The two different profiles in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and type 2 diabetes mellitus: ischemic and diabetic.

OBJECTIVE: Two profiles of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can be discerned: those with ischemic and those with diabetic cardiomyopathy (DMC). We aim to analyze clinical differences and prognosis between patients of these two profiles. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cohort study analyzes data from the Spanish Heart Failure Registry, a multicenter, prospective registry that enrolled patients admitted for decompensated heart failure and followed them for one year. Three groups were created according to the presence of T2DM and heart disease depending on the etiology (ischemic when coronary artery disease was present, or DMC when no coronary, valvular, or congenital heart disease; no hypertension; nor infiltrative cardiovascular disease observed on an endomyocardial biopsy). The groups and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 466 patients were analyzed. Group 1 (n = 210) included patients with ischemic etiology and T2DM. Group 2 (n = 112) included patients with DMC etiology and T2DM. Group 3 (n = 144), a control group, included patients with ischemic etiology and without T2DM. Group 1 had more hypertension and dyslipidemia; group 2 had more atrial fibrillation (AF) and higher body mass index; group 3 had more chronic kidney disease and were older. In the regression analysis, group 3 had a better prognosis than group 1 (reference group) for cardiovascular mortality and HF readmissions (HR 0.44;95%CI 0.2-1; p = .049). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T2DM and HFpEF, who had the poorest prognosis, were of two different profiles: either ischemic or DMC etiology. The first had a higher burden of cardiovascular disease and inflammation whereas the second had a higher prevalence of obesity and AF. The first had a slightly poorer prognosis than the second, though this finding was not significant.

The influence of comorbidities on the prognosis after an acute heart failure decompensation and differences according to ejection fraction: Results from the EAHFE and RICA registries.

OBJECTIVE: The role of comorbidities in heart failure (HF) outcome has been previously investigated, although mostly individually. We investigated the individual effect of 13 comorbidities on HF prognosis and looked for differences according to left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), classified as reduced (HFrEF), mildly-reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved (HFpEF). METHODS: We included patients from the EAHFE and RICA registries and analysed the following comorbidities: hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes mellitus (DM), atrial fibrillation (AF), coronary artery disease (CAD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart valve disease (HVD), cerebrovascular disease (CVD), neoplasia, peripheral artery disease (PAD), dementia and liver cirrhosis (LC). Association of each comorbidity with all-cause mortality was assessed by an adjusted Cox regression analysis that included the 13 comorbidities, age, sex, Barthel index, New York Heart Association functional class and LVEF and expressed as adjusted Hazard Ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). RESULTS: We analysed 8,336 patients (82 years-old; 53% women; 66% with HFpEF). Mean follow-up was 1.0 years. Respect to HFrEF, mortality was lower in HFmrEF (HR:0.74;0.64-0.86) and HFpEF (HR:0.75;0.68-0.84). Considering patients all together, eight comorbidities were associated with mortality: LC (HR:1.85;1.42-2.42), HVD (HR:1.63;1.48-1.80), CKD (HR:1.39;1.28-1.52), PAD (HR:1.37;1.21-1.54), neoplasia (HR:1.29;1.15-1.44), DM (HR:1.26;1.15-1.37), dementia (HR:1.17;1.01-1.36) and COPD (HR:1.17;1.06-1.29). Associations were similar in the three LVEF subgroups, with LC, HVD, CKD and DM remaining significant in the three subgroups. CONCLUSION: HF comorbidities are associated differently with mortality, LC being the most associated with mortality. For some comorbidities, this association can be significantly different according to the LVEF.

Beta-blocker use in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and sinus rhythm.

