Prognostic significance of carbohydrate antigen 125 in stage D heart failure.

BACKGROUND: The predictive value of carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) has not been examined in stage D heart failure (HF) patients, regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We sought to quantify the prognostic usefulness in predicting death and HF readmission in this cohort. METHODS: According to CA125 levels above and below the median (65.7 U/ml), 176 stage D HF patients including more than half (50.6%) had LVEF > 40% were divided into 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 106 (60.2%) deaths and 102 deaths due to the cardiovascular disease were identified. All-cause death/HF readmission and MACE occurred in 157 patients (89.2%) during 18 months (16-20) of follow-up. By the Kaplan-Meier method, subjects with CA125 ≥ 65.7 U/ml exhibited higher 1-year mortality rate (59.3% vs. 31.0%, P < 0.001) and 1-year death/HF rehospitalization rate (94.2% vs. 80.6%, P < 0.001). In univariate Cox analysis, CA125 (categorized) was a significant prognostic factor for all-cause death, cardiovascular mortality, death/HF readmission and MACE. Based on multivariate Cox analysis, elevated CA125 was still significant for all-cause death, cardiovascular mortality, death/HF readmission and MACE. CONCLUSIONS: In stage D HF patients, elevated CA125 levels were highly predictive of all-cause death, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause death/HF readmission and MACE, which can be used for better risk stratification.

Risk of heart failure progression in patients with reduced ejection fraction: mechanisms and therapeutic options.

Transition from stage C to stage D of heart failure (HF) represents an irreversible process toward end-stage disease. Crucial interventions to be adopted in the attempt to interfere with this process are represented by the identification of patients at high risk to develop HF progression and by an effective and prompt management. Markers of worse prognosis and disease progression are well established and include recurrence of HF decompensation, intolerance to the neurohormonal standard pharmacological treatment, and resistance to loop diuretics. In addition, both NT-proBNP and sympathetic nervous system (SNS) overdrive are strong predictors of adverse clinical outcome and allow to identify high-risk HF patients even in the presence of mild symptoms. To counteract the deleterious effects of the SNS activation, new strategies such as a new drug combining angiotensin receptor and neprilysin inhibition and baroreceptor stimulation therapy (BAT) have been investigated. Inability to properly counteract the SNS overdrive leads to acute HF decompensation by different mechanisms. The leading ones are represented by the progressive sodium and water retention with fluid overload and by the blood volume redistribution between splanchnic and non-splanchnic regions. The correct understanding of these mechanisms, together with the availability of new therapeutic options such as peritoneal ultrafiltration, represent the rationale but not infrequently overlooked therapeutic options to improve congestion management in HF patients.

Correlation between driveline features and driveline infection in left ventricular assist device selection.

Although the survival rate for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy has improved, device-related complications are an unpredictable threat to the patient's quality of life. We focused on driveline infection, and aimed to determine whether specific features of drivelines affect the frequency of infection. We enrolled patients who underwent LVAD implantation and were followed-up at our institute between 2007 and 2015. We counted the occurrences of driveline infection requiring any antibiotic therapy over a 2-year study period. Furthermore, we experimentally measured and compared the outer diameters and stiffness of three devices. Of all, 72 patients received an LVAD during the enrollment period. LVADs were HeartMate II (n = 32), EVAHEART (n = 22), and DuraHeart (n = 18). The outer diameters and stiffness were measured in five of each device. HeartMate II group had the highest driveline infection-free rate among all three devices during the study period (p = 0.042). The driveline of the HeartMate II LVAD had a significantly smaller outer diameter and lower stiffness than that of the other two devices (p < 0.05 for both). In conclusion, device-specific driveline features may affect the development of driveline infection during LVAD therapy.

Advanced (stage D) heart failure: a statement from the Heart Failure Society of America Guidelines Committee.

We propose that stage D advanced heart failure be defined as the presence of progressive and/or persistent severe signs and symptoms of heart failure despite optimized medical, surgical, and device therapy. Importantly, the progressive decline should be primarily driven by the heart failure syndrome. Formally defining advanced heart failure and specifying when medical and device therapies have failed is challenging, but signs and symptoms, hemodynamics, exercise testing, biomarkers, and risk prediction models are useful in this process. Identification of patients in stage D is a clinically important task because treatments are inherently limited, morbidity is typically progressive, and survival is often short. Age, frailty, and psychosocial issues affect both outcomes and selection of therapy for stage D patients. Heart transplant and mechanical circulatory support devices are potential treatment options in select patients. In addition to considering indications, contraindications, clinical status, and comorbidities, treatment selection for stage D patients involves incorporating the patient's wishes for survival versus quality of life, and palliative and hospice care should be integrated into care plans. More research is needed to determine optimal strategies for patient selection and medical decision making, with the ultimate goal of improving clinical and patient centered outcomes in patients with stage D heart failure.

