This article updates the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2007 classification of advanced heart failure and describes new diagnostic and treatment options for ...these patients. Recognizing the patient with advanced heart failure is critical to facilitate timely referral to advanced heart failure centres. Unplanned visits for heart failure decompensation, malignant arrhythmias, co‐morbidities, and the 2016 ESC guidelines criteria for the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are included in this updated definition. Standard treatment is, by definition, insufficient in these patients. Inotropic therapy may be used as a bridge strategy, but it is only a palliative measure when used on its own, because of the lack of outcomes data. Major progress has occurred with short‐term mechanical circulatory support devices for immediate management of cardiogenic shock and long‐term mechanical circulatory support for either a bridge to transplantation or as destination therapy. Heart transplantation remains the treatment of choice for patients without contraindications. Some patients will not be candidates for advanced heart failure therapies. For these patients, who are often elderly with multiple co‐morbidities, management of advanced heart failure to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life should be emphasized. Robust evidence from prospective studies is lacking for most therapies for advanced heart failure. There is an urgent need to develop evidence‐based treatment algorithms to prolong life when possible and in accordance with patient preferences, increase life quality, and reduce the burden of hospitalization in this vulnerable patient population.
Long-term mechanical circulatory support (LT-MCS) is an important treatment modality for patients with severe heart failure. Different devices are available, and many-sometimes ...contradictory-observations regarding patient selection, surgical techniques, perioperative management and follow-up have been published. With the growing expertise in this field, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) recognized a need for a structured multidisciplinary consensus about the approach to patients with LT-MCS. However, the evidence published so far is insufficient to allow for generation of meaningful guidelines complying with EACTS requirements. Instead, the EACTS presents an expert opinion in the LT-MCS field. This expert opinion addresses patient evaluation and preoperative optimization as well as management of cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities. Further, extensive operative implantation techniques are summarized and evaluated by leading experts, depending on both patient characteristics and device selection. The faculty recognized that postoperative management is multidisciplinary and includes aspects of intensive care unit stay, rehabilitation, ambulatory care, myocardial recovery and end-of-life care and mirrored this fact in this paper. Additionally, the opinions of experts on diagnosis and management of adverse events including bleeding, cerebrovascular accidents and device malfunction are presented. In this expert consensus, the evidence for the complete management from patient selection to end-of-life care is carefully reviewed with the aim of guiding clinicians in optimizing management of patients considered for or supported by an LT-MCS device.
Aims
To identify differences in clinical epidemiology, in‐hospital management and 1‐year outcomes among patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) and enrolled in the European Society of ...Cardiology Heart Failure Long‐Term (ESC‐HF‐LT) Registry, stratified by clinical profile at admission.
Methods and results
The ESC‐HF‐LT Registry is a prospective, observational study collecting hospitalization and 1‐year follow‐up data from 6629 AHF patients. Among AHF patients enrolled in the registry, 13.2% presented with pulmonary oedema (PO), 2.9% with cardiogenic shock (CS), 61.1% with decompensated heart failure (DHF), 4.8% with hypertensive heart failure (HT‐HF), 3.5% with right heart failure (RHF) and 14.4% with AHF and associated acute coronary syndromes (ACS‐HF). The 1‐year mortality rate was 28.1% in PO, 54.0% in CS, 27.2% in DHF, 12.8% in HT‐HF, 34.0% in RHF and 20.6% in ACS‐HF patients. When patients were classified by systolic blood pressure (SBP) at initial presentation, 1‐year mortality was 34.8% in patients with SBP <85 mmHg, 29.0% in those with SBP 85–110 mmHg, 21.2% in patients with SBP 110–140 mmHg and 17.4% in those with SBP >140 mmHg. These differences tended to diminish in the months post‐discharge, and 1‐year mortality for the patients who survived at least 6 months post‐discharge did not vary significantly by either clinical profile or SBP classification.
Conclusion
Rates of adverse outcomes in AHF remain high, and substantial differences have been found when patients were stratified by clinical profile or SBP. However, patients who survived at least 6 months post‐discharge represent a more homogeneous group and their 1‐year outcome is less influenced by clinical profile or SBP at admission.
Aims
The objectives of the present study were to describe epidemiology and outcomes in ambulatory heart failure (HF) patients stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and to identify ...predictors for mortality at 1 year in each group.
