•In advanced heart failure (HF), each hospitalization for decompensation requires optimizing pharmacological treatment.•Changes made in the treatment of patients admitted for decompensated advanced ...HF depend on their hemodynamic clinical profile.•In daily clinical practice, HF drugs are increased an optimized occurs in advanced decompensated HF with a pulmonary or systemic congestion profile.•When the profile is low cardiac output, there is a tendency to reduce or suspend drugs, especially beta blockers and diuretics.
In advanced heart failure (HF), each hospitalization for decompensation is a vulnerable moment, and it requires optimizing pharmacologic treatment. This study aimed to analyze changes in the pharmacologic treatment of HF before admission (P), during hospitalization (H), and at discharge (D) of patients with decompensated advanced HF.
We performed an ambispective, cross-sectional, noninterventional study conducted from January 2020 to June 2020. There were 252 consecutive patients admitted for decompensated advanced HF. The following were excluded: de novo HF cases, deceased patients, and scheduled admissions. Finally, 134 patients were analyzed, compared in 3 subgroups: pulmonary congestion (n = 90), systemic congestion (n = 31), and low output (n = 13).
In the global analysis, an increase was detected in angiotensin receptor and neprilysin inhibitors (P: 9.7%, H: 16.4, D: 22.4%; P < .02), beta blockers (P: 67.2%, H: 77.6%, D: 84.3%; P < .004), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (P: 29.9%, H: 44.4%, D: 46.3%; P < .01), loop diuretics (P: 70.1%, H: 99.3%, D: 95.5%; P < .001), and nitrates (P: 6.0%, H: 22.4%, D: 9.7%; P < .001). Pulmonary congestion was predominant with a significant increase in beta blockers (P: 61.1%, H: 77.8%, D: 88.9%; P < .001) and loop diuretics (P: 64.4%, H: 100%, D: 100%; P < .001); diuretics were increased in the systemic congestion group (P: 80.6%, H: 100%, D: 100%; P < .002), and 22.6% required 3% hypertonic saline solution. In patients with low output, beta blockers and diuretics were withdrawn (P: 84.6%, H: 76.9%, D: 46.1%; P < .08 and P: 84.6%, H: 92.3%, D: 61.5%; P < .1 respectively), without variation in the other pharmacologic groups.
In daily clinical practice, HF drugs are increased and optimized in decompensated HF with a pulmonary or systemic congestion profile. When the profile is low output, beta blockers and diuretics are reduced.
Aims
Heart failure (HF) is a proinflammatory disease often associated with the onset of iron deficiency (ID). ID alters mitochondrial function, reducing the generation of cellular energy in skeletal ...muscle and cardiomyocytes. This study aimed to analyse the response of patients with HF to intravenous iron administration according to the type of HF: preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Methods and results
We conducted a retrospective, single‐centre study of 565 consecutive outpatients diagnosed with HF, recruited over 5 years, who were given intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) for the treatment of ID defined as ferritin < 100 μg/L or ferritin 100–300 μg/L with transferrin saturation (TSAT) < 20%. Clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic parameters were analysed before and after administration. After FCM administration, overall ferritin, TSAT, and haemoglobin levels increased up to 5‐fold, 1.6‐fold, and 1.1‐fold, respectively, relative to baseline values in HF patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (P < 0.0001), with a greater increase in ferritin and TSAT in HFpEF patients. The left ventricular ejection fraction of the overall series improved by 8 percentage points in both types of HF (from 40% to 48%, P < 0.0001). The percentage of patients with normalization of right ventricular function increased by 6.9 points (from 74.1% to 81%) in HFpEF patients and by 6.4 points (from 53% to 59.4%) in the HFrEF subgroup (P < 0.0001). New York Heart Association functional status slightly improved, from a median of 2.4 (interquartile range, IQR: 2–2.7) to 1.9 (IQR: 1.5–2.5; P < 0.0001) after FCM in both types of HF. No changes were noted in plasma levels of liver enzymes, creatinine, or natriuretic peptide (P > 0.05).
