射血分数降低的缺血性心肌病患者对外科血运重建术的反应

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Tejus Satish, Nicholas S. Hendren, Matthias Peltz, Christopher A. Heid, Maryjane Farr, Anthony Bavry, Saket Girotra, Dharam J. Kumbhani, Mark H. Drazner, W. H. Wilson Tang, Justin L. Grodin
{"title":"射血分数降低的缺血性心肌病患者对外科血运重建术的反应","authors":"Tejus Satish,&nbsp;Nicholas S. Hendren,&nbsp;Matthias Peltz,&nbsp;Christopher A. Heid,&nbsp;Maryjane Farr,&nbsp;Anthony Bavry,&nbsp;Saket Girotra,&nbsp;Dharam J. Kumbhani,&nbsp;Mark H. Drazner,&nbsp;W. H. Wilson Tang,&nbsp;Justin L. Grodin","doi":"10.1002/clc.70094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has demonstrated long-term mortality benefits in patients with HFREF and obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), but whether phenotypic heterogeneity influences the benefits of CABG is unknown. We applied clustering analysis to STICHES (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure Extension Study) to identify phenogroups with different long-term risk profiles and investigate differences in CABG benefits between phenogroups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods and Results</h3>\n \n <p>STICHES was a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of CABG in addition to medical therapy versus medical therapy alone. We split the STICHES participants into derivation (<i>n</i> = 753) and validation (<i>n</i> = 459) cohorts. We phenomapped the derivation cohort using penalized model-based clustering. We fit multivariable Cox models to investigate long-term differences in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and a composite of all-cause mortality/CV hospitalization between phenogroups and whether phenogroup assignment modified the effects of CABG on these outcomes. Findings were internally validated on the validation cohort. Four phenogroups were identified in the derivation cohort. The highest-risk group was at a twofold greater risk of death (HR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.4–2.9, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and CV death (HR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.3–3.1, <i>p</i> = 0.002), and a 1.5-fold greater risk for death/CV hospitalization (HR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1–2.1, <i>p</i> = 0.016). Phenogroup assignment did not modify the effects of CABG on the outcomes (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05 for all). Similar results were obtained in the validation cohort.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The beneficial effects of CABG on all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and a composite of all-cause mortality and CV hospitalization persist despite phenotypic heterogeneity in HFREF and CAD.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10201,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Cardiology","volume":"48 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/clc.70094","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Phenomapping the Response of Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy With Reduced Ejection Fraction to Surgical Revascularization\",\"authors\":\"Tejus Satish,&nbsp;Nicholas S. Hendren,&nbsp;Matthias Peltz,&nbsp;Christopher A. Heid,&nbsp;Maryjane Farr,&nbsp;Anthony Bavry,&nbsp;Saket Girotra,&nbsp;Dharam J. Kumbhani,&nbsp;Mark H. Drazner,&nbsp;W. H. Wilson Tang,&nbsp;Justin L. Grodin\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/clc.70094\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has demonstrated long-term mortality benefits in patients with HFREF and obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), but whether phenotypic heterogeneity influences the benefits of CABG is unknown. We applied clustering analysis to STICHES (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure Extension Study) to identify phenogroups with different long-term risk profiles and investigate differences in CABG benefits between phenogroups.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods and Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>STICHES was a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of CABG in addition to medical therapy versus medical therapy alone. We split the STICHES participants into derivation (<i>n</i> = 753) and validation (<i>n</i> = 459) cohorts. We phenomapped the derivation cohort using penalized model-based clustering. We fit multivariable Cox models to investigate long-term differences in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and a composite of all-cause mortality/CV hospitalization between phenogroups and whether phenogroup assignment modified the effects of CABG on these outcomes. Findings were internally validated on the validation cohort. Four phenogroups were identified in the derivation cohort. The highest-risk group was at a twofold greater risk of death (HR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.4–2.9, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and CV death (HR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.3–3.1, <i>p</i> = 0.002), and a 1.5-fold greater risk for death/CV hospitalization (HR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1–2.1, <i>p</i> = 0.016). Phenogroup assignment did not modify the effects of CABG on the outcomes (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05 for all). Similar results were obtained in the validation cohort.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The beneficial effects of CABG on all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and a composite of all-cause mortality and CV hospitalization persist despite phenotypic heterogeneity in HFREF and CAD.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10201,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Cardiology\",\"volume\":\"48 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/clc.70094\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clc.70094\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clc.70094","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)已证明对HFREF和阻塞性冠状动脉疾病(CAD)患者的长期死亡率有好处,但表型异质性是否影响CABG的益处尚不清楚。我们对STICHES(缺血性心力衰竭手术治疗扩展研究)进行聚类分析,以确定具有不同长期风险概况的表型组,并研究表型组之间冠状动脉搭桥益处的差异。方法和结果STICHES是一项随机对照试验,评估CABG加药物治疗与单独药物治疗的效果。我们将STICHES参与者分为衍生组(n = 753)和验证组(n = 459)。我们使用基于惩罚模型的聚类对衍生队列进行了现象映射。我们拟合多变量Cox模型来研究表型组之间全因死亡率、心血管死亡率和全因死亡率/心血管住院率的长期差异,以及表型组分配是否改变了冠状动脉搭桥对这些结果的影响。研究结果在验证队列中进行了内部验证。在衍生队列中确定了四个表型组。最高风险组的死亡风险(HR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.4-2.9, p < 0.001)和CV死亡风险(HR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.3-3.1, p = 0.002)高出两倍,死亡/CV住院风险高出1.5倍(HR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1-2.1, p = 0.016)。表型组分配并没有改变CABG对结果的影响(p > 0.05)。在验证队列中也得到了类似的结果。结论:尽管在HFREF和CAD中存在表型异质性,但CABG对全因死亡率、CV死亡率以及全因死亡率和CV住院率的有利影响持续存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Phenomapping the Response of Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy With Reduced Ejection Fraction to Surgical Revascularization

