Russian Heart Failure Journal 2009year Current algorithms for evaluation of prognosis in patients with CHF. Comparative characteristics of BNP – age-related modEl of SurVivAl (NEVA-75) and Seattle Heart Failure Model in patients aged 75–85 years


To access this material please log in or register

Register Authorize
2009/

Current algorithms for evaluation of prognosis in patients with CHF. Comparative characteristics of BNP – age-related modEl of SurVivAl (NEVA-75) and Seattle Heart Failure Model in patients aged 75–85 years

Shlyakhto E.V., Sitnikova M.Yu.,Lelyavina T. A., Ivanov S. G.,
Trukshina M. A., Fedotov P. A., Dorofeykov V.V., Smirnov B. I.

Keywords:

DOI:

Urgency. Knowledge of clear prognostic criteria, i.e., evaluation of CHF severity and lethality risk at each phase of disease permits a correct choice of the way to improve prognosis in each individual patient. Aim. To compare predictive value of the algorithm NEVA-75 and the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) in senile patients with non-valvular CHF. Materials and methods. Actual (AS) and probable survival (PS) were compared in 96 patients with non-valvular CHF aged 75–80 years who had been followed up for 2.5 years. AS data were collected by telephone survey. Blood levels of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) were measured a day before discharge from a hospital. Probable survival was calculated based on an original algorithm NEVA-75 and SHFM. Results. Actual survival of patients for 2.5 years was 39 % and it corresponded to data of probable survival in 95 % of cases as calculated using the algorithm NEVA-75. Estimated probable survival obtained from SHFM exceeded actual life span of studied patients in 88 % of cases. Probable survival of patients with CHF aged 75–79 years who had BNP 100–4000 pg / ml as calculated using NEVA-75 and SHFM was significantly less (p<0,05) than AS. The model NEVA-75 demonstrated the highest prognostic accuracy in the subgroup of patients aged 80–85 years. Therefore survival prediction for patients with non-valvular CHF aged 75 years and older who received outpatient care at a non-specialized (relative to CHF) clinic should be appropriately calculated using the algorithm NEVA-75 developed on the basis of long-term observation specifically for such patients.
  1. Diagnosis and treatment of Acute and Chronic HF 2008, EHJ 2008) doi: 10.1093 / eurheartj / ehn 309.
  2. Ситникова М. Ю., Лелявина Т. А., Дорофейков В. В. Способ прогнозирования выживаемости пациентов старческого возраста с хронической сердечной недостаточностью. – Приоритетная справка Роспатента от 09.07.2007, рег. № 2007126115.2.
  3. Shlyakhto E, Sitnikova M, Lelyavina T. The Age-BNP Survival Model: Prediction of survival in old (>75 years) patients with heart failure. Circulation. 2008; 117 (19):486.
  4. Levy WC, Mozaffarian D, Linker DT et al. The Seattle Heart Failure Model: prediction of survival in heart failure. Circulation. 2006; 113 (11):1424–1433.
  5. Consensus recommendations for the management of chronic heart failure. On behalf of the membership of the advisory council to improve outcomes nationwide in heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 1999; 83 (2A):1A-38A.
  6. Cowie MR, Wood DA, Coats AJ et al. Incidence and aetiology of heart failure; a population-based study. Eur Heart J. 1999; 20 (6):421‑428.
  7. Allen LA, Yager JE, Funk MJ et al. Discordance between patient-predicted and model-predicted life expectancy among ambulatory patients with heart failure. JAMA. 2008; 299 (21):2533–2542.
  8. Sitnikova M, Ivanov S, Krasnova O, Shlyakhto E. Interaction between the ACE polymorphism genes (insertion / deletion) and the particular clinical features of congestive heart failure, structural and functional indexes of the heart and mortality. Circulation. 2008; 117 (19):487.
  9. Arnand IS, Fisher LD, Chiang Y-T et al. Changes in brain natriuretic peptide and norepinephrine over time and mortality and morbidity in the valsartan heart failure trial (Val-HeFt). Circulation. 2003; 107 (9):1278–1283.
  10. Tsutamoto T, Wada A, Maeda K et al. Plasma brain natriuretic peptide level as a biochemical marker of morbidity and mortality inpatients with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic left ventricular dysfunction. Comparison plasma angiotensin II and endothelin-1. Eur Heart J. 1999; 20 (24):1799–1807.
  11. Wijeysundera HC, Hansen MS, Stanton E et al. Neurohormones and oxidative stress in nonischemic cardiomyopathy: relationship to survival and the effect of treatment with amlodipine. Am Heart J. 2003; 146 (2):291‑297.
  12. Deng MC, De Meester JM, Smits JM et all. Effect of receiving a heart transplant: analysis of a national cohort entered on to a waiting list, stratified by heart failure severity. Comparative Outcome and Clinical Profiles in Transplantation (COCPIT) Study Group. BMJ. 2000; 321 (7260):540‑545.
  13. Mehra MR, Kobashigawa J, Starling R et all. Listing Criteria for Heart Transplantation: International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates – 2006. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2006; 25 (9):1024–1042.
  14. Kyuma M, Nakata T, Hashimoto A et al. Incremental prognostic implications of brain natriuretic peptide, cardiac sympathetic nerve innervation, and noncardiac disorders in patients with heart failure. J Nucl Med. 2004; 45 (2):155‑163.
  15. Remme WJ, McMurray JJ, Hobbs FD et al. Awareness and perception of heart failure among European cardiologists, internists, geriatricians and primary care physicians. Eur Heart J. 2008; 29 (14):1739–1752.
  16. Mahjoub H, Rusinaru D, Soulière V et al. Long-term survival in patients older than 80 years hospitalised for heart failure. A 5‑year prospective study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2008; 10 (1):78–84.
  17. Ситникова М. Ю., Лелявина Т. А., Шляхто Е. В. и др. Особенности клиники, диагностики и прогноза хронической сердечной недостаточности у госпитализированных пациентов старческого возраста. Журнал Сердечная Недостаточность. 2006; 7 (2):85–87.

To access this material please log in or register

Register Authorize
Ru En