Conclusions
Intravenous iron administration appeared to improve ejection fraction and cardiac functional status in outpatients with ID and HF with both preserved and reduced ejection fraction.
It is not clear to date whether a first admission in heart failure (HF) marks a worse evolution in patients not previously diagnosed with HF (“de novo HF”) than those already diagnosed as outpatients ...(“acutely decompensated HF”). The aim of the study was to analyze whether survival in patients admitted for de novo HF differs from the survival in those admitted for a first episode of decompensation but with a previous diagnosis of HF. This study includes an analysis of 1,728 patients admitted for decompensated HF during 9 years. Readmissions and patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% were excluded (finally, 524 patients analyzed). We compared de novo HF (n = 186) in patients not diagnosed with HF, although their structural heart disease was defined, versus acutely decompensated HF (n = 338). The clinical profiles in both groups were similar. The de novo HF group more frequently presented with normal right ventricular function, with less presence of severe tricuspid regurgitation. The probability of survival was low in both groups. Thus, the median life in the de novo HF group was 2.1 years and in the acutely decompensated HF group, 3.5 years. There was a lower probability of long-term survival in the de novo HF group (p = 0.035). The variables associated with mortality were age (p <0.0001), ischemic heart disease (p <0.0001), hypertension (p = 0.009), obesity (p = 0.025), diabetes (p = 0.001), and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide at admission (p <0.0001). A higher glomerular filtration rate was associated with better survival (p = 0.033). De novo HF was associated with a higher mortality than chronic HF with acute decompensation (hazard ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.27, p = 0.036). In conclusion, the first admission for HF decompensation in patients with no previous diagnosis of HF identifies a subgroup of patients with higher long-term mortality.
Display omitted
Abstract
Aims
The prevalence of advanced heart failure (HF) is increasing due to the growing number of patients with HF and their better treatment and survival. There is a scarcity of data on the ...accuracy of HF web‐based risk scores in this selected population.
This study aimed to assess mortality prediction performance of the Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF (MAGGIC‐HF) risk score and the model of the Barcelona Bio‐HF Risk Calculator (BCN‐Bio‐HF) containing N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide in HF patients receiving intermittent inotropic support with levosimendan as destination therapy.
Methods and results
Four hundred and three advanced HF patients from 23 tertiary hospitals in Spain receiving intermittent inotropic support with levosimendan as destination therapy were included. Discrimination for all‐cause mortality was compared by area under the curve (AUC) and Harrell's C‐statistic at 1 year. Calibration was assessed by calibration plots comparing observed versus expected events based on estimated risk by each calculator. The included patients were predominantly men, aged 71.5 interquartile range 64–78 years, with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (27.5 ± 9.4%); ischaemic heart disease was the most prevalent aetiology (52.5%). Death rate at 1 year was 26.8%, while the predicted 1‐year mortality by BCN‐Bio‐HF and MAGGIC‐HF was 17.0% and 22.1%, respectively. BCN‐Bio‐HF AUC was 0.66 (Harrell's C‐statistic 0.64), and MAGGIC‐HF AUC was 0.62 (Harrell's C‐statistic 0.61).
Conclusions
The two evaluated risk scores showed suboptimal discrimination and calibration with an underestimation of risk in advanced HF patients receiving levosimendan as destination therapy. There is a need for specific scores for advanced HF.
•Age of heart transplant recipients is increasing because of prognostic improvements with treatments that have appeared in recent years for heart failure.•The combination of donor-recipient ages has ...been shown to have prognostic implications.•Donors with different age from the recipient does not seem to have an impact on long-term survival.•These results would allow to increase the donor pool because survival is not lower with donors older than the recipient.
