PURPOSE: To examine the association between the modified R-hf risk score and all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study included adults hospitalized with HFrEF, as defined by clinical symptoms of HF with biplane EF less than 40% on transthoracic echocardiography, at a tertiary centre in Dalian, China, between 1 November 2015, and 31 October 2019. All patients were followed up until 31 October 2020. A modified R-hf risk score was calculated by substituting brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) for N-terminal prohormone of BNP (NT-proBNP) using EF× estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)× haemoglobin (Hb))/BNP. The patients were stratified into tertiles according to the R-hf risk score. The measured outcome was all-cause mortality. The score performance was assessed using C-statistics.
RESULTS: A total of 840 patients were analyzed (70.2% males; mean age, 64±14 years; median (interquartile range) follow-up 37.0 (27.8) months). A lower modified R-hf risk score predicted a higher risk of all-cause mortality, independent of sex and age [1st tertile vs. 3rd tertile: adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 3.46; 95% CI: 2.11-5.67; P<0.001]. Multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that a lower modified R-hf risk score was associated with increased cumulative all-cause mortality [univariate: (1st tertile vs. 3rd tertile: aHR, 3.45; 95% CI: 2.11-5.65; P<0.001) and multivariate: (1st tertile vs. 3rd tertile: aHR 2.21, 95% CI: 1.29-3.79; P=0.004)]. The performance of the model, as reported by C-statistic was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.62-0.72).
CONCLUSION: The modified R-hf risk score predicted all-cause mortality in patients hospitalized with HFrEF. Further validation of the modified R-hf risk score in other cohorts of patients with HFrEF is needed before clinical application.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We established a multi-national, longitudinal, observational registry of patients with prostate cancer presenting to participating tertiary care hospitals in eight Asian countries. A total of 3636 eligible patients with existing or newly diagnosed high-risk localised prostate cancer (HRL), non-metastatic biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (M0), or metastatic prostate cancer (M1), were consecutively enrolled and are being followed-up for 5 years. Patient history, demographic and disease characteristics, treatment and treatment decisions, were collected at first prostate cancer diagnosis and at enrolment. Patient-reported quality of life was prospectively assessed using the European Quality of Life-five Dimensions, five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Prostate Cancer questionnaires. In the present study, we report the first interim analysis of 2063 patients enrolled from study start (15 September 2015) until 18 May 2017.
RESULTS: Of the 2063 enrolled patients, 357 (17%), 378 (19%), and 1328 (64%) had HRL, M0 or M1 prostate cancer, respectively. The mean age at first diagnosis was similar in each group, 56% of all patients had extracapsular extension of their tumour, 28% had regional lymph node metastasis, and 53% had distant metastases. At enrolment, 62% of patients had at least one co-morbidity (mainly cardiovascular disease or diabetes), 91.8% of M1 patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of <2 and the mean EQ-5D-5L visual analogue score was 74.6-79.6 across cohorts. Treatment of M1 patients was primarily with combined androgen blockade (58%) or androgen-deprivation therapy (either orchidectomy or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogues) (32%). Decisions to start therapy were mainly driven by treatment guidelines and disease progression. Decision to discontinue therapy was most often due to disease progression (hormonal drug therapy) or completion of therapy (chemotherapy).
CONCLUSION: In the UFO registry of advanced prostate cancer in Asia, regional differences exist in prostate cancer treatment patterns that will be explored more deeply during the follow-up period; prospective follow-up is ongoing. The UFO registry will provide valuable descriptive data on current disease characteristics and treatment landscape amongst patients with prostate cancer in Asia.
METHODS: RPE, heart rate (HR), and oxygen uptake (V˙O2) data were retrospectively extracted from 3 lab-based crossover studies, with a pooled sample size of 45 adolescents, performing either cycling-based or running-based HIIE sessions. Within-participant correlations were calculated for RPE-HR and RPE-V˙O2, and receiver operator characteristic curve analysis was used to establish RPE cut points.
RESULTS: The results showed that RPE-HR demonstrated acceptable criterion validity (r = .53-.74, P < .01), while RPE-V˙O2 had poor validity (r = .40-.48, P < .01), except for HIIE at 100% peak power (r = .59, P < .01). RPE cut points of 4 and 5 were established in corresponding to HR/V˙O2 based thresholds.
CONCLUSION: RPE has some utility in evaluating intensity during lab-based running or cycling HIIE in adolescents. Future studies should expand the validation and calibration of RPE for prescribing and monitoring HIIE in children and adolescents in field-based contexts.