Skip to main content

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

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

  Univariate analysis Multivariate analysisa
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
  1. 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
  2. *Multivariate model corrected for gender, age, LBBB, type of cardiomyopathy and type of CRT-device