The age of heart transplant (HTx) donors and recipients is progressively increasing. The combination of donor-recipient ages has been shown to have prognostic implications. The objective of this study is to analyze survival in the first year and in the long-term based on the difference in age between donor and recipient of HTx.
We performed a retrospective analysis of all consecutive HTxs performed in 1 center from 1987 to December 2021. Patients younger than 16 years, retransplants, and combined transplants were excluded. Three groups were considered according to the age of the donor and recipient: group 1: recipient and donor of the same age ± 10 years; group 2: donor >10 years older than recipient; and group 3: donor >10 years younger than recipient.
A total of 841 HTxs were included (81% men, 31% urgent HTxs, donor mean (standard deviation) age 38.5 12.3 years and recipient age 51.2 12). The most frequent group was group 3 with 476 patients (56%) followed by group 1 with 305 patients (36%). Figure 1 shows that long-term survival is similar in groups 1 and 2, being worse in group 3, P = .026. Mortality at the end of follow-up is 38.7% in group 1, 34.9% in group 2, and 71.9% in group 3 (P < .0001). These differences occurred in the long-term without finding significant differences the first year after HTx. No differences were found in early graft failure between the 3 groups.
Using donors of a different age from the recipient does not seem to have an impact on long-term survival, except when donors are used who are more than 10 years younger than the recipient, where survival is lower. This consolidates the concept that the use of elderly donors does not affect survival, allowing the pool of donors to be expanded.
Heart transplant (HTx) recipients constitute a group vulnerable to COVID-19 infection. Vaccination has been a turning point in the evolution of the pandemic. The objective was to analyze a series of ...HTx recipients with COVID-19 prior to vaccination and post vaccination.
Inclusion: All HTx recipients diagnosed with COVID-19 (February 2020 to April 2022). Exclusion: HTx younger than 16 years. They were subdivided into prevaccination period (February 2020 to February 2021) and postvaccination period (March 2021 to April 2022).
They were classified into 3 groups according to severity. Group 1: mild symptoms without admission. Group 2: admission for nonsevere pneumonia. Group 3: severe pneumonia according to American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America criteria. The general therapeutic attitude before and after vaccination was similar in both groups.
A total of 65 HTx recipients have had COVID-19 to date (10.7% of the 374 HTx recipients alive).
In the prevaccination period, 22 HTx recipients presented the disease (Fig 1A): 27% in group 1; 59% were admitted for nonsevere pneumonia (group 2), with favorable evolution and a mean stay of 16 days; and 14% in group 3 (criteria for severe pneumonia), with 2 HTx recipients dying in this group.
In the postvaccination period, 43 HTx recipients have presented COVID-19 (Fig 1B), 49% in group 1, 42% in group 2, and 9% in group 3. The hospital stay is slightly reduced to 15 days and 3 of the 4 patients in group 3 have died (mortality rate 7%).
A significant number of HTx recipients have been affected by COVID-19, associating high mortality in severe forms both in the pre- and postvaccination period. In our series of patients, vaccination has reduced the percentage of hospitalization for nonsevere pneumonia slightly below the average hospitalization and mortality.
Aims
Patients with heart failure (HF) admitted for decompensation often require high doses of intravenous diuretics. This study aims to analyse whether the use of peripheral ultrafiltration (UF) in ...patients hospitalized for acute HF with systemic‐predominant congestion results in better hydric control, renal protection, and reduction of hospital stay compared with conventional treatment.