Bridge to nowhere: A retrospective single-center study on patients using chronic intravenous inotropic support as bridge therapy who do not receive surgical therapy.

Background: Many patients with advanced heart failure (HF) are administered chronic intravenous inotropic support (CIIS) as bridge to surgical therapy; some ultimately never receive surgery. We aimed to describe reasons patients "crossover" from CIIS as bridge therapy to palliative therapy, and compare end-of-life outcomes to patients initiated on CIIS as palliative therapy. Methods: Single-institution, retrospective cohort study of patients on CIIS as bridge or palliative therapy between 2010 and 2016; data obtained through review of health records and multi-disciplinary selection meeting minutes, was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: Of 246 patients discharged on CIIS as bridge therapy, 37 (16%) (male n = 28, 76%; African American n = 22, 60%) ultimately never received surgery. 67 matched patients on CIIS as palliative therapy were included for analysis (male n = 47, 70%; African American n = 47, 70%). The most common reasons for "crossover" from CIIS as bridge therapy to palliative therapy were frailty (n = 10, 27%), cardiac arrest (n = 5, 13.5%), and progressive non-cardiac illnesses (n = 6, 16.2%). A similar percentage of patients in the bridge (n = 28, 76%) and palliative (n = 48, 72%) groups died outside the hospital (P=0.66); however, fewer bridge patients received hospice care compared to the palliative group (35% vs 69%, P < 0.001). Comparing patients who died in the hospital, bridge patients (n = 9; 100%) were more likely to die in the intensive care unit than palliative patients (n = 8; 42%) (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients on CIIS as bridge therapy who do not ultimately receive surgical therapy "crossover" to palliative intention due to frailty, or development of or identification of serious illnesses. Nevertheless, these "bridge to nowhere" patients are less likely to receive palliative care or hospice and more likely to die in the intensive care unit than patients on CIIS as palliative therapy.

Left Ventricular Assist Devices: A Primer For the General Cardiologist.

Durable implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been shown to improve survival and quality of life for patients with stage D heart failure. Even though LVADs remain underused overall, the number of patients with heart failure supported with LVADs is steadily increasing. Therefore, general cardiologists will increasingly encounter these patients. In this review, we provide an overview of the field of durable LVADs. We discuss which patients should be referred for consideration of advanced heart failure therapies. We summarize the basic principles of LVAD care, including medical and surgical considerations. We also discuss the common complications associated with LVAD therapy, including bleeding, infections, thrombotic issues, and neurologic events. Our goal is to provide a primer for the general cardiologist in the recognition of patients who could benefit from LVADs and in the principles of managing patients with LVAD. Our hope is to "demystify" LVADs for the general cardiologist.

[Contribution and limits of "OSCE", "long-case" and "global end-of-placement marking" as end-of-rotation assessment methods. Experience from two internal medicine wards]. / Apport et limites des « ECOS ¼, « examen clinique au lit du malade ¼ et « appréciation globale de stage ¼ comme modalité d'évaluation de fin de stage. Expérience de deux services de médecine interne.

INTRODUCTION: During placements, there is an opportunity to learn clinical skills and to assess their application. However, it represents two different goals. The validity of an end-of-placement assessment is questionable, as the medical competency is contextual. We decided to evaluate the contribution and limits of different assessment modalities as an end-of-placement assessment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Internal medicine clerks were assessed using the Mini-Cex grid by a structured objective clinical examination (OSCE), a long-case clinical examination (LCE) and a global end-of-placement marking (GEPM). Following these evaluations, students and teachers fulfilled an open questionnaire. RESULTS: In 2021, 41 students and 16 teachers participated in the study. Physical examination was evaluated in 0%, 97% et 76% of cases during OSCE, LCE and GEPM, respectively; teaching skills were assessed for 100, 42 et 49% of students in OSCE, LCE and GEPM, respectively. As compared to OSCE, there was a perceived superiority of LCE regarding its formative value (P=0.07 and P=0.03) and its summative value (P=0.0007 and P=0.02), for students and teachers, respectively. Qualitative analysis highlights the breadth of clinical skills that could be assessed during OSCE stations. Integration into a team was an additional skill that could specifically be assessed during GEPM. GEPM could also take into account the progress made during placement. CONCLUSION: Despite its subjectivity, LCE seemed to be the preferred modality for an end-of-rotation assessment.