Phenomapping the Response of Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy With Reduced Ejection Fraction to Surgical Revascularization

Background

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has demonstrated long-term mortality benefits in patients with HFREF and obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), but whether phenotypic heterogeneity influences the benefits of CABG is unknown. We applied clustering analysis to STICHES (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure Extension Study) to identify phenogroups with different long-term risk profiles and investigate differences in CABG benefits between phenogroups.

Methods and Results

STICHES was a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of CABG in addition to medical therapy versus medical therapy alone. We split the STICHES participants into derivation (n = 753) and validation (n = 459) cohorts. We phenomapped the derivation cohort using penalized model-based clustering. We fit multivariable Cox models to investigate long-term differences in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and a composite of all-cause mortality/CV hospitalization between phenogroups and whether phenogroup assignment modified the effects of CABG on these outcomes. Findings were internally validated on the validation cohort. Four phenogroups were identified in the derivation cohort. The highest-risk group was at a twofold greater risk of death (HR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.4–2.9, p < 0.001) and CV death (HR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.3–3.1, p = 0.002), and a 1.5-fold greater risk for death/CV hospitalization (HR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1–2.1, p = 0.016). Phenogroup assignment did not modify the effects of CABG on the outcomes (p > 0.05 for all). Similar results were obtained in the validation cohort.

Conclusions

The beneficial effects of CABG on all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and a composite of all-cause mortality and CV hospitalization persist despite phenotypic heterogeneity in HFREF and CAD.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Cardiology
Clinical Cardiology 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
189
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Cardiology provides a fully Gold Open Access forum for the publication of original clinical research, as well as brief reviews of diagnostic and therapeutic issues in cardiovascular medicine and cardiovascular surgery. The journal includes Clinical Investigations, Reviews, free standing editorials and commentaries, and bonus online-only content. The journal also publishes supplements, Expert Panel Discussions, sponsored clinical Reviews, Trial Designs, and Quality and Outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信