EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SEATTLE HEART FAILURE MODEL IN PREDICTING THE LONG-TERM PROGNOSIS AMONG MEN WITH CORONARY HEART DISEASE

Aim. To assess the life prognosis in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) – male residents of St. Petersburg – according to the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) and compare it to the observed survival. Material and methods. A retrospective survival analysis was performed in 135 patients with Functional Class (FC) II–IV CHF of ischemic aetiology. At baseline, anamnestic, clinical, functional, and instrumental data were collected. Observed five-year all-cause mortality was compared to that predicted by SHFM. Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS 15.0. Results. Over the five years of the follow-up (60 months), 67% of the participants (n=88) survived. Observed one-, two-, and five-year survival in FC II CHF patients was 95%, 92%, and 74%, respectively. In FC III CHF patients, the respective figures were 92%, 85%, and 61%. Predicted one-, two-, and five-year survival, according to the mean risk estimates by SHFM, was 98%, 95%, and 89% for FC II CHF individuals, and 96%, 92%, and 80%, respectively, for the FC III CHF participants. Therefore, for the first five years of the follow-up, the SHFM predictions exceeded the observed survival by 3–15% and 4–19% in CHF patients with FC II and FC III, respectively (p1,2<0,05). There was a statistically significant association between the observed survival and smoking, concomitant chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hypertension duration before the CHF manifestation. Conclusion. The SHFM markedly overestimated the observed survival in male patients with systolic CHF – St. Petersburg residents. Therefore, in this population, this instrument cannot be recommended for the CHF prognosis assessment. There is a need to develop a survival model for Russian patients with CHF, which would incorporate additional determinants of adverse prognosis.>< 0,05). There was a statistically significant association between the observed survival and smoking, concomitant chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hypertension duration before the CHF manifestation. Conclusion. The SHFM markedly overestimated the observed survival in male patients with systolic CHF – St. Petersburg residents. Therefore, in this population, this instrument cannot be recommended for the CHF prognosis assessment. There is a need to develop a survival model for Russian patients with CHF, which would incorporate additional determinants of adverse prognosis.

1. Mancini D., Lietz K. Selection of Cardiac Transplantation Candidates in 2010. Circulation. 2010;122:173–83.

2. Levy W.C., Mozaffarian D., Linker D.T., еt аl., The Seattle Heart Failure Model: Prediction of Survival in Heart Failure. Circulation; 2006; 113:1424–33.

3. Shlyakhto E.V., Sitnikova M. Y., Lelyavina T.A. et al. Modern algorithms for assessing prognosis in patients with chronic heart failure. Comparative characteristics of BNP-age models of survival (Neva –75) and Seattle Heart Failure Model in patients 75–85 years old. J of Heart Failure 2009; 10 (1): 4–7. Russian. (Шляхто Е.В., Ситникова М.Ю., Лелявина Т.А., и др. Современные алгоритмы оценки прогноза у больных хронической сердечной недостаточностью. Сравнительная характеристика МНП- возрастной модели выживаемости (Нева –75) и сиэттлской модели сердечной недостаточности (SEATTLE HEART FAILURE MODEL) у больных 75–85 лет. Журнал сердечная недостаточность 2009; 10 (1):4–7).

4. Prokopova L.V., Sitnikova M.Y., Fedotov P.A. et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of different prognostic scales (Seattle Heart Failure Model, EFFECT, Heywood’s model) in patients who treated by cardiologists, specialists in heart failure. VI Congress «Heart Failure- 2011», compilation of abstracts.P. 8–9. Russian. (Прокопова Л.В., Ситникова М.Ю., Федотов П.А. и др. Сопоставление эффективности различных прогностических шкал (Seattle Heart Failure Model, EFFECT, Heywood’s model) у больных, наблюдающихся у кардиологов-специалистов по сердечной недостаточности. Сборник тезисов VI Конгресса «Сердечная недостаточность 2011». с. 8–9.).

5. Seattle Heart Failure ModelCalculator, http://depts.washington.edu/shfm/windows.php

6. Shlyakhto E.V., Sitnikova M.Y. Chronic heart failure.M.: Goetar –2009. р. 331. Russian.(Шляхто Е.В., Ситникова М.Ю. Хроническая сердечная недостаточность.М.: Гэотар, 2009. с. 331). Литература

7. Teng T.H., Hung J., Knuiman M., et al.. Trends in long-term cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in men and women with heart failure of ischemic versus non-ischemic aetiology in Western Australia between 1990 and 2005. Int.J. Cardiol 2011; 18, р. 236–40.

8. Sitnikova M. Y., Nesterova I. V., Ivanov S. G. et al. Role of special clinics The role of specialized clinics in implementation of recommendations for treatment of patients with chronic heart failure. J of Heart Failure 2005; 6, 3 (31):105–107. Russian. (Ситникова М.Ю., Нестерова И.В., Иванов С. Г., и др. Роль специализированной клиники в реализации рекомендаций по лечению больных с хронической сердечной недостаточностью. Журнал сердечная недостаточность 2005; 6, 3 (31). с. 105–107).

9. Diagnosis and treatment of Acute and Chronic HF 2008. EHJ; 2008. doi:10.1093/ eurheartj/ehn309.

10. Sitnikova M. Y., Nesterova I. V., Ivanov S. G. Modern principles of diagnostics and treatment of chronic heart failure. Guide for students, interns, medical residents and physicians. Edited by Shlyakhto E. V. SPb: Ladoga-2009. P. 39. Russian (Ситникова М.Ю., Нестерова И.В., Иванов С. Г. Современные принципы диагностики и лечения хронической сердечной недостаточности. Пособие для студентов, интернов, клинических ординаторов и врачей. Под редакцией Е.В. Шляхто. СПб: Ладога; 2009. с. 39).

11. Mareev V. Y., Ageev F. T., Arutyunov G. P. et al. Russian national guidelines VNOC and SCHF for diagnostics and treatment of chronic heart failure (second review).M. OOO SCHF-2007. P.76. Russian. (Мареев В. Ю., Агеев Ф.Т, Арутюнов Г. П., и др. Российские национальные рекомендации ВНОК и ОССН по диагностике и лечению ХСН (второй пересмотр). М.: ООО ОССН; 2007.с. 76).