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor in inotrope dependent heart failure patients: A case series.

Patients with advanced heart failure (HF) symptoms constitute stage D heart failure with high mortality and less response to conventional guideline directed medical therapies. These patients are subjected to receive non-medical therapies including heart transplant or mechanical circulatory support for increasing survival. Considering the low availability and serious complications of these strategies,effective medical therapies for this group of patients would be pivotal for decreasing mortality and morbidity of them. Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) is a class of drugs approved for ambulatory heart failure patients. ARNI use like other groups of heart failure drugs has not been fully evaluated in end-stage heart failure patients. Herein, we describe four inotrope-dependent heart failure patients. Initiation of ARNI in these patients, lead to discontinuation of inotrope and reducing the need for inotrope in the follow-up period.

Cardiogenic Shock in Patients with Advanced Chronic Heart Failure.

Patients with end-stage heart failure (HF) who have failed optimal medical therapy provide a unique set of challenges compared to the more prevalent population of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) due to ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Progression from "preshock" into a refractory state of CS is associated with a dismal outcome due to difficulties with the patient's recognition, response to interventions, and candidacy for salvage options. Challenges include heterogeneity of CS (eg, different phenotypes, etiologies, duration, acuity of onset, hemodynamics, end-organ effects), lack of a universal definition of CS that is applicable to this patient population, and blunted hemodynamic response given the patient's prolonged compensatory state. Individuals with advanced HF in CS require a multidisciplinary team-based assessment regarding when to escalate from medical therapy into temporary mechanical circulatory support, and they need an eligibility evaluation to determine their candidacy for advanced therapy. In this review, we discuss the definition and clinical phenotypes of CS, classification of CS in advanced HF patients, the utility of temporary mechanical circulatory support, and the role of the CS team.

Advanced heart failure: A review.

Heart failure (HF) has been recognized as a pandemic and is a serious clinical and health problem associated with significant mortality, morbidity and expenditure on healthcare, especially among older people. Progress in medicine has made it possible for an increasing number of people with HF to live longer than ever before. Therefore, a new and serious clinical problem has appeared - advanced heart failure (AHF). A better understanding of this issue is very important, because there are many more patients waiting for transplantations than there are available hearts. The role of the medical team is to keep the patient in the best condition until the heart transplant/implantation of left ventricular assist devices or at least to ensure the best possible quality of life. This article reviews the available data on AHF. The authors have succinctly presented different definitions and methods of the AHF diagnosis established by medical societies, as well as epidemiological data, methods of assessment, and possible treatment strategies.

Decisional regret in left ventricular assist device patient-caregiver dyads.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate decisional regret among left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients and their caregivers. METHODS: This study was a single center, cross-sectional survey of patients after LVAD implantation and their caregivers. Subjects were recruited at their outpatient heart failure appointments. Patients and caregivers at least three months from LVAD implantation completed a 5-item, validated decisional regret scale. Summative scores on a 0-100 point scale were determined for patient and caregivers (0 = no regret). Subgroup analysis included gender, LVAD indication (bridge to transplant (BTT) or destination therapy (DT)), time from LVAD implantation, and caregiver relationship. Dyad discordance was defined as a patient-caregiver difference of ≥2 points on any regret scale question. RESULTS: Fifty patients were approached for participation. Thirty-three LVAD patient-caregiver dyads were enrolled in the study (19 male, 14 female patients; 8 male, 25 female caregivers). Patients had a mean age of approximately 50 years. Caregivers had a mean age of approximately 54 years. Patients had a median regret score of 10 (Interquartile range (IQR): 0-30), while caregivers had a median regret score of 20 (IQR: 0-25). Median regret scores of female patients were significantly higher than that of male patients (27.5 vs 0, p = 0.0038). BTT patients had numerically lower regret than DT patients, but this was not statistically significant. Patients who had been implanted for greater than three years had the highest regret scores. Discordance in at least one domain of the regret scale was present in 19 out of 33 (57.6%) dyads. CONCLUSIONS: While decisional regret was reasonably low in this population, comparatively, there was significantly increased decisional regret among female patients and patients further from LVAD implantation. Differences between patients and caregivers were also observed. These findings highlight the need for robust support and continual attention to expectations before and after LVAD implantation.

