ABSTRACT
AIM: The role of malnutrition among patients with severe heart failure (HF) is not well established. We evaluated the incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of malnutrition in patients with severe HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Nutritional status was measured using the geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), based on body weight, height and serum albumin concentration, with malnutrition defined as GNRI ≤98. It was assessed in consecutive patients with severe HF, defined by at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker, enrolled at four Italian centres between January 2020 and November 2021. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. A total of 510 patients with data regarding nutritional status were included in the study (mean age 74 ± 12 years, 66.5% male). Among them, 179 (35.1%) had GNRI ≤98 (malnutrition). At multivariable logistic regression, lower body mass index (BMI) and higher levels of natriuretic peptides (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] > median value [685 pg/ml] or N-terminal proBNP > median value [5775 pg/ml]) were independently associated with a higher likelihood of malnutrition. Estimated rates of all-cause death at 1 year were 22.4% and 41.1% in patients without and with malnutrition, respectively (log-rank p < 0.001). The impact of malnutrition on all-cause mortality was confirmed after multivariable adjustment for relevant covariates (adjusted hazard ratio 2.03, 95% confidence interval 1.43-2.89, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In a contemporary, real-world, multicentre cohort of patients with severe HF, malnutrition (defined as GNRI ≤98) was common and independently associated with an increased risk of mortality. Lower BMI and higher natriuretic peptides were identified as predictors of malnutrition in these patients.
Subject(s)
Heart Failure , Malnutrition , Nutritional Status , Humans , Male , Heart Failure/complications , Heart Failure/epidemiology , Heart Failure/physiopathology , Female , Malnutrition/epidemiology , Malnutrition/complications , Aged , Italy/epidemiology , Prognosis , Body Mass Index , Nutrition Assessment , Natriuretic Peptide, Brain/blood , Incidence , Risk Factors , Severity of Illness Index , Geriatric Assessment/methods , Cause of Death/trends , Aged, 80 and over , Risk Assessment/methods , Peptide Fragments/bloodABSTRACT
AIMS: Frailty is highly prevalent in patients with heart failure (HF), but a concordant definition of this condition is lacking. The Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) proposed in 2019 a new multi-domain definition of frailty, but it has never been validated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients from the HELP-HF registry were stratified according to the number of HFA-ESC frailty domains fulfilled and to the cumulative deficits frailty index (FI) quintiles. Prevalence of frailty and of each domain was reported, as well as the rate of the composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization, its single components, and cardiovascular death in each group and quintile. Among 854 included patients, 37 (4.3%), 206 (24.1%), 365 (42.8%), 217 (25.4%), and 29 (3.4%) patients fulfilled zero, one, two, three, or four domains, respectively, while 179 patients had a FI < 0.21 and were considered not frail. The 1-year risk of adverse events increased proportionally to the number of domains fulfilled (for each criterion increase, all-cause death or HF hospitalization: hazard ratio [HR] 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-1.62; all-cause death: HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.46-2.02, HF hospitalizations: subHR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04-1.31; cardiovascular death: HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.45-2.15). Consistent results were found stratifying the cohort for FI quintiles. The FI as a continuous variable demonstrated higher discriminative ability than the number of domains fulfilled (area under the curve = 0.68 vs. 0.64, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Frailty in patients at risk for advanced HF, assessed via a multi-domain approach and the FI, is highly prevalent and identifies those at increased risk of adverse events. The FI was found to be slightly more effective in identifying patients at increased risk of mortality.
