Prognostic comparison of the estimations of renal function in patients with acute heart failure

3Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The prognostic significance of the eGFR calculated by either the four-level Race Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration study equation (CKD-EPI4R) or the Chinese-modified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation (cMDRD) has not been compared in Asian populations with acute heart failure (AHF). Methods and Results: A total of 3,044 patients hospitalized for AHF were enrolled. The National Death Registry was linked to identify deaths within a 5-year follow-up. Net reclassification improvement (NRI) was calculated to compare the prognostic value of either eGFR equation. During a median follow-up of 23.3 months, 1,424 (47%) patients died. Both eGFR cMDRD and eGFR CKD-EPI4R were independently predictive of death in the total study population (hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals per 1-SD: 0.76, 0.71-0.81 and 0.74, 0.70-0.79, respectively), and in the subgroups of either reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction, after accounting for important confounders. With reference to eGFR cMDRD , eGFR CKD-EPI4R may improve the NRI by 2.0% (0.8-3.2%) for the prediction of death. The prognostic value of the CKD stages categorized by eGFR CKD-EPI4R significantly outperformed eGFR cMDRD with a categorical NRI of 9.5% (4.7-14.3%) in the total study population, 11.5% in HFrEF, and 8.3% in HFpEF. Conclusions: Both eGFR cMDRD and eGFR CKD-EPI4R were independently associated with long-term survival in patients with AHF. However, the CKD stages derived from eGFR CKD-EPI4R improved the risk stratification of death, compared with eGFR cMDRD .

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cheng, Y. L., Sung, S. H., Cheng, H. M., Huang, J. T., Guo, C. Y., Hsu, P. F., … Chen, C. H. (2019). Prognostic comparison of the estimations of renal function in patients with acute heart failure. Circulation Journal, 83(4), 767–774. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-18-1013

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free