目的:与射血分数降低的心力衰竭(HF)相比,保留射血分数的HF(HFpEF),射血分数轻度降低的HF(HFmrEF)的患病率正在增加,然而,对患者特征的地理变化知之甚少,这两种HF表型的治疗和结果。这项研究的目的是调查HFpEF和HFmrEF的地理差异。
结果:我们对来自北美(NA)的5项纳入HFpEF或HFmrEF患者的临床试验进行了个体患者分析,拉丁美洲(LA),西欧(WE),中欧/东欧和俄罗斯(CEER)亚太地区(AP)。我们使用描述性统计和多变量回归模型比较了地区。在19959名患者中,4066(23.1%)患有HFmrEF,15353(76.9%)患有HFpEF。无论HF表型如何,我们的病人年龄最大,和那些在CEER最小的人。LA的女性比例最大,NA的黑人患者最多。肥胖和糖尿病在NA中最普遍,高血压和冠心病在CEER中最常见。自我报告的健康状况差异惊人,在NA中最差,在AP中最好。在HFmrEF患者中,主要复合终点(心血管死亡或HF住院)的发生率为:NA12.56/100患者年(/100py),AP11.67/100py,CEER10.12/100py,LA8.90/100py,和我们8.43/100py,由HF住院率的差异驱动。HFpEF的相应值为11.47/100py,7.80/100py,5.47/100py,5.92/100py,和7.80/100py,分别。
结论:患者特征存在很大的地理差异,HFpEF和HFmrEF患者的治疗和预后。这些发现对试验结果的解释和概括性有影响,设计和进行未来的试验,并优化这些患者的护理。
OBJECTIVE: Compared to heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) are increasing in prevalence, yet little is known about the geographic variation in patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes among these two HF phenotypes. The aim of this study was to investigate geographic differences in HFpEF and HFmrEF.
RESULTS: We conducted an individual patient analysis of five clinical trials enrolling patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF from North America (NA), Latin America (LA), Western Europe (WE), Central/Eastern Europe and Russia (CEER), and Asia-Pacific (AP). We compared regions using descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models. Among the 19 959 patients included, 4066 (23.1%) had HFmrEF and 15 353 (76.9%) HFpEF. Regardless of HF phenotype, patients from WE were oldest, and those in CEER youngest. LA had the largest portion of females and NA most black patients. Obesity and diabetes were most prevalent in NA and hypertension and coronary heart disease most common in CEER. Self-reported health status varied strikingly and was the worst in NA and best in AP. Among patients with HFmrEF, rates of the primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) were: NA 12.56 per 100 patient-years (/100py), AP 11.67/100py, CEER 10.12/100py, LA 8.90/100py, and WE 8.43/100py, driven by differences in the rate of HF hospitalization. The corresponding values in HFpEF were 11.47/100py, 7.80/100py, 5.47/100py, 5.92/100py, and 7.80/100py, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial geographic variation in patient characteristics, treatment and outcomes among patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF. These findings have implications for interpretation and generalizability of trial results, design and conduct of future trials, and optimization of care for these patients.