心力衰竭患者活动受限的严重程度和不良后果。

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Heart Pub Date : 2025-06-18 DOI:10.1136/heartjnl-2024-325120
Kotaro Iwatsu, Kensuke Takabayashi, Tomoyuki Hamada, Toru Kubo, Tsutomu Ikeda, Shoji Kitaguchi, Tetsuhisa Kitamura, Takeshi Kimura, Hiroaki Kitaoka, Ryuji Nohara
{"title":"心力衰竭患者活动受限的严重程度和不良后果。","authors":"Kotaro Iwatsu, Kensuke Takabayashi, Tomoyuki Hamada, Toru Kubo, Tsutomu Ikeda, Shoji Kitaguchi, Tetsuhisa Kitamura, Takeshi Kimura, Hiroaki Kitaoka, Ryuji Nohara","doi":"10.1136/heartjnl-2024-325120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mobility limitation is prevalent in patients with heart failure (HF), but the dose-response relationship between its severity and adverse outcomes remains unquantified.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a patient-level pooled analysis of two prospective Japanese cohort studies, including 2103 hospitalised patients with HF with no exclusion criteria. Mobility limitation at discharge was categorised into four levels: category I (independent outdoor walking), category II (indoor independence but requiring outdoor assistance), category III (requiring indoor assistance) and category IV (unable to walk). The primary endpoint was a 2-year composite of HF rehospitalisation or all-cause mortality. Adjusted analyses accounted for age, sex, comorbidities, biomarkers and medications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 2820.7 person-years of follow-up, 998 composite outcomes occurred. Incidence rates per 100 person-years for the primary outcome increased with mobility limitation severity: 24.9 (category I), 47.0 (II), 59.3 (III) and 84.8 (IV) (p for trend <0.001). Adjusted HRs (95% CI) using category I as reference were 1.22 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.45) for II, 1.39 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.73) for III and 1.71 (95% CI 1.34 to 2.20) for IV. While the graded association was clear for mortality, it was less evident for HF rehospitalisation alone, likely reflecting competing mortality risks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates a strong and graded association between mobility limitation severity and adverse outcomes in HF, suggesting its utility for refined risk stratification.</p>","PeriodicalId":12835,"journal":{"name":"Heart","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Severity of mobility limitation and adverse outcomes in heart failure.\",\"authors\":\"Kotaro Iwatsu, Kensuke Takabayashi, Tomoyuki Hamada, Toru Kubo, Tsutomu Ikeda, Shoji Kitaguchi, Tetsuhisa Kitamura, Takeshi Kimura, Hiroaki Kitaoka, Ryuji Nohara\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/heartjnl-2024-325120\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mobility limitation is prevalent in patients with heart failure (HF), but the dose-response relationship between its severity and adverse outcomes remains unquantified.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a patient-level pooled analysis of two prospective Japanese cohort studies, including 2103 hospitalised patients with HF with no exclusion criteria. Mobility limitation at discharge was categorised into four levels: category I (independent outdoor walking), category II (indoor independence but requiring outdoor assistance), category III (requiring indoor assistance) and category IV (unable to walk). The primary endpoint was a 2-year composite of HF rehospitalisation or all-cause mortality. Adjusted analyses accounted for age, sex, comorbidities, biomarkers and medications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 2820.7 person-years of follow-up, 998 composite outcomes occurred. Incidence rates per 100 person-years for the primary outcome increased with mobility limitation severity: 24.9 (category I), 47.0 (II), 59.3 (III) and 84.8 (IV) (p for trend <0.001). Adjusted HRs (95% CI) using category I as reference were 1.22 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.45) for II, 1.39 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.73) for III and 1.71 (95% CI 1.34 to 2.20) for IV. While the graded association was clear for mortality, it was less evident for HF rehospitalisation alone, likely reflecting competing mortality risks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates a strong and graded association between mobility limitation severity and adverse outcomes in HF, suggesting its utility for refined risk stratification.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12835,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Heart\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Heart\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2024-325120\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2024-325120","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:活动能力受限在心力衰竭(HF)患者中普遍存在,但其严重程度与不良结局之间的剂量-反应关系仍未量化。方法:我们对两项前瞻性日本队列研究进行了患者水平的汇总分析,包括2103例住院HF患者,没有排除标准。出院时行动受限分为四个级别:第一类(独立户外行走),第二类(室内独立但需要室外辅助),第三类(需要室内辅助)和第四类(无法行走)。主要终点是2年的HF再住院或全因死亡率。调整后的分析考虑了年龄、性别、合并症、生物标志物和药物。结果:在2820.7人年的随访中,出现了998个综合结局。每100人年的主要结局发生率随着活动受限严重程度的增加而增加:24.9 (I类)、47.0 (II类)、59.3 (III类)和84.8 (IV类)(p为趋势)。结论:本研究表明活动受限严重程度与心衰不良结局之间存在强烈的分级关联,表明其可用于精细的风险分层。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Severity of mobility limitation and adverse outcomes in heart failure.

Background: Mobility limitation is prevalent in patients with heart failure (HF), but the dose-response relationship between its severity and adverse outcomes remains unquantified.

Methods: We conducted a patient-level pooled analysis of two prospective Japanese cohort studies, including 2103 hospitalised patients with HF with no exclusion criteria. Mobility limitation at discharge was categorised into four levels: category I (independent outdoor walking), category II (indoor independence but requiring outdoor assistance), category III (requiring indoor assistance) and category IV (unable to walk). The primary endpoint was a 2-year composite of HF rehospitalisation or all-cause mortality. Adjusted analyses accounted for age, sex, comorbidities, biomarkers and medications.

Results: Among 2820.7 person-years of follow-up, 998 composite outcomes occurred. Incidence rates per 100 person-years for the primary outcome increased with mobility limitation severity: 24.9 (category I), 47.0 (II), 59.3 (III) and 84.8 (IV) (p for trend <0.001). Adjusted HRs (95% CI) using category I as reference were 1.22 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.45) for II, 1.39 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.73) for III and 1.71 (95% CI 1.34 to 2.20) for IV. While the graded association was clear for mortality, it was less evident for HF rehospitalisation alone, likely reflecting competing mortality risks.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates a strong and graded association between mobility limitation severity and adverse outcomes in HF, suggesting its utility for refined risk stratification.

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
Heart
Heart 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
320
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Heart is an international peer reviewed journal that keeps cardiologists up to date with important research advances in cardiovascular disease. New scientific developments are highlighted in editorials and put in context with concise review articles. There is one free Editor’s Choice article in each issue, with open access options available to authors for all articles. Education in Heart articles provide a comprehensive, continuously updated, cardiology curriculum.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信