Methods and results
This study was a retrospective, comparative, single‐centre study of 56 patients admitted for HF with systemic congestion with a poor diuretic response after diuretic escalation. One group underwent peripheral UF (35 patients) and others were maintained on intense diuretic treatment (control group, 21 patients). The diuretic response and days of hospital stay were compared between and within groups. The baseline characteristics of both groups were similar: males with right ventricular failure and renal dysfunction. The inter‐group analysis showed that patients who received UF had better glomerular filtration rate (GFR; UF: 39.2 ± 18.2 vs. control: 28.7 ± 13.4 mL/min; P = 0.031) and higher diuresis (UF: 2184 ± 735 vs. control: 1335 ± 297 mL; P = 0.0001) at hospital discharge despite less need for diuretic drugs. Days of hospital stay were shorter in the UF group (UF: 11.7 ± 10.1 vs. control: 19.1 ± 14.4 days; P = 0.027). Intra‐group analysis showed that patients receiving UF improved GFR, increased diuresis, and reduced weight at discharge (P < 0.001), whereas patients on conventional treatment only experienced improved weight but worsening renal function at discharge.
Conclusions
In patients with acute HF with systemic congestion and diuretic resistance, UF compared with conventional treatment produces greater decongestion and renal protection, reduces the total diuretic load, and shortens the length of hospital stay.
Heart failure is frequently associated with kidney disease, and patients with kidney disease are at increased risk of heart failure. The co-occurrence of both entities not only significantly ...increases morbidity and mortality but also complicates therapy.
Cardiorenal syndrome often requires a broad, comprehensive, and multidisciplinary approach. As a result, a need has arisen to create specialized cardiorenal units that allow for rigorous and personalized management of this condition. Moreover, in some cases, cardiorenal syndrome is more complex, owing to an acute and critical situation that requires the concept of the cardiorenal unit to be extended toward advanced diagnostic and therapeutic positions, thus confirming the need for an advanced cardiorenal unit. The creation of these units constitutes a real challenge, necessitating a specific multilevel action plan, covering governance and management, type of patient, personnel requirements, service portfolio, care process, information systems, and other resources. Specific lines of action must be proposed for each of the relevant points in order to facilitate development of these units, together with continuous evaluation of unit activity through specific indicators, and to detect areas for improvement.
This study addresses the conditions and organizational characteristics that enable the creation, development, and continuous improvement of advanced cardiorenal units.
The treatment of congestion in heart failure (HF) is a challenge despite the therapeutic arsenal available. The aim of this study was to analyze different combinations of diuretics used to resolve ...congestion in patients admitted for decompensated HF and to define clinical profiles according to these treatments.
Single-center study of 1,559 patients admitted for decompensated HF was done between 2016 and 2020. Patients were grouped according to the diuretic combination that led to clinical stabilization and discharge from the hospital: (1) Loop diuretic. (2) Loop diuretic + distal tubule (antialdosterone ± thiazides). (3) Loop diuretic + distal + proximal tubule (acetazolamide ± SGLT2 inhibitor). (4) Loop diuretic + distal tubule + collecting duct (tolvaptan). (5) Loop diuretic + distal + proximal + collecting duct. Based on these diuretic combinations, profiles with clinical, analytical, and echocardiographic differences were established.
There were more previous hospitalizations in groups 4 and 5 (p = 0.001) with a predominance of pulmonary congestion in profiles 1 and 2 and systemic congestion in 3, 4, and 5. Creatinine and CA125 were higher in profiles 4 and 5 (p = 0.01 and p = 0.0001), with no differences in NT-proBNP. Profiles 4 and 5 had a higher proportion of dilatation and depression of right ventricular (p = 0.0001) and left ventricular (p = 0.003) function. Diuretic therapy-defined groups showed difference in clinical characteristics.
The diuretic treatment used identifies five clinical profiles according to the degree of congestion, renal function, CA125, and right ventricular functionality. These profiles would guide the best diuretic treatment on admission.
Congestion profiles. Footnote: Profile 1: Pulmonary congestion. Profile 2: pulmonary congestion with moderate CA 125 elevation. Profile 3: systemic congestion with RV dysfunction. Profile 4: systemic congestion with RV and renal dysfunction. Profile 5: systemic congestion with renal dysfunction, RV dilatation, RV dysfunction, and severe elevation of CA 125. The last row represents the combination of treatments used to resolve each of the congestion pictures. Display omitted
PDF
