Prediction of clinical outcome in patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy - the role of NT-ProBNP and a combined response score

Table 2 Cox regression analysis with three-year survival free of heart failure hospitalization as endpoint

	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis^a
	P-value	HR	95% C.I.	P-value	HR	95% C.I.
Female gender	0.12	0.44	0.15–1.2	0.24	0.59	0.24–1.4
Age, years (median IQR)	0.03	1.04	1.0–1.08	0.4	1.01	0.98–1.0
Ischemic cardiomyopathy	0.5	1.3	0.64–2.5	0.33	1.4	0.71–2.8
LV ejection fraction, (%)	0.67	0.99	0.94–1.04	0.03	0.69	0.50–0.96
Hypertension	0.79	1.1	0.55–2.2
Diabetes	0.34	1.4	0.69–3.0
History of atrial Fibrillation	0.22	1.5	0.78–3.0
QRS duration	0.32	0.99	0.98–1.0
Left bundle branch block	0.1	0.57	0.29–1.1	0.03	0.51	0.28–0.93
ACEi or ARB use	0.5	0.72	0.28–1.9
Loop diuretic use	0.34	1.5	0.66–3.5
Beta-blocker use	0.4	1.7	0.51–5.4
Creatinine pre implant	0.49	1.1	0.83–1.5
CRT-P (compared to CRT-D)	0.02	2.4	1.2–5.1	0.21	1.6	0.78–3.2
NT-proBNP baseline (per 100 ng/L)	0.02	1.01	1.001–1.009
NYHA class baseline	0.52	0.85	0.52–1.4
Composite score (per point)	< 0.0001	0.52	0.36–0.74	0.03	0.69	0.50–0.96

CRT cardiac resynchronization therapy, ACEi ACE-inhibitor, ARB angiotensin receptor blocker, CRT-D cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator function, CRT-P cardiac resynchronization therapy without defibrillator function
^*Multivariate model corrected for gender, age, LBBB, type of cardiomyopathy and type of CRT-device

ISSN: 1471-2261