Subject(s)
Frailty , Heart Failure , Registries , Humans , Heart Failure/epidemiology , Male , Female , Frailty/epidemiology , Frailty/diagnosis , Aged , Cause of Death/trends , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Factors , Prevalence , Middle Aged , Aged, 80 and overABSTRACT
AIMS: To evaluate the role of tricuspid regurgitation in advanced heart failure. METHODS: The multicenter observational HELP-HF registry enrolled consecutive patients with heart failure and at least one 'I NEED HELP' criterion evaluated at four Italian centers between January 2020 and November 2021. Patients with no data on tricuspid regurgitation and/or receiving tricuspid valve intervention during follow-up were excluded. The population was stratified by no/mild tricuspid regurgitation vs. moderate tricuspid regurgitation vs. severe tricuspid regurgitation. Variables independently associated with tricuspid regurgitation, as well as the association between tricuspid regurgitation and clinical outcomes were investigated. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Among the 1085 patients included in this study, 508 (46.8%) had no/mild tricuspid regurgitation, 373 (34.4%) had moderate tricuspid regurgitation and 204 (18.8%) had severe tricuspid regurgitation. History of atrial fibrillation, any prior valve surgery, high dose of furosemide, preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, moderate/severe mitral regurgitation and pulmonary hypertension were found to be independently associated with an increased likelihood of severe tricuspid regurgitation. Estimated rates of 1-year all-cause death were of 21.4, 24.5 and 37.1% in no/mild tricuspid regurgitation, moderate tricuspid regurgitation and severe tricuspid regurgitation, respectively (log-rank P â<â0.001). As compared with nonsevere tricuspid regurgitation, severe tricuspid regurgitation was independently associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.88, P â=â0.042), whereas moderate tricuspid regurgitation did not. CONCLUSION: In a contemporary, real-world cohort of patients with advanced heart failure, several clinical and echocardiographic characteristics are associated with an increased likelihood of severe tricuspid regurgitation. Patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation have an increased risk of mortality.
Subject(s)
Heart Failure , Mitral Valve Insufficiency , Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Stroke Volume , Treatment Outcome , Tricuspid Valve/diagnostic imaging , Tricuspid Valve/surgery , Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency/diagnostic imaging , Ventricular Function, Left , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Observational Studies as TopicABSTRACT
AIM: Persistent symptoms despite guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and poor tolerance of GDMT are hallmarks of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, real-world data on GDMT use, dose, and prognostic implications are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 699 consecutive patients with HFrEF and at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF enrolled in a multicentre registry. Beta-blockers (BB) were administered to 574 (82%) patients, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ACEi/ARB/ARNI) were administered to 381 (55%) patients and 416 (60%) received mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA). Overall, ≥50% of target doses were reached in 41%, 22%, and 56% of the patients on BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and MRA, respectively. Hypotension, bradycardia, kidney dysfunction and hyperkalaemia were the main causes of underprescription and/or underdosing, but up to a half of the patients did not receive target doses for unknown causes (51%, 41%, and 55% for BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and MRA, respectively). The proportions of patients receiving BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI were lower among those fulfilling the 2018 HFA-ESC criteria for advanced HF. Treatment with BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI were associated with a lower risk of death or HF hospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-0.84, and HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.95, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In a large, real-world, contemporary cohort of patients with severe HFrEF, with at least one marker for advanced HF, prescription and uptitration of GDMT remained limited. A significant proportion of patients were undertreated due to unknown reasons suggesting a potential role of clinical inertia either by the prescribing healthcare professional or by the patient. Treatment with BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI was associated with lower mortality/morbidity.