Methods and results
The European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long‐Term Registry is a prospective, observational study collecting epidemiological information and 1‐year follow‐up data in 9134 HF patients. Patients were classified according to baseline LVEF into HF with reduced EF EF <40% (HFrEF), mid‐range EF EF 40–50% (HFmrEF) and preserved EF EF >50% (HFpEF). In comparison with HFpEF subjects, patients with HFrEF were younger (64 years vs. 69 years), more commonly male (78% vs. 52%), more likely to have an ischaemic aetiology (49% vs. 24%) and left bundle branch block (24% vs. 9%), but less likely to have hypertension (56% vs. 67%) or atrial fibrillation (18% vs. 32%). The HFmrEF group resembled the HFrEF group in some features, including age, gender and ischaemic aetiology, but had less left ventricular and atrial dilation. Mortality at 1 year differed significantly between HFrEF and HFpEF (8.8% vs. 6.3%); HFmrEF patients experienced intermediate rates (7.6%). Age, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV status and chronic kidney disease predicted mortality in all LVEF groups. Low systolic blood pressure and high heart rate were predictors for mortality in HFrEF and HFmrEF. A lower body mass index was independently associated with mortality in HFrEF and HFpEF patients. Atrial fibrillation predicted mortality in HFpEF patients.
Conclusions
Heart failure patients stratified according to different categories of LVEF represent diverse phenotypes of demography, clinical presentation, aetiology and outcomes at 1 year. Differences in predictors for mortality might improve risk stratification and management goals.
Acute right ventricular (RV) failure is a complex clinical syndrome that results from many causes. Research efforts have disproportionately focused on the failing left ventricle, but recently the ...need has been recognized to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of RV anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology, and of management approaches. Right ventricular mechanics and function are altered in the setting of either pressure overload or volume overload. Failure may also result from a primary reduction of myocardial contractility owing to ischaemia, cardiomyopathy, or arrhythmia. Dysfunction leads to impaired RV filling and increased right atrial pressures. As dysfunction progresses to overt RV failure, the RV chamber becomes more spherical and tricuspid regurgitation is aggravated, a cascade leading to increasing venous congestion. Ventricular interdependence results in impaired left ventricular filling, a decrease in left ventricular stroke volume, and ultimately low cardiac output and cardiogenic shock. Identification and treatment of the underlying cause of RV failure, such as acute pulmonary embolism, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute decompensation of chronic pulmonary hypertension, RV infarction, or arrhythmia, is the primary management strategy. Judicious fluid management, use of inotropes and vasopressors, assist devices, and a strategy focusing on RV protection for mechanical ventilation if required all play a role in the clinical care of these patients. Future research should aim to address the remaining areas of uncertainty which result from the complexity of RV haemodynamics and lack of conclusive evidence regarding RV‐specific treatment approaches.
ABSTRACT
Aims
To assess the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF) with or without moderate to severe aortic valve disease (AVD) (aortic stenosis AS, ...aortic regurgitation AR, mixed AVD MAVD).
Methods and results
Data from the prospective ESC HFA EORP HF Long‐Term Registry including both chronic and acute HF were analysed. Of 15 216 patients with HF (62.5% with reduced ejection fraction, HFrEF; 14.0% with mildly reduced ejection fraction, HFmrEF; 23.5% with preserved ejection fraction, HFpEF), 706 patients (4.6%) had AR, 648 (4.3%) AS and 234 (1.5%) MAVD. The prevalence of AS, AR and MAVD was 6%, 8%, and 3% in HFpEF, 6%, 3%, and 2% in HFmrEF and 4%, 3%, and 1% in HFrEF. The strongest associations were observed for age and HFpEF with AS, and for left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter with AR. AS (adjusted hazard ratio HR 1.43, 95% confidence interval CI 1.23–1.67), and MAVD (adjusted HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07–1.74) but not AR (adjusted HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.96–1.33) were independently associated with the 12‐month composite outcome of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization. The associations between AS and the composite outcome were observed regardless of ejection fraction category.
Conclusions
In the ESC HFA EORP HF Long‐Term Registry, one in 10 patients with HF had AVD, with AS and MAVD being especially common in HFpEF and AR being similarly distributed across all ejection fraction categories. AS and MAVD, but not AR, were independently associated with increased risk of in‐hospital mortality and 12‐month composite outcome, regardless of ejection fraction category.
