Prognostic impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchial asthma in patients with heart failure.

PURPOSE: To analyze the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and bronchial asthma on therapeutic management and prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: Analysis of the information collected in a clinical registry of patients referred to a specialized HF unit from January-2010 to June-2012. Clinical profile, treatment and prognosis of patients was evaluated, according to the presence of COPD or asthma. Survival analyses were conducted by means of Kaplan-Meier and Cox's methods. Median follow-up was 1493 days. RESULTS: We studied 2577 patients, of which 251 (9.7%) presented COPD and 96 (3.7%) bronchial asthma. Significant differences among study groups were observed regarding to the prescription of beta-blockers (COPD=89.6%; asthma=87.5%; no bronchopathy=94.1%; p=0.002) and SGLT2 inhibitors (COPD=35.1%; asthma=50%; no bronchopathy=38.3%; p=0.036). Also, patients with bronchial disease received less frequently a defibrillator (COPD=20.3%; asthma=20.8%; no broncopathy=29%; p=0.004). COPD was independently associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR=1.64; 95% CI 1.33-2.02), all-cause death or HF admission (HR=1.47; 95% CI 1.22-1.76) and cardiovascular death or heart transplantation (HR=1.39; 95% CI 1.08-1.79) as compared with patients with no bronchopathy. Bronchial asthma was not significantly associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: COPD, but not asthma, is an adverse independent prognostic factor in patients with HF.

Clinical profile and causes of death according to ejection fraction in patients with heart failure cared for in a specialized Cardiology unit.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients with heart failure are classified into three phenotypes based on left ventricular ejection fraction. This work aimed to compare the clinical profile, treatment, prognosis, and causes of death of patients with heart failure and reduced (<40%, HF-rEF), preserved (≥50%, HF-pEF), or mid-range (40-49%, HF-mrEF) left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS: An analysis was conducted on the clinical data included in a prospective registry of patients with heart failure who were referred to a specific Cardiology unit from 2010 to 2019. RESULTS: A total of 1404 patients with HF-rEF, 239 patients with HF-mrEF, and 266 patients with HF-pEF were analyzed. Significant differences were observed among the groups in regard to several clinical characteristics and the frequency of prescription of neurohormonal blocking drugs. A multivariate Cox regression revealed an increased risk of all-cause mortality in patients with HF-pEF (hazard ratio 1.36; 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.80; p = 0.028) and patients with HF-mrEF (hazard ratio 1.36; 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.78; p = 0.029) as compared to patients with HF-rEF. Heart failure was the most frequent cause of death in the three subgroups. A higher relative weight of sudden death as a cause of death was observed among patients with HF-rEF while the relative weight of non-cardiovascular causes of death was higher among patients with HF-pEF and HF-mrEF. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the existence of significant differences among patients with HF-rEF, HF-mrEF, and HF-pEF with regard to their clinical profile, therapeutic management, prognosis, and causes of death.

Comparison of the performance of the CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION bleeding risk scores in STEMI undergoing primary PCI: insights from a cohort of 1391 patients.

AIMS: To compare the performance of the CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION risk models in the ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). METHODS: We studied all consecutive patients with STEMI who underwent PPCI at our institution between 2006 and 2010 (n=1391). The CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION risk scores were calculated based on the patients' clinical characteristics. The occurrence of in-hospital major bleeding (defined as the composite of intracranial or intraocular bleeding, access site haemorrhage requiring intervention, reduction in haemoglobin ≥4 g/dl without or ≥3g/dl with overt bleeding source, reoperation for bleeding, or blood transfusion) reached 9.8%. Calibration and discrimination of the three risk models were evaluated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and the C-statistic, respectively. We compared the predictive accuracy of the risk scores by the DeLong non-parametric test. RESULTS: Calibration of the three risk scores was adequate, given the non-significant results of Hosmer-Lemeshow test for the three risk models. Discrimination of CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION models was good (C-statistic 0.77, 0.70, and 0.78, respectively). The CRUSADE and ACTION risk scores had a greater predictive accuracy than the ACUITY-HORIZONS risk model (z=3.89, p-value=0.0001 and z=3.51, p-value=0.0004, respectively). There was no significant difference between the CRUSADE and ACTION models (z=0.63, p=0.531). CONCLUSIONS: The CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION scores are useful tools for the risk stratification of bleeding in STEMI treated by PPCI. Our findings favour the CRUSADE and ACTION risk models over the ACUITY-HORIZONS risk score.