Subject(s)
Heart Failure , Humans , Heart Failure/drug therapy , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Stroke Volume/physiology , Registries , Adrenergic beta-Antagonists/therapeutic use , Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic useABSTRACT
AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) (HFrEF), mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF), and preserved EF (HFpEF) may all progress to advanced HF, but the impact of EF in the advanced setting is not well established. Our aim was to assess the prognostic impact of EF in patients with at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HF and at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' criterion from four centres were included in this analysis. Outcomes were assessed in patients with HFrEF (EF ≤ 40%), HFmrEF (EF 41-49%), and HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%) and with EF analysed as a continuous variable. The prognostic impact of medical therapy for HF in patients with EF < 50% and EF > 50% was also evaluated. All-cause death was the primary endpoint, and cardiovascular death was a secondary endpoint. Among 1149 patients enrolled [mean age 75.1 ± 11.5 years, 67.3% males, 67.6% hospitalized, median follow-up 260 days (inter-quartile range 105-390 days)], HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF were observed in 699 (60.8%), 122 (10.6%), and 328 (28.6%) patients, and 1 year mortality was 28.3%, 26.2%, and 20.1, respectively (log-rank P = 0.036). As compared with HFrEF patients, HFpEF patients had a lower risk of all-cause death [adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj ) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.94, P = 0.022], whereas no difference was noted for HFmrEF patients. After multivariable adjustment, a lower risk of all-cause death (HRadj for 5% increase 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.99, P = 0.017) and cardiovascular death (HRadj for 5% increase 0.94, 95% CI 0.88-1.00, P = 0.049) was observed at higher EF values. Beta-blockers and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors or sacubitril/valsartan were associated with lower mortality in both EF < 50% and EF ≥ 50% groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HF and at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF, left ventricular EF is still of prognostic value.
Subject(s)
Heart Failure , Male , Humans , Infant , Female , Stroke Volume , Cause of Death , Risk Factors , RegistriesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The changing demographic of heart failure (HF) increases the exposure to non-cardiovascular (non-CV) events. We investigated the distribution of non-CV mortality/morbidity and the characteristics associated with higher risk of non-CV events in patients with advanced HF. METHODS: Patients from the HELP-HF registry were stratified according to the number of 2018 HFA-ESC criteria for advanced HF. Endpoints were non-CV mortality and non-CV hospitalization. Competing risk analyses were performed assessing the association between HFA-ESC criteria and study outcomes and the additional predictors of non-CV endpoints. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and forty-nine patients were included (median age 77 years-IQR 69-83). At 6, 12, 18 and 22 months, cumulative incidence of CV vs non-CV mortality was 13% vs 5%, 17% vs 8%, 20% vs 12%, 23% vs 12%, and of CV vs non-CV hospitalization was 26% vs 11%, 38% vs 17%, 45% vs 20%, 50% vs 21%. HFA-ESC criteria were associated with increasing adjusted risk of CV death, whereas no association was observed for CV hospitalization, non-CV death and non-CV hospitalization. Predictors of non-CV death were age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, preserved ejection fraction, >1 HF hospitalization and hemoglobin. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced HF are exposed to high, even though not predominant, burden of non-CV outcomes. HFA-ESC criteria aid to stratify the risk of CV death, but are not associated with lower competing risk of non-CV outcomes. Alternative factors can be useful to define the patients with advanced HF at risk of non-CV events in order to better select patients for treatments specifically reducing CV risk.
Subject(s)
Heart Failure , Humans , Aged , Stroke Volume , Risk Factors , Heart Failure/therapy , Morbidity , Risk Assessment , Hospitalization , PrognosisABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Hospitalization is associated with poor outcomes in patients with heart failure, but its prognostic role in advanced heart failure is still unsettled. We evaluated the prognostic role of heart failure hospitalization in patients with advanced heart failure. METHODS: The multicenter HELP-HF registry enrolled consecutive patients with heart failure and at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker. Characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients who were hospitalized for decompensated heart failure (inpatients) or not (outpatients) at the time of enrolment. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality or first heart failure hospitalization. RESULTS: Among the 1149 patients included [mean age 75.1â±â11.5âyears, 67.3% men, median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 35% (IQR 25-50%)], 777 (67.6%) were inpatients at the time of enrolment. As compared with outpatients, inpatients had lower LVEF, higher natriuretic peptides and a worse clinical profile. The 1-year rate of the primary endpoint was 50.9% in inpatients versus 36.8% in outpatients [crude hazard ratio 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39-2.07, Pâ<â0.001]. At multivariable analysis, inpatient status was independently associated with a higher risk of the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio 1.54, 95% CI 1.23-1.93, Pâ<â0.001). Among inpatients, the independent predictors of the primary endpoint were older age, lower SBP, heart failure association criteria for advanced heart failure and glomerular filtration rate 30âml/min/1.73âm2 or less. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization for heart failure in patients with at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker is associated with an extremely poor prognosis supporting the need for specific interventions, such as mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation.
