A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of liver fibrosis scores for predicting mortality and morbidity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. | LitMetric

Aims: Liver fibrosis scores (LFSs) are non-invasive and effective tools for estimating cardiovascular risks. To better understand the advantages and limitations of currently available LFSs, we determined to compare the predictive values of LFSs in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) for primary composite outcome, atrial fibrillation (AF), and other clinical outcomes.

Methods And Results: This was a secondary analysis of the TOPCAT trial, and 3212 HFpEF patients were enrolled. Five LFSs, namely, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score (NFS), fibrosis-4 score (FIB-4), BARD, aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ratio, and Health Utilities Index (HUI) scores were adopted. Cox proportional hazard model and competing risk regression model were performed to assess the associations between LFSs and outcomes. The discriminatory power of each LFS was evaluated by calculating the area under the curves (AUCs). During a median follow-up of 3.3 years, a 1-point increase in the NFS [hazard ratio (HR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.17], BARD (HR 1.19; 95% CI 1.10-1.30), and HUI (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.09-1.89) scores was associated with an increased risk of primary outcome. Patients with high levels of NFS (HR 1.63; 95% CI 1.26-2.13), BARD (HR 1.64; 95% CI 1.25-2.15), AST/ALT ratio (HR 1.30; 95% CI 1.05-1.60), and HUI (HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.02-1.53) were at an increased risk of primary outcome. Subjects who developed AF were more likely to have high NFS (HR 2.21; 95% CI 1.13-4.32). High levels of NFS and HUI scores were a significant predictor of any hospitalization and hospitalization for heart failure. The AUCs for the NFS in predicting primary outcome (0.672; 95% CI 0.642-0.702) and incident of AF (0.678; 95% CI 0.622-0.734) were higher than other LFSs.

Conclusions: In light of these findings, NFS appears to have superior predictive and prognostic utility compared with AST/ALT ratio, FIB-4, BARD, and HUI scores.

Clinical Trial Registration: (https://clinicaltrials.gov). Unique identifier: NCT00094302.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10192244PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.14336DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

heart failure
12
primary outcome
12
95%
10
liver fibrosis
8
fibrosis scores
8
failure preserved
8
preserved ejection
8
ejection fraction
8
fib-4 bard
8
hui scores
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!