A multivariate model for predicting mortality in patients with heart failure and systolic dysfunction
Abstract
Background Heart failure is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, but there are no reliable models based on readily available clinical variables to predict outcomes in patients taking angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors.Methods A multivariate statistical model to predict mortality was developed in a random sample (n = 4277 patients [67%]) of the 6422 patients enrolled in the Digitalis Investigation Group trial who had a depressed ejection fraction (<or=45%), were in sinus rhythm, and were taking ACE inhibitors. The model was then validated in the remaining 2145 patients.Results Total mortality in the derivation sample was 11.2% (n = 480) at 12 months and 29.9% (n = 1277) at 36 months. Lower ejection fraction, worse renal function, cardiomegaly, worse functional class, signs or symptoms of heart failure, lower blood pressure, and lower body mass index were associated with reduced 12-month survival. This model provided good predictions of mortality in the verification sample. The same variables, along with age and the baseline use of nitrates, were also predictive of 36-month mortality.Conclusion Routine clinical variables can be used to predict short- and long-term mortality in patients with heart failure and systolic dysfunction who are treated with ACE inhibitors.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The majority of the available data suggests that T2DM is associated with higher risk of mortality in both patients of ischaemic and non-ischaemic aetiology.
“The majority of the available data suggests that T2DM is associated with higher risk of mortality in both patients of ischaemic and non-ischaemic aetiology (Table 6).29,88,94,96 -99”
From Type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure: A position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (2018) · cites this paper as [99]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 136
- Authors
- Brophy, J. M., Dagenais, G. R., McSherry, F., Williford, W., & Yusuf, S.
- Affiliations
- McGill University Health Centre (CA)
- Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec (CA)
- Perry Point VA Medical Center (US)
- McMaster University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Brophy, James M
- Venue
- The American Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-03
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 300-304
- ISSN
- 0002-9343 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2001672181
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 5.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The American Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart rate and cardiovascular health
- Keywords
- heart failure, systolic dysfunction, mortality prediction, ACE inhibitors, Digitalis Investigation Group trial, ejection fraction, renal function, cardiomegaly, functional class, blood pressure, body mass index, nitrate, prognostic model
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors, Cardiotonic Agents, Digoxin, Female, Heart Failure, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Stroke Volume, Systole, Models, Statistical, Survival Rate, Multivariate Analysis, Proportional Hazards Models, Ventricular Dysfunction, Left
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review