Subject(s)
Heart Failure , Ventricular Function, Left , Male , Humans , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Prognosis , Stroke Volume , Heart Failure/diagnosis , Heart Failure/therapy , Heart Failure/complications , HospitalizationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The "I Need Help" markers have been proposed to identify patients with advanced heart failure (HF). We evaluated the prognostic impact of these markers on clinical outcomes in a real-world, contemporary, multicenter HF population. METHODS: We included consecutive patients with HF and at least 1 high-risk "I Need Help" marker from 4 centers. The impact of the cumulative number of "I Need Help" criteria and that of each individual "I Need Help" criterion was evaluated. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality or first HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 1149 patients enrolled, the majority had 2 (30.9%) or 3 (22.6%) "I Need Help" criteria. A higher cumulative number of "I Need Help" criteria was independently associated with a higher risk of the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio for each criterion increase, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.11-1.27]; P<0.001), and patients with >5 criteria had the worst prognosis. Need of inotropes, persistently high New York Heart Association classes III and IV or natriuretic peptides, end-organ dysfunction, >1 HF hospitalization in the last year, persisting fluid overload or escalating diuretics, and low blood pressure were the individual criteria independently associated with a higher risk of the primary end point. CONCLUSIONS: In our HF population, a higher number of "I Need Help" criteria was associated with a worse prognosis. The individual criteria with an independent impact on mortality or HF hospitalization were need of inotropes, New York Heart Association class or natriuretic peptides, end-organ dysfunction, multiple HF hospitalizations, persisting edema or escalating diuretics, and low blood pressure.
Subject(s)
Heart Failure , Hypotension , Humans , Heart Failure/diagnosis , Heart Failure/therapy , Multiple Organ Failure , Stroke Volume/physiology , Prognosis , Hospitalization , Registries , Natriuretic Peptides , DiureticsABSTRACT
In patients with advanced heart failure (HF), defined according to the presence of at least one I-NEED-HELP criterium, the updated 2018 Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) criteria for advanced HF identify a subgroup of patients with HF with worse prognosis, but whether ischemic etiology has a relevant prognostic impact in this very high-risk cohort is unknown. Patients from the HELP-HF registry were stratified according to ischemic etiology and presence of advanced HF based on 2018 HFA-ESC criteria. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization at 1 year. Secondary end points were all-cause death, HF hospitalization, and cardiovascular death at 1 year. Ischemic etiology was a leading cause of HF, in both patients with advanced and nonadvanced HF (46.1% and 42.4%, respectively, p = 0.337). The risk of the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 to 1.58) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.76) was increased in ischemic as compared with nonischemic patients. The risk of the primary end point was consistently higher in ischemic patients in both patients with advanced and nonadvanced HF (advanced HF, HR 1.50 95% CI 1.04 to 2.16; nonadvanced HF, HR 1.25 95% CI 1.01 to 1.56, pinteraction = 0.333), driven by an increased risk of mortality, mainly because of cardiovascular causes. In conclusion, ischemic etiology is the most common cause of HF in patients with at least one I-NEED-HELP marker and with or without advanced HF as defined by the 2018 HFA-ESC definition. In both patients with advanced and not-advanced HF, ischemic etiology carried an increased risk of worse prognosis.