INTRODUCTION: Beta-adrenergic receptor blockers (beta-blockers) are frequently used for patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), although evidence-based recommendations for this indication are still lacking. Our goal was to assess which clinical factors are associated with the prescription of beta-blockers in patients discharged after an episode of HFpEF decompensation, and the clinical outcomes of these patients. METHODS: We assessed 1078 patients with HFpEF and in sinus rhythm who had experienced an acute HF episode to explore whether prescription of beta-blockers on discharge was associated with one-year all-cause mortality or the composite endpoint of one-year all-cause death or HF readmission. We also examined the clinical factors associated with beta-blocker discharge prescription for such patients. RESULTS: At discharge, 531 (49.3%) patients were on beta-blocker therapy. Patients on beta-blockers more often had a prior diagnosis of hypertension and more comorbidity (including ischemic heart disease) and a better functional status, but less often a prior diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These patients had a lower heart rate on admission and more often used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and loop diuretics. One year after the index admission, 161 patients (15%) had died and 314 (29%) had experienced the composite endpoint. After multivariate adjustment, beta-blocker prescription was not associated with either all-cause mortality (HR=0.83 [95% CI 0.61-1.13]; p=0.236) or the composite endpoint (HR=0.98 [95% CI 0.79-1.23]; p=0.882). CONCLUSION: In patients with HFpEF in sinus rhythm, beta-blocker use was not related to one-year mortality or mortality plus HF readmission.

Prevalence and outcome of diuretic resistance in heart failure.

Diuretic resistance (DR) is common in patients with decompensated heart failure (HF), and is associated with adverse outcomes. To determine the prevalence of DR and its impact on survival among patients with decompensated HF, we prospectively evaluated the prevalence and influence on prognosis of DR (defined as persistent congestion despite ≥ 80 mg of furosemide per day) in a cohort of elderly patients from the Spanish HF registry (RICA) admitted for an acute decompensation of HF. Patients with new-onset HF were excluded. From the global cohort of 2067 patients, 435 (21%; 95% CI 19.3%-22.7%) patients met criteria for DR. Patients with DR had more comorbidities (hypercholesterolemia, diabetes mellitus, valvular disease, chronic kidney disease, and cancer) and a worse functional status compared to patients without DR. In addition, patients with DR had a higher proportion of ischemic etiology, more advanced functional class and lower left ventricular ejection fraction values. After 1 year of follow-up, all-cause mortality was higher in patients with DR with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.37 (95% CI 1.06-1.79; p = 0.018). The prevalence of DR in a cohort of elderly patients admitted for acute HF decompensation is 21%. DR is an independent predictor of 1-year mortality.

Confidentiality breaches in clinical practice: what happens in hospitals?

BACKGROUND: Respect for confidentiality is important to safeguard the well-being of patients and ensure the confidence of society in the doctor-patient relationship. The aim of our study is to examine real situations in which there has been a breach of confidentiality, by means of direct observation in clinical practice. METHODS: By means of direct observation, our study examines real situations in which there has been a breach of confidentiality in a tertiary hospital. To observe and collect data on these situations, we recruited students enrolled in the Medical Degree Program at the University of Cordoba. The observers recorded their entries on standardized templates during clinical internships in different departments: Internal Medicine; Gynecology and Obstetrics; Pediatrics; Emergency Medicine; General and Digestive Surgery; Maxillofacial Surgery; Plastic Surgery; Orthopedics and Traumatology; Digestive; Dermatology; Rheumatology; Mental Health; Nephrology; Pneumology; Neurology; and Ophthalmology. RESULTS: Following 7138 days and 33157 h of observation, we found an estimated Frequency Index of one breach per 62.5 h. As regards the typology of the observed breaches, the most frequent (54,6 %) were related to the consultation and/or disclosure of clinical and/or personal data to medical personnel not involved in the patient's clinical care, as well as people external to the hospital. As regards their severity, severe breaches were the most frequent, accounting for 46.7 % of all incidents. Most of the reported incidents were observed in public areas (37.9 %), such as corridors, elevators, the cafeteria, stairs, and locker rooms. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to aspects related to hospital organization or infrastructure, we have shown that all healthcare personnel are involved in confidentiality breaches, especially physicians. While most are committed unintentionally, a non-negligible number are severe, repeated breaches (9.5 %), thus suggesting a certain carelessness, perhaps through ignorance about certain behaviors that can jeopardize patient confidentiality.

