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.
Acute heart failure is a fatal syndrome. Emergency physicians, cardiologists, intensivists, nurses and other health care providers have to cooperate to provide optimal benefit. However, many ...treatment decisions are opinion‐based and few are evidenced‐based. This consensus paper provides guidance to practicing physicians and nurses to manage acute heart failure in the pre‐hospital and hospital setting. Criteria of hospitalization and of discharge are described. Gaps in knowledge and perspectives in the management of acute heart failure are also detailed. This consensus paper on acute heart failure might help enable contiguous practice.
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.
IMPORTANCE: Postpericardiotomy syndrome, postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF), and postoperative effusions may be responsible for increased morbidity and health care costs after cardiac surgery. ...Postoperative use of colchicine prevented these complications in a single trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of perioperative use of oral colchicine in reducing postpericardiotomy syndrome, postoperative AF, and postoperative pericardial or pleural effusions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Investigator-initiated, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial among 360 consecutive candidates for cardiac surgery enrolled in 11 Italian centers between March 2012 and March 2014. At enrollment, mean age of the trial participants was 67.5 years (SD, 10.6 years), 69% were men, and 36% had planned valvular surgery. Main exclusion criteria were absence of sinus rhythm at enrollment, cardiac transplantation, and contraindications to colchicine. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive placebo (n=180) or colchicine (0.5 mg twice daily in patients ≥70 kg or 0.5 mg once daily in patients <70 kg; n=180) starting between 48 and 72 hours before surgery and continued for 1 month after surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Occurrence of postpericardiotomy syndrome within 3 months; main secondary study end points were postoperative AF and pericardial or pleural effusion. RESULTS: The primary end point of postpericardiotomy syndrome occurred in 35 patients (19.4%) assigned to colchicine and in 53 (29.4%) assigned to placebo (absolute difference, 10.0%; 95% CI, 1.1%-18.7%; number needed to treat = 10). There were no significant differences between the colchicine and placebo groups for the secondary end points of postoperative AF (colchicine, 61 patients 33.9%; placebo, 75 patients 41.7%; absolute difference, 7.8%; 95% CI, −2.2% to 17.6%) or postoperative pericardial/pleural effusion (colchicine, 103 patients 57.2%; placebo, 106 patients 58.9%; absolute difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, −8.5% to 11.7%), although there was a reduction in postoperative AF in the prespecified on-treatment analysis (placebo, 61/148 patients 41.2%; colchicine, 38/141 patients 27.0%; absolute difference, 14.2%; 95% CI, 3.3%-24.7%). Adverse events occurred in 21 patients (11.7%) in the placebo group vs 36 (20.0%) in the colchicine group (absolute difference, 8.3%; 95% CI; 0.76%-15.9%; number needed to harm = 12), but discontinuation rates were similar. No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients undergoing cardiac surgery, perioperative use of colchicine compared with placebo reduced the incidence of postpericardiotomy syndrome but not of postoperative AF or postoperative pericardial/pleural effusion. The increased risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects reduced the potential benefits of colchicine in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01552187
Interventional procedures for pericardial diseases include pericardiocentesis, drainage of pericardial effusion, intrapericardial therapy, and percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy or percutaneous ...pericardiostomy. Echocardiographic and fluoroscopic guidance have greatly increased safety and feasibility. Several devices for pericardiocentesis have been tested (PerDucer, PeriAttacher, visual puncture systems, Grasper, Scissors, and Reverse slitter), mainly to facilitate access to the pericardium in the absence of effusion for epicardial ablations or left atrial appendage ligation. In selected patients with pericardial effusions that cannot be managed medically or with prolonged drainage, various medications can be applied intrapericardially to prevent further recurrences or induce sclerosis of the pericardial space.
It has now been almost 20 years since first clinical trials of stem cell therapy for heart repair were initiated. While initial preclinical data were promising and suggested that stem cells may be ...able to directly restore a diseased myocardium, this was never unequivocally confirmed in the clinical setting. Clinical trials of cell therapy did show the process to be feasible and safe. However, the clinical benefits of this treatment modality in patients with ischemic and non-ischemic heart failure have not been consistently confirmed. What is more, in the rapidly developing field of stem cell therapy in patients with heart failure, relevant questions regarding clinical trials' protocol streamlining, optimal patient selection, stem cell type and dose, and the mode of cell delivery remain largely unanswered. Recently, novel approaches to myocardial regeneration, including the use of pluripotent and allogeneic stem cells and cell-free therapeutic approaches, have been proposed. Thus, in this review, we aim to outline current knowledge and highlight contemporary challenges and dilemmas in clinical aspects of stem cell and regenerative therapy in patients with chronic ischemic and non-ischemic heart failure.
Pericardial cytokine patterns in various diseases are not well established. We have analyzed pericardial proinflammatory (interleukin (IL)-6 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha) and ...immunoregulatory cytokines (transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta1 and interferon (IFN)-gamma) in patients with pericarditis, myocarditis, and ischemic heart disease. Pericardial fluid was obtained in 30 subsequent patients undergoing pericardiocentesis (Group 1: 60 % males, 52.4 ± 14.2 years) and in 21 patients during aortocoronary bypass surgery (Group 2: 42.9 % males, age 67.2 ± 7.4 years). After clinical, laboratory, echocardiography examination, fiberoptic pericardioscopy (Storz-AF1101Bl, Germany) and pericardial/epicardial biopsy Group 1 was subdivided to 40 % neoplastic, 36.6 % autoreactive, 10 % iatrogenic, and 13.3 % viral pericarditis. Samples were promptly aliquoted, frozen, and stored at −70 °C. The cytokines were estimated using quantikine enzyme amplified-sensitivity immuno-assays (R&D Systems, USA) and the results compared between neoplastic, viral, iatrogenic, and autoreactive pericarditis and surgical groups. IL-6 was significantly increased in PE versus serum in all forms of pericarditis (except in autoreactive) and increased in comparison with pericardial fluid of surgical patients. TNF-alpha was increased only in PE of patients with viral pericarditis in comparison with Group 2. TGF-beta1 was strikingly lower in the PE than in the serum of all pericarditis patients. However, TGF-beta1 levels in PE were significantly higher in Group 1 than in Group 2, except in viral pericarditis. IFN-gamma levels did not significantly differ between PE and serum or in comparison with Group 2. The cytokine pattern “high TNF-alpha/low TGF-beta1” was found in viral pericarditis and low IL-6 in autoreactive PE. Different etiologies of pericardial inflammation did not influence the IFN-gamma levels. IL-6 pericardial to serum ratio was significantly higher in autoreactive PE than in viral and neoplastic forms. However, TNF-alpha and IFN-gamma pericardial to serum ratios were significantly higher in viral than in autoreactive and neoplastic PE.
PDF
