Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of liver fibrosis scores for predicting mortality and morbidity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of liver fibrosis scores for predicting mortality and morbidity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of liver fibrosis scores for predicting mortality and morbidity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of liver fibrosis scores for predicting mortality and morbidity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
2023
Overview
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.
Publisher
Oxford University Press,John Wiley and Sons Inc