Subject(s)
Heart Failure , Humans , Heart Failure/epidemiology , Heart Failure/etiology , Prognosis , Hospitalization , Registries , Stroke VolumeABSTRACT
In the last decades, advances in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategies have significantly reduced the risk of procedural complications and in-hospital mortality of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), thus increasing the population of stable post-ACS patients. This novel epidemiological scenario emphasizes the importance of implementing secondary preventive and follow-up strategies. The follow-up of patients after ACS or elective PCI should be based on common pathways and on the close collaboration between hospital cardiologists and primary care physicians. However, the follow-up strategies of these patients are still poorly standardized. This SICI-GISE/SICOA consensus document was conceived as a proposal for the long-term management of post-ACS or post-PCI patients based on their individual residual risk of cardiovascular adverse events. We defined five patient risk classes and five follow-up strategies including medical visits and examinations according to a specific time schedule. We also provided a short guidance for the selection of the appropriate imaging technique for the assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction and of non-invasive anatomical or functional tests for the detection of obstructive coronary artery disease. Physical and pharmacological stress echocardiography was identified as the first-line imaging technique in most of cases, while cardiovascular magnetic resonance should be preferred when an accurate evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction is needed. The standardization of the follow-up pathways of patients with a history of ACS or elective PCI, shared between hospital doctors and primary care physicians, could result in a more cost-effective use of resources and potentially improve patient's long-term outcome.
Subject(s)
Acute Coronary Syndrome , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Humans , Acute Coronary Syndrome/diagnosis , Stroke Volume , Follow-Up Studies , Consensus , Ventricular Function, Left , Treatment OutcomeSubject(s)
Heart-Assist Devices , Shock, Cardiogenic , Humans , Shock, Cardiogenic/diagnosis , Shock, Cardiogenic/etiology , Shock, Cardiogenic/therapy , Heart Ventricles/diagnostic imaging , Treatment Outcome , Hospital Mortality , Hospitals , Heart-Assist Devices/adverse effects , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) efficacy is critically affected by the inflation/deflation timing. Balloon deflation may cause a sucking effect, and a steal phenomenon on carotid flow. Delaying IABP deflation reduces the degree of this flow reversal, but at the same time exposes patients to the risk of increased proto-systolic afterload with detrimental effects on the LV. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a delayed IABP deflation timing on cerebral blood flow and LV hemodynamics, by means of simultaneous carotid artery ultrasonography, trans-thoracic echocardiography and central aortic pressure analysis. Delaying IABP deflation trigger to the beginning of QRS effectively increased the cerebral blood flow by 20%, mostly by reducing the reverse component flow caused by the diastolic balloon deflation. Extending the deflation to the early systole was safe and favourably impacted on cardiac mechanics, increasing CO by 15% without prolonging LV isovolumetric contraction and ejection phases.
Subject(s)
Carotid Arteries , Cerebrovascular Circulation , Heart Ventricles , Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping , Humans , Echocardiography , Heart/diagnostic imaging , Heart/physiopathology , Heart-Assist Devices , Hemodynamics , Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping/methods , Time Factors , Carotid Arteries/diagnostic imaging , Carotid Arteries/physiopathology , Cerebrovascular Circulation/physiology , Arterial Pressure/physiology , Heart Ventricles/physiopathologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) remodelling (REM) ensuing after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), has typically been studied by echocardiography, which has limitations, or cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in early phase that may overestimate infarct size (IS) due to tissue edema and stunning. This prospective, multicenter study investigated LV-REM performing CMR in the subacute phase, and 6 months after STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: patients with first STEMI undergoing successful primary angioplasty were consecutively enrolled. CMR was done at 30-days and 6-months. Primary endpoint was prevalence at 6 months of LV-REM [≥12% increase in LV end-diastolic volume index (LV-REMEDV)]; LV-REM by end-systolic volume index increase ≥12% (LV-REMESV) was also calculated. Of 325 patients enrolled, 193 with a full set of research-quality CMR images were analyzed. LV-REMEDV and LV-REMESV were present in 36/193 (19%) and 34/193 (18%) patients, respectively. At follow up, LV ejection fraction (EF) improved in patients with or without LV-REMEDV, whilst it decreased in those with LV-REMESV (p < 0.001 for interaction). Considering predictors of LV-REM, IS in the highest tertile was clearly separated from the two lower tertiles. In LV-REMEDV, the highest tertile was associated with significantly higher LV-EDV, LV-ESV, and lower EF. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary cohort of STEMI patients studied by CMR, prevalence of LV-REMEDV was lower than previously reported. Importantly, our data indicate that LV-REMEDV might not be "adverse" per se, but rather "compensatory", being associated with LV-EF improvement at follow-up. Conversely, LV-REMESV might be an "adverse" phenomenon associated with decreased LV-EF, driven by IS.
