Table 3

Multi-variable Cox proportional hazards model to test the association of the quantitative metrics of tricuspid regurgitation severity with either the risk of hospitalization for congestive heart failure or the composite endpoint of death or hospitalization for congestive heart failure.

VariablesHazard ratioa95% CIP-value for CHFHazard ratioa95% CIP-value for composite outcome
VCavg (6 vs. 1 mm)8.662(2.199–34.110)<0.00019.750(2.764–34.391)<0.0001
EROA (0.25 vs. 0.01 cm2)10.549(2.600–42.796)<0.000111.223(3.207–39.273)<0.0001
RegVol (26 vs. 0.65 mL)16.568(3.924–69.960)<0.000115.983(4.547–56.187)<0.0001
RegFr (44% vs. 1%)19.303(4.538–82.110)<0.000119.599(5.261–73.009)<0.0001
VariablesHazard ratioa95% CIP-value for CHFHazard ratioa95% CIP-value for composite outcome
VCavg (6 vs. 1 mm)8.662(2.199–34.110)<0.00019.750(2.764–34.391)<0.0001
EROA (0.25 vs. 0.01 cm2)10.549(2.600–42.796)<0.000111.223(3.207–39.273)<0.0001
RegVol (26 vs. 0.65 mL)16.568(3.924–69.960)<0.000115.983(4.547–56.187)<0.0001
RegFr (44% vs. 1%)19.303(4.538–82.110)<0.000119.599(5.261–73.009)<0.0001

The HR for continuous variables was obtained by contrasting the hazard estimated at the first and third quartiles values observed in the sample. All parameters’ relationship with the time to event was significantly non-linear (P < 0.05).

CI, confidence interval; CHF, hospitalization for congestive heart failure; EROA, effective regurgitant orifice area; RegFr, regurgitant fraction; RegVol, regurgitant volume; VCavg, vena contracta width.

a

Hazard ratios were computed as the ratio between the hazard at the III quartile vs. the hazard at the I quartile.

Table 3

Multi-variable Cox proportional hazards model to test the association of the quantitative metrics of tricuspid regurgitation severity with either the risk of hospitalization for congestive heart failure or the composite endpoint of death or hospitalization for congestive heart failure.

VariablesHazard ratioa95% CIP-value for CHFHazard ratioa95% CIP-value for composite outcome
VCavg (6 vs. 1 mm)8.662(2.199–34.110)<0.00019.750(2.764–34.391)<0.0001
EROA (0.25 vs. 0.01 cm2)10.549(2.600–42.796)<0.000111.223(3.207–39.273)<0.0001
RegVol (26 vs. 0.65 mL)16.568(3.924–69.960)<0.000115.983(4.547–56.187)<0.0001
RegFr (44% vs. 1%)19.303(4.538–82.110)<0.000119.599(5.261–73.009)<0.0001
VariablesHazard ratioa95% CIP-value for CHFHazard ratioa95% CIP-value for composite outcome
VCavg (6 vs. 1 mm)8.662(2.199–34.110)<0.00019.750(2.764–34.391)<0.0001
EROA (0.25 vs. 0.01 cm2)10.549(2.600–42.796)<0.000111.223(3.207–39.273)<0.0001
RegVol (26 vs. 0.65 mL)16.568(3.924–69.960)<0.000115.983(4.547–56.187)<0.0001
RegFr (44% vs. 1%)19.303(4.538–82.110)<0.000119.599(5.261–73.009)<0.0001

The HR for continuous variables was obtained by contrasting the hazard estimated at the first and third quartiles values observed in the sample. All parameters’ relationship with the time to event was significantly non-linear (P < 0.05).

CI, confidence interval; CHF, hospitalization for congestive heart failure; EROA, effective regurgitant orifice area; RegFr, regurgitant fraction; RegVol, regurgitant volume; VCavg, vena contracta width.

a

Hazard ratios were computed as the ratio between the hazard at the III quartile vs. the hazard at the I quartile.

Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close