Relationship between osteoprotegerin and mortality in decompensated heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether osteoprotegerin - an emerging inflammatory biomarker in cardiovascular diseases - predicts outcomes in patients with acute heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. METHODS: We measured urea, creatinine, hemoglobin, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and osteoprotegerin on admission in 177 patients admitted with decompensated heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction at least 45%. The population was divided according to the median values of osteoprotegerin (158.6 ng/l). Primary and secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality and death/readmission at 1-year follow-up, respectively. Multivariable Cox models were generated for osteoprotegerin and common risk factors. We also evaluated the reclassification of patients into risk categories after adding this biomarker to the model. RESULTS: A total of 43 patients died during the follow-up and 84 had a combined event. Kaplan-Meier curves showed significantly increased primary and secondary endpoints according to the median of osteoprotegerin (log-rank, P < 0.0001 and 0.001, respectively). After adjustment for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, hemoglobin, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, BMI and New York Heart Association III-IV, osteoprotegerin was a significant predictor of primary endpoint evaluated as continuous and categorized variable (relative risk 2.49, 95% confidence interval 1.18-5.24, P = 0.016 and relative risk 2.35, 95% confidence interval 1.11-4.96, P = 0.025, respectively). The clinical prediction model with osteoprotegerin evaluated with Net Reclassification Index was not significant. CONCLUSION: Osteoprotegerin is independently associated with all-cause mortality in patients hospitalized for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. However, adding this biomarker into a risk model does not improve its prediction value.

[Diagnosis of acute heart failure and relevance of biomarkers in elderly patients]. / Diagnóstico de la insuficiencia cardíaca aguda y relevancia de los biomarcadores en pacientes de edad avanzada.

Diagnosis of acute heart failure (HF) is difficult in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities. Risk scales and classification criteria based exclusively on clinical manifestations, such as the Framingham scales, lack sufficient specificity. In addition to clinical manifestations, diagnosis should be based on two key factors: natriuretic peptides and echocardiographic study. When there is clinical suspicion of acute HF, a normal natriuretic peptide level will rule out this process. When a consistent clinical suspicion is present, an echocardiographic study should also be performed. Diagnosis of HF with preserved ejection fraction (HF/pEF) requires detection of an enlarged left atrium or the presence of parameters of diastolic dysfunction. Elevation of cardiac biomarkers seems to be due to myocardial injury and the compensatory mechanisms of the body against this injury (hormone and inflammatory response and repair mechanisms). Elevation of markers of cardiac damage (troponins and natriuretic peptides) have been shown to be useful both in the diagnosis of acute HF and in prediction of outcome. MMP-2 could be useful in the diagnosis of HF/pEF. In addition to biomarkers with diagnostic value, other biomarkers are helpful in prognosis in the acute phase of HF, such as biomarkers of renal failure (eGFR, cystatin and urea), inflammation (cytokines and CRP), and the cell regeneration marker, galectin-3. A promising idea that is under investigation is the use of panels of biomarkers, which could allow more accurate diagnosis and prognosis of acute HF.

[Diagnostic value of fecal calprotectin in predicting an abnormal colonoscopy]. / Precisión diagnóstica de la calprotectina fecal para predecir una colonoscopia patológica.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Abdominal pain and diarrhoea are common symptoms in the general population. The colonoscopy is the gold standard method of detecting an organic pathology in the colon. However, it is invasive; it can not be repeated frecuently; it is expensive; and the system is overloaded. Fecal calprotectin (FCP) is a marker that may detect organic pathologies of the colon. The aims of this study were to analyze the usefulness of FCP to predict an abnormal colonoscopy and to correlate the levels of FCP with the degree of activity in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). PATIENTS AND METHOD: 190 people were included in the study. All of them underwent a colonoscopy and a stool sample. People were divided in: normal colonoscopy: 117 people, and 28 colon adenomas, 20 colorectal cancer (CRC) and 25 IBD. RESULTS: The mean (SD) FCP concentration was 2,171.1 (2,133.6) mg/kgin patients with IBD and 726.6 mg/kg (533) in CRC. Both results were significantly elevated compared with those of healthy controls [114 (113)] mg/kg In patients with IBD, their levels correlated directly with the activity of the inflammation. 217 mg/kg was the best cut-off for discriminating patients with organic colon disorders. The sensibility was 85% and NPV was 93%. NSAIDs use was a clinical variable which was connected with a high FCP concentration in patients with normal colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The higher levels of FCP were found in people with IBD and CRC. The measurement of FCP is a non-invasive, inexpensive, reliable and easily measured test. Among people with abdominal pain and diarrhoea, testing for FCP allows us to select those who must undergo a colonoscopy. NSAIDs can raise the levels of FCP in people with normal colonoscopies.