Subject(s)
Anterior Wall Myocardial Infarction , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction , Humans , Ventricular Remodeling , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/diagnostic imaging , Prospective Studies , Ventricular Function, Left , Stroke Volume , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Arrhythmias, Cardiac , Magnetic Resonance SpectroscopyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Limited real-world data are available regarding the comparison about safety and efficacy of DOACs prescription in very elderly patients (≥85 years) with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Concern about the risk of bleeding with anticoagulation in very older patients still represents an important challenge for clinicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate the different prevalence of major bleeding and thromboembolic events between very elderly NVAF patients (≥85 years) compared to those non very elderly (<85 years). METHODS: Single center multidisciplinary registry including NVAF patients treated with DOACs. Primary safety endpoint was 2-year rate of major bleeding. Primary efficacy endpoint was 2-year rate of thromboembolic events. Event-free survival curves among groups were compared using Cox-Mantel Test. RESULTS: 908 NVAF consecutive patients were included, of these, 805 patients were <85 years (89%) and 103 patients were very elderly patients with ≥85 years (11%). Compared to patients <85 years, those very elderly have higher CHA2DS2-VASc Score (P=0.001), higher rate of hypertension (P=0.001), diabetes mellitus (P=0.030), previous bleeding events (P<0.001), previous stroke/TIA/SE (P≤0.001), heart failure (P≤0.001), and lower creatinine clearance (P<0.001). In terms of safety endpoints (overall ISTH-major bleeding) no significative difference between two groups (P=0.952) were observed up to 2-year follow-up. Systemic thromboembolic event (primary efficacy endpoint) was significantly higher in patients with ≥85 years (P=0.027). The incidence of all-cause death was significantly higher in very elderly patients (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This single center registry, showed that the use of DOACs in very elderly NVAF was safe and is a therapeutic option to be pursued for stroke prevention especially for those who are at high risk of ischemic events.
Subject(s)
Atrial Fibrillation , Stroke , Thromboembolism , Humans , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Atrial Fibrillation/epidemiology , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Stroke/etiology , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Administration, OralABSTRACT
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common heart arrhythmia, and its prevalence increases with age. Oral Anticoagulant Therapy (OAT) with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) is essential to avoid thromboembolic events in AF. However, this treatment is associated with a high risk of bleeding and low adherence in elderly patients. Aim: The aim was to evaluate the real-world use of OAT in a population of patients aged ≥80 years in twenty-three Italian centers and to investigate the tolerance of and patient satisfaction with this therapy. Methods: The ISNEP Study is a multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling patients with AF and aged ≥80 years and treated with either NOACs or VKAs. A written questionnaire was administered to each patient to evaluate the adherence to and patient satisfaction with this therapy. Results: The study included 641 patients with a mean age of 85 (82−87) years. The use of NOACs was reported in 93.0% of cases, with the remaining 7.0% treated with VKAs. A history of stroke events was reported in five (11.1%) and one (0.2%) patients in the VKA and NOAC groups, respectively. The rate of referred ecchymosis/epistaxis was significantly higher in the VKA group compared to the NOAC group (p < 0.001). Patients receiving NOACs reported a substantial improvement in their quality of life compared to the VKA group. Conclusions: A small, but not negligible, proportion of elderly AF patients is still treated with VKAs. Patients treated with NOAC have a higher level of satisfaction with the therapy and complete adherence.