Aortic valve disease in patients with heart failure and reduced, mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction: The ESC Heart Failure Long‐Term Registry. AR, aortic regurgitation; AS, aortic stenosis; AVD, aortic valve disease; BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; EF, ejection fraction; HF, heart failure; HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; HR, hazard ratio; IHD, ischaemic heart disease; MAVD, mixed aortic valve disease; NT‐proBNP, N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide; NYHA, New York Heart Association. Correction added on 26 July 2023, after first online publication: Graphical caption has been added in this version.
Aims
The aim of this study was to assess long‐term safety of intravenous cardiovascular agents—vasodilators, inotropes and/or vasopressors—in acute heart failure (AHF).
Methods and results
The ...European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long‐Term (ESC‐HF‐LT) registry was a prospective, observational registry conducted in 21 countries. Patients with unscheduled hospitalizations for AHF (n = 6926) were included: 1304 (18.8%) patients received a combination of intravenous (i.v.) vasodilators and diuretics, 833 (12%) patients received i.v. inotropes and/or vasopressors. Primary endpoint was long‐term all‐cause mortality. Main secondary endpoints were in‐hospital and post‐discharge mortality. Adjusted hazard ratio (HR) showed no association between the use of i.v. vasodilator and diuretic and long‐term mortality HR 0.784, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.596–1.032 nor in‐hospital mortality (HR 1.049, 95% CI 0.592–1.857) in the matched cohort (n = 976 paired patients). By contrast, adjusted HR demonstrated a detrimental association between the use of i.v. inotrope and/or vasopressor and long‐term all‐cause mortality (HR 1.434, 95% CI 1.128–1.823), as well as in‐hospital mortality (HR 1.873, 95% CI 1.151–3.048) in the matched cohort (n = 606 paired patients). No association was found between the use of i.v. inotropes and/or vasopressors and long‐term mortality in patients discharged alive (HR 1.078, 95% CI 0.769–1.512). A detrimental association with inotropes and/or vasopressors was seen in all geographic regions and,
among catecholamines, dopamine was associated with the highest risk of death (HR 1.628, 95% CI 1.031–2.572 vs. no inotropes).
Conclusions
Vasodilators did not demonstrate any association with long‐term clinical outcomes, while inotropes and/or vasopressors were associated with increased risk of all‐cause death, mostly related to excess of in‐hospital mortality in AHF.
Aims
To perform a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure (AHF) with preserved (HFpEF), versus mildly reduced (HFmrEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Methods and results
Of ...5951 participants in the ESC HF Long‐Term Registry hospitalized for AHF (acute coronary syndromes excluded), 29% had HFpEF, 18% HFmrEF, and 53% HFrEF. Hospitalization reasons were most commonly atrial fibrillation (more in HFmrEF and HFpEF), followed by ischaemia (HFmrEF), infection (HFmrEF and HFpEF), worsening renal function (HFrEF), and uncontrolled hypertension (HFmrEF and HFpEF). Hospitalization characteristics included lower blood pressure, more oedema and higher natriuretic peptides with lower ejection fraction, similar pulmonary congestion, more mitral regurgitation in HFrEF and HFmrEF and more tricuspid regurgitation in HFrEF. In‐hospital mortality was 3.4% in HFrEF, 2.1% in HFmrEF and 2.2% in HFpEF. Intravenous diuretic (∼80%) and nitrate (∼15%) use was similar but inotrope use greater in HFrEF (16%, vs. HFmrEF 7.4% vs. HFpEF 5.3%). Weight loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate improvement were greater in HFrEF, whereas reduction in natriuretic peptides was similar. Over 1 year post‐discharge, events per 100 patient‐years (95% confidence interval) in HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF were: all‐cause death 22 (20–24) versus 17 (14–20) versus 17 (15–20); cardiovascular (CV) death 12 (10–13) versus 8.6 (6.6–11) versus 8.4 (6.9–10); non‐CV death 2.4 (1.8–3.1) versus 3.3 (2.1–4.8) versus 4.5 (3.5–5.9); all‐cause hospitalization 48 (45–51) versus 35 (31–40) versus 42 (39–46); HF hospitalization 29 (27–32) versus 19 (16–22) versus 17 (15–20); and non‐CV hospitalization 7.7 (6.6–8.9) versus 9.6 (7.5–12) versus 15 (13–17).
Conclusion
In AHF, HFrEF is more severe and has greater in‐hospital mortality. Post‐discharge, HFrEF has greater CV risk, HFpEF greater non‐CV risk, and HFmrEF lower overall risk.
Acute heart failure in patients with preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF): admission profiles, in‐hospital treatment and outcomes.
PDF