Contemporary Treatment of Heart Failure.

Heart failure (HF) affects 2.4% of the adult population in the United States and is associated with high health care costs. Medical and device therapy delay disease progression and improve survival in HF with reduced ejection fraction. Stage D HF is characterized by significant functional limitation, frequent HF hospitalization for decompensation, intolerance of medical therapy, use of inotropes, and high diuretic requirement. Advanced therapies with left ventricular assist devices and cardiac transplantation reduce mortality and improve quality of life, and early referral to specialized centers is imperative for patient selection and success with these therapies.

Definitions of Stage D heart failure and outcomes among outpatients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: An operational consensus definition of Stage D heart failure (HF) is currently lacking. METHODS: We evaluated 512 outpatients (median age, 63 years; 35.0% women; 45.5% white and 45.9% black; median ejection fraction was 25%; 67.4% had coronary artery disease) with HF and reduced (≤40%) ejection fraction. We applied 3 hypothetical definitions for Stage D: (1) designation as "Stage D" or "advanced" HF by treating physician; (2) INTERMACS profiles, defining Stage D as profiles 2-6; and (3) European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Association (ESC-HFA) criteria. RESULTS: Physicians, INTERMACS profiles, and ESC-HFA criteria identified 64 (12.5%), 93 (18.2%), and 67 (13.1%) patients, respectively, as Stage D, with modest concordance between definitions (κ = 0.37). After a median of 3.1 years, 97 patients died (3-year mortality 20.4%). Among patients identified as Stage D by physicians, 3-year mortality was 43.7% vs. 17.0% for non-Stage D patients (age-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 3.17; 95%CI 1.94-5.18; P < 0.001). The corresponding mortalities for the INTERMACS-based definition were 41.0% vs. 16.2% (HR 3.28; 95%CI 2.11-5.11; P < 0.001) and for ESC-HFA criteria 33.5% vs. 18.6% (HR 2.02; 95%CI 1.22-3.33; P = 0.006); the INTERMACS-based definition provided the best prognostic separation. Results were similar with an alternative INTERMACS-based definition considering only profiles 2-5 as Stage D HF. The INTERMACS-based definition best separated all-cause and HF-specific hospitalization and composite endpoint risk between Stage D and non-Stage D patients also. CONCLUSIONS: INTERMACS profiles provide a practical alternative for the identification of Stage D HF in ambulatory populations with systolic HF. The ESC-HFA criteria offer limited prognostic information.

Current indications for transplantation: stratification of severe heart failure and shared decision-making.

Heart failure (HF) is a complex clinical syndrome that results from structural or functional cardiovascular disorders causing a mismatch between demand and supply of oxygenated blood and consecutive failure of the body's organs. For those patients with stage D HF, advanced therapies, such as mechanical circulatory support (MCS) or heart transplantation (HTx), are potentially life-saving options. The role of risk stratification of patients with stage D HF in a value-based healthcare framework is to predict which subset might benefit from advanced HF (AdHF) therapies, to improve outcomes related to the individual patient including mortality, morbidity and patient experience as well as to optimize health care delivery system outcomes such as cost-effectiveness. Risk stratification and subsequent outcome prediction as well as therapeutic recommendation-making need to be based on the comparative survival benefit rationale. A robust model needs to (I) have the power to discriminate (i.e., to correctly risk stratify patients); (II) calibrate (i.e., to show agreement between the predicted and observed risk); (III) to be applicable to the general population; and (IV) provide good external validation. The Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) and the Heart Failure Survival Score (HFSS) are two of the most widely utilized scores. However, outcomes for patients with HF are highly variable which make clinical predictions challenging. Despite our clinical expertise and current prediction tools, the best short- and long-term survival for the individual patient, particularly the sickest patient, is not easy to identify because among the most severely ill, elderly and frail patients, most preoperative prediction tools have the tendency to be imprecise in estimating risk. They should be used as a guide in a clinical encounter grounded in a culture of shared decision-making, with the expert healthcare professional team as consultants and the patient as an empowered decision-maker in a trustful safe therapeutic relationship.