ABSTRACT
AIM: The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC)-derived cardiac power index (CPI) has been found of prognostic value in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients. The original CPI equation included the right atrial pressure (RAP), accounting for heart filling pressure as a determinant of systolic myocardial work, but this term was subsequently omitted. We hypothesized that the original CPI formula (CPIRAP ) is superior to current CPI for risk stratification in CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: A single-centre cohort of 80 consecutive Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) B-D CS patients with available PAC records was included. Overall in-hospital mortality was 21.3%. Results showed CPIRAP to be the strongest haemodynamic predictor of in-hospital death (padj = 0.038), outperforming CPI [area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves: 0.726 and 0.673, P-for-difference = 0.025]. When the population was stratified according to the identified CPIRAP (0.28 W/m2 ) and accepted CPI (0.32 W/m2 ) thresholds, the cohort with discordant indexes (low CPIRAP and high CPI) comprised a group of 13 patients featuring a congested phenotype with frequent right ventricle or biventricular involvement. In this group, in-hospital mortality was high (30.8%) similar to those with concordant low CPI and CPIRAP . CONCLUSION: Incorporating RAP in CPI calculation (CPIRAP ) improves the prognostic yield in patients with CS SCAI B-D. A cut-off of 0.28 W/m2 identifies patients at higher risk of in-hospital mortality. The improved prognostic value of CPIRAP may derive from identification of patients with more intravascular congestion who may experience substantial in-hospital mortality, uncaptured by the commonly used CPI equation.
Subject(s)
Atrial Pressure , Shock, Cardiogenic , Humans , Prognosis , Hospital Mortality , HemodynamicsABSTRACT
Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) is a rare multisystemic disorder of non-Langerhans histiocytic cells with a pleomorphic clinical presentation. It affects bones, skin, central nervous system, pituitary gland, ocular tissue, kidneys and perirenal tissue and lungs. Cardiac involvement presents usually with pericardial effusion and right atrial masses, but rarely with conduction system infiltration and subsequent arrhythmic events. Following the discovery of mutations of activating signaling kinase proteins (BRAF, MEK, ALK), the therapeutic landscape has changed to a more precise targeted treatment. Currently vemurafenib is approved for patient with end-organ dysfunction and BRAF-V600E mutation and the prognosis has dramatically improved. Here we present a case of ECD with electrical instability as main clinically relevant manifestation of cardiac involvement.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: The Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) proposed a definition of advanced heart failure (HF) that has not been validated, yet. We assessed its prognostic impact in a consecutive series of patients with high-risk HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The HELP-HF registry enrolled consecutive patients with HF and at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker, evaluated at four Italian centres between 1st January 2020 and 30th November 2021. Patients meeting the HFA-ESC advanced HF definition were compared to patients not meeting this definition. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality or first HF hospitalization. Out of 4753 patients with HF screened, 1149 (24.3%) patients with at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker were included (mean age 75.1 ± 11.5 years, 67.3% male, median left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 35% [interquartile range 25%-50%]). Among them, 193 (16.8%) patients met the HFA-ESC advanced HF definition. As compared to others, these patients were younger, had lower LVEF, higher natriuretic peptides and a worse clinical profile. The 1-year rate of the primary endpoint was 69.3% in patients with advanced HF according to the HFA-ESC definition versus 41.8% in the others (hazard ratio [HR] 2.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-2.74, p < 0.001). The prognostic impact of the HFA-ESC advanced HF definition was confirmed after multivariable adjustment for relevant covariates (adjusted HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.57-2.50, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The HFA-ESC advanced HF definition had a strong prognostic impact in a contemporary, real-world, multicentre high-risk cohort of patients with HF.