The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ...ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.
Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.
The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ...ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.
Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.
The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ...ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.
Nonsurgical bleeding is the most common adverse event in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and is caused by arteriovenous malformations. We hypothesized that ...deregulation of an angiogenic factor, angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2), in patients with LVADs leads to increased angiogenesis and higher nonsurgical bleeding.
Ang-2 and thrombin levels were measured by ELISA and Western blotting, respectively, in blood samples from 101 patients with heart failure, LVAD, or orthotopic heart transplantation. Ang-2 expression in endothelial biopsy was quantified by immunofluorescence. Angiogenesis was determined by in vitro tube formation from serum from each patient with or without Ang-2-blocking antibody. Ang-2 gene expression was measured by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction in endothelial cells incubated with plasma from each patient with or without the thrombin receptor blocker vorapaxar.
Compared with patients with heart failure or those with orthotopic heart transplantation, serum levels and endothelial expression of Ang-2 were higher in LVAD patients (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). This corresponded to an increased angiogenic potential of serum from patients with LVADs (P<0.001), which was normalized with Ang-2 blockade. Furthermore, plasma from LVAD patients contained higher amounts of thrombin (P=0.003), which was associated with activation of the contact coagulation system. Plasma from LVAD patients induced more Ang-2 gene expression in endothelial cells (P<0.001), which was reduced with thrombin receptor blockade (P=0.013). LVAD patients with Ang-2 levels above the mean (12.32 ng/mL) had more nonsurgical bleeding events compared with patients with Ang-2 levels below the mean (P=0.003).
Our findings indicate that thrombin-induced Ang-2 expression in LVAD patients leads to increased angiogenesis in vitro and may be associated with higher nonsurgical bleeding events. Ang-2 therefore may contribute to arteriovenous malformation formation and subsequent bleeding in LVAD patients.
The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ...ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.
In the past decade, C4d has emerged as a potential marker for antibody-mediated rejection (AMR); however, evidence on its use as a prognostic tool has been controversial. Although the International ...Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation guideline recommends early routine surveillance of C4d in heart transplantation, there is no consensus on its value in the pathologic assessment of AMR. Herein we present a correlation analysis of C4d immunoreactivity in endomyocardial biopsies with clinical cardiac dysfunction, cellular rejection, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) status, cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) and death.
A total of 5,840 endomyocardial biopsies from 296 heart transplant recipients (January 2004 to December 2014) were stained prospectively for C4d. Strong, diffuse endothelial staining was considered positive. All patients had at least 1 year of follow-up. Positive C4d staining was present in 53 biopsies from 28 patients. Sixteen of 28 patients had clinically significant cardiac dysfunction at the time of positive biopsy. In C4d-positive patients, the mean panel-reactive antibody (PRA) level was 33%. Ten patients demonstrated a first C4d positivity within the first year post-transplant, whereas 18 patients had C4d positivity after 1 year post-transplant. At autopsy, all 11 C4d-positive patients examined demonstrated cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) as the underlying cause of death. In contrast, only 2 of 8 (25%) C4d-negative patients had CAV at autopsy. In the surviving cohort, there was an angiographic diagnosis of higher-than-moderate CAV in 10 patients (3.8%).
C4d-positive patients contributed to 67% of the overall institutional mortality in heart transplant recipients. Late C4d positivity (>1 year post-transplant) demonstrated an even higher risk for developing CAV and poor prognosis than early C4d positivity (within 1 year). In the C4d-negative group with postmortem examination, 75% (6 of 8) deaths were due to non-cardiac causes.
Our findings show a positive association of C4d with CAV and death. We identified a prognostic role for C4d in heart transplantation warranting routine long-term detection of this marker in the pathologic evaluation of cardiac AMR.
The use of cardiac transplantation following circulatory death (DCD) has been limited worldwide. Concerns about cardiac function after warm ischemia and the potential for decreased graft function ...have been important considerations in this hesitancy. In addition, ethical and legal questions about the two widely used organ procurement methods have led to discussions and public education in many countries.
Publication of a US randomized trial of cardiac transplantation following DCD has shown that it is both feasible and has similar short-term outcomes compared with cardiac transplantation following brain death (DBD). These data support those from both Australia and the UK who have largest experience to date.
The adoption of cardiac transplantation following circulatory death has increased overall cardiac transplantation in those transplant centers who have incorporated these donors. Short term outcomes for DCD organ procurement methods are similar to those outcomes using DBD hearts. Continued study and standardization of warm ischemic times will allow for better comparisons of organ procurement techniques and organ optimization. The ethical concerns about procurement methods, in addition to a discussion of procurement costs and feasibility will need to be addressed further in the efforts to expand the organ pool and increase overall cardiac transplantation numbers.
Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have become an increasingly common advanced therapy in patients with severe symptomatic heart failure. Their unique nature in prolonging life through ...incorporation into the circulatory system raises ethical questions regarding patient identity and values, device ontology, and treatment categorization; approaching requests for LVAD deactivation requires consideration of these factors, among others. To that end, clinicians would benefit from a deeper understanding of: 1) the history and nature of LVADs; 2) the wider context of device deactivation and associated ethical considerations; and 3) an introductory framework incorporating best practices in requests for LVAD deactivation (specifically in controversial situations without obvious medical or device-related complications). In such decisions, heart failure teams can safeguard patient preferences without compromising ethical practice through more explicit advance care planning before LVAD implantation, early integration of hospice and palliative medicine specialists (maintained throughout the disease process), and further research interrogating behaviors and attitudes related to LVAD deactivation.
PDF
