuspid valve opening (VMT) score predict 1-year mortality in patients with HFmrEF?
The VMT score, an echocardiographic marker of left ventricular filling pressure, is a strong predictor of 1-year all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with HFmrEF.
May support VMT score for mortality risk stratification in HFmrEF; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: The visually assessed time difference between the mitral valve and tricuspid valve opening (VMT) score was correlated with the increase of left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP). HYPOTHESIS: We suspected that the VMT score might be a valuable prognostic biomarker for heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) patients. This study was to evaluate the predictive value of VMT score for 1-year all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD)-cause mortality in HFmrEF patients. METHODS: This cohort study enrolled 379 patients aged ≥18 years old with HFmrEF. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis was employed to assess the association between VMT score and all-cause or CVD-cause mortality in HFmrEF patients. Hazards ratio (HR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were effect sizes. Kaplan-Meier curves showed the survival probability of patients. The area under the curve (AUC) evaluated the prognostic value of the VMT score. RESULTS: The risk of all-cause mortality was increased in HFmrEF patients in the VMT score of 2 (HR = 2.80, 95%CI: 1.04-7.52) and 3 (HR = 4.29, 95%CI: 1.58-11.66). The VMT score of 3 was associated with an increased risk of 1-year CVD-cause mortality in patients with HFmrEF (HR = 7.63, 95%CI: 1.70-34.33). The AUC of VMT score for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality of HFmrEF patients was 0.724, and for predicting 1-year CVD-cause mortality of HFmrEF patients was 0.748. The survival probability of patients with the VMT score < 2 was higher than those with the VMT score of 2 and 3. CONCLUSION: The VMT score might be a reliable prognostic index for 1-year all-cause or CVD-cause mortality of HFmrEF patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yin et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) (n=379). VMT score of 3 vs. VMT score < 2 was evaluated on 1-year all-cause mortality (HR 4.29, 95% CI 1.58-11.66). A VMT score of 3 was associated with an increased risk of 1-year all-cause mortality (HR 4.29; 95% CI 1.58-11.66) in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: