Dataset Information

Demystifying Smoker's Paradox: A Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis in Patients Hospitalized With Acute Heart Failure.

ABSTRACT: Background Smoker's paradox has been observed with several vascular disorders, yet there are limited data in patients with acute heart failure (HF). We examined the effects of smoking in patients with acute HF using data from a large multicenter registry. The objective was to determine if the design and analytic approach could explain the smoker's paradox in acute HF mortality. Methods and Results The data were sourced from the acute HF registry (Gulf CARE [Gulf Acute Heart Failure Registry]), a multicenter registry that recruited patients over 10 months admitted with a diagnosis of acute HF from 47 hospitals in 7 Middle Eastern countries. The association between smoking and mortality (in hospital) was examined using covariate adjustment, making use of mortality risk factors. A parallel analysis was performed using covariate balancing through propensity scores. Of 5005 patients hospitalized with acute HF, 1103 (22%) were current smokers. The in-hospital mortality rates were significantly lower in current smoker's before (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.96) and more so after (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31-0.70) covariate adjustment. With the propensity score-derived covariate balance, the smoking effect became much less certain (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36-1.11). Conclusions The current study illustrates the fact that the smoker's paradox is likely to be a result of residual confounding as covariate adjustment may not resolve this if there are many competing prognostic confounders. In this situation, propensity score methods for covariate balancing seem preferable. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT01467973.

SUBMITTER: Doi SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6912958 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSmokers have been shown to have lower mortality after acute coronary syndrome than non-smokers. This has been attributed to the younger age, lower co-morbidity, more aggressive treatment and lower risk profile of the smoker. Some studies, however, have used multivariate analyses to show a residual survival benefit for smokers; that is, the "smoker's paradox". The aim of this study was, therefore, to perform a systematic review of the literature and evidence surrounding the existence of the "smoker's paradox".MethodsRelevant studies published by September 2010 were identified through literature searches using EMBASE (from 1980), MEDLINE (from 1963) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with a combination of text words and subject headings used. English-language original articles were included if they presented data on hospitalised patients with defined acute coronary syndrome, reported at least in-hospital mortality, had a clear definition of smoking status (including ex-smokers), presented crude and adjusted mortality data with effect estimates, and had a study sample of > 100 smokers and > 100 non-smokers. Two investigators independently reviewed all titles and abstracts in order to identify potentially relevant articles, with any discrepancies resolved by repeated review and discussion.ResultsA total of 978 citations were identified, with 18 citations from 17 studies included thereafter. Six studies (one observational study, three registries and two randomised controlled trials on thrombolytic treatment) observed a "smoker's paradox". Between the 1980s and 1990s these studies enrolled patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) according to criteria similar to the World Health Organisation criteria from 1979. Among the remaining 11 studies not supporting the existence of the paradox, five studies represented patients undergoing contemporary management.ConclusionThe "smoker's paradox" was observed in some studies of AMI patients in the pre-thrombolytic and thrombolytic era, whereas no studies of a contemporary population with acute coronary syndrome have found evidence for such a paradox.

Project description:BackgroundThe clinical efficiency of routine oxygen therapy is uncertain in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) who do not have hypoxemia. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between oxygen therapy and clinical outcomes in normoxemic patients hospitalized with AHF using real-world data.MethodsNormoxemic patients diagnosed with AHF on ICU admission from the electronic ICU (eICU) Collaborative Research Database were included in the current study, in which the study population was divided into the oxygen therapy group and the ambient-air group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to create a balanced covariate distribution between patients receiving supplemental oxygen and those exposed to ambient air. Linear regression and logistic regression models were performed to assess the associations between oxygen therapy and length of stay (LOS), and all-cause in-hospital as well as ICU mortality rates, respectively. A series of sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted to further validate the robustness of our findings.ResultsA total of 2922 normoxemic patients with AHF were finally included in the analysis. Overall, 42.1% (1230/2922) patients were exposed to oxygen therapy, and 57.9% (1692/2922) patients did not receive oxygen therapy (defined as the ambient-air group). After PSM analysis, 1122 pairs of patients were matched: each patient receiving oxygen therapy was matched with a patient without receiving supplemental oxygen. The multivariable logistic model showed that there was no significant interaction between the ambient air and oxygen group for all-cause in-hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR) 1.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.82; P = 0.138] or ICU mortality (OR 1.39; 95% CI 0.83-2.32; P = 0.206) in the post-PSM cohorts. In addition, linear regression analysis revealed that oxygen therapy was associated with prolonged ICU LOS (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.06-1.15; P < 0.001) and hospital LOS (OR 1.06; 95% CI 1.01-1.10; P = 0.009) after PSM. Furthermore, the absence of an effect of supplemental oxygen on mortality was consistent in all subgroups.ConclusionRoutine use of supplemental oxygen in AHF patients without hypoxemia was not found to reduce all-cause in-hospital mortality or ICU mortality.

Project description:BackgroundA structure and staffing model similar to that in general intensive care unit (ICUs) is applied to cardiac intensive care unit (CICUs) for patients with acute heart failure. However, there is limited evidence on the structure and staffing model of CICUs. The present study aimed to assess whether critical care for patients with acute heart failure in the ICUs is associated with improved outcomes than care in the high-dependency care units (HDUs), the hospital units in which patient care levels and costs are between the levels found in the ICU and general ward.MethodsThis nationwide, propensity score-matched, retrospective cohort study was performed using a national administrative inpatient database in Japan. We identified all patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure and admitted to the ICU or HDU on the day of hospital admission from April 2014 to March 2019. Propensity score-matching analysis was performed to compare the in-hospital mortality between acute heart failure patients treated in the ICU and HDU on the day of hospital admission.ResultsOf 202,866 eligible patients, 78,646 (39%) and 124,220 (61%) were admitted to the ICU and HDU, respectively, on the day of admission. After propensity score matching, there was no statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality between patients who were admitted to the ICU and HDU on the day of admission (10.7% vs. 11.4%; difference, - 0.6%; 95% confidence interval, - 1.5% to 0.2%). In the subgroup analyses, there was a statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the ICU and HDU groups among patients receiving noninvasive ventilation (9.4% vs. 10.5%; difference, - 1.0%; 95% confidence interval, - 1.9% to - 0.1%) and patients receiving intubation (32.5% vs. 40.6%; difference, - 8.0%; 95% confidence interval, - 14.5% to - 1.5%). There were no statistically significant differences in other subgroup analyses.ConclusionsCritical care in ICUs was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality than critical care in HDUs among patients with acute heart failure. However, critical care in ICUs was associated with lower in-hospital mortality than critical care in HDUs among patients receiving noninvasive ventilation and intubation.

Project description:Background Our aim was to calibrate and externally revalidate the ELAN-HF (European Collaboration on Acute Decompensated Heart Failure) score, to confirm and improve on a previous external validation of the risk score. Methods and Results The ELAN-HF score predicts 6-month all-cause mortality in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure using absolute and percentage change of NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels in addition to clinical variables. For the external validation, we used the PRIMA II (Can NT-proBNP-Guided Therapy During Hospital Admission for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Reduce Mortality and Readmissions?) trial. For both data sets, observed versus predicted mortality was compared for the 4 risk categories; and the mean predicted mortality was plotted against the observed mortality with calculation of a correlation coefficient and SEE. The model discriminant ability was determined by comparing the C-statistics for both data sets. The predicted versus actual 6-month mortality values in the derivation cohort were 3.7% versus 3.6% for the low-risk category, 9.4% versus 9.2% for the intermediate-risk category, 24.2% versus 23.5% for the high-risk category, and 54.2% versus 51.1% for the very-high-risk category. The correlation between predicted and observed mortality by deciles was 0.92, with an SEE of ±4%. In the validation cohort, predicted versus actual 6-month mortality values were 3.0% versus 2.2% for the low-risk category, 9.4% versus 8.2% for the intermediate-risk category, 25.0% versus 22.9% for the high-risk category, and 56.8% versus 53.6% for the very-high-risk category. The correlation between predicted and actual mortality by quintiles was 0.99, with an SEE of ±2%. There was no significant difference in C-statistic between the derivation cohort (0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.82) and the validation cohort (0.77; 95% CI, 0.69-0.84; P=0.693). Conclusions Our study confirms that the ELAN-HF score predicts accurately 6-month mortality in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure with the use of easily obtained characteristics.

Dataset Information

Demystifying Smoker's Paradox: A Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis in Patients Hospitalized With Acute Heart Failure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets