Effect of an Emergency Department Care Bundle on 30-Day Hospital Discharge and Survival Among Elderly Patients With Acute Heart Failure: The ELISABETH Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Clinical guidelines for the early management of acute heart failure in the emergency department (ED) setting are based on only moderate levels of evidence, with subsequent low adherence to these guidelines. Objective: To test the effect of an early guideline-recommended care bundle on short-term prognosis in older patients with acute heart failure in the ED. Design, Setting, and Participants: Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in 15 EDs in France of 503 patients 75 years and older with a diagnosis of acute heart failure in the ED from December 2018 to September 2019 and followed up for 30 days until October 2019. Interventions: A care bundle that included early intravenous nitrate boluses; management of precipitating factors, such as acute coronary syndrome, infection, or atrial fibrillation; and moderate dose of intravenous diuretics (n = 200). In the control group, patient care was left to the discretion of the treating emergency physician (n = 303). Each center was randomized to the order in which they switched to the "intervention period." After the initial 4-week control period for all centers, 1 center entered in the intervention period every 2 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included 30-day all-cause mortality, 30-day cardiovascular mortality, unscheduled readmission, length of hospital stay, and kidney impairment. Results: Among 503 patients who were randomized (median age, 87 years; 298 [59%] women), 502 were analyzed. In the intervention group, patients received a median (interquartile range) of 27.0 (9-54) mg of intravenous nitrates in the first 4 hours vs 4.0 (2.0-6.0) mg in the control group (adjusted difference, 23.8 [95% CI, 13.5-34.1]). There was a significantly higher percentage of patients in the intervention group treated for their precipitating factors than in the control group (58.8% vs 31.9%; adjusted difference, 31.1% [95% CI, 14.3%-47.9%]). There was no statistically significant difference in the primary end point of the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days (median [interquartile range], 19 [0- 24] d in both groups; adjusted difference, -1.9 [95% CI, -6.6 to 2.8]; adjusted ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64-1.21]). At 30 days, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in mortality (8.0% vs 9.7%; adjusted difference, 4.1% [95% CI, -17.2% to 25.3%]), cardiovascular mortality (5.0% vs 7.4%; adjusted difference, 2.1% [95% CI, -15.5% to 19.8%]), unscheduled readmission (14.3% vs 15.7%; adjusted difference, -1.3% [95% CI, -26.3% to 23.7%]), median length of hospital stay (8 d in both groups; adjusted difference, 2.5 [95% CI, -0.9 to 5.8]), and kidney impairment (1% in both groups). Conclusions and Relevance: Among older patients with acute heart failure, use of a guideline-based comprehensive care bundle in the ED compared with usual care did not result in a statistically significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days. Further research is needed to identify effective treatments for acute heart failure in older patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03683212.

Impact of renal dysfunction on the management and outcome of acute heart failure: results from the French prospective, multicentre, DeFSSICA survey.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) is the combination of acute heart failure syndrome (AHF) and renal dysfunction (creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≤60 mL/min). Real-life data were used to compare the management and outcome of AHF with and without renal dysfunction. DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre. SETTING: Twenty-six academic, community and regional hospitals in France. PARTICIPANTS: 507 patients with AHF were assessed in two groups according to renal function: group 1 (patients with CRS (CrCl ≤60 mL/min): n=335) and group 2 (patients with AHF with normal renal function (CrCl >60 mL/min): n=172). RESULTS: Differences were observed (group 1 vs group 2) at admission for the incidence of chronic heart failure (56.42% vs 47.67%), use of furosemide (60.9% vs 52.91%), insulin (15.52% vs 9.3%) and amiodarone (14.33% vs 4.65%); additionally, more patients in group 1 carried a defibrillator (4.78% vs 0%), had ≥2 hospitalisations in the last year (15.52% vs 5.81%) and were under the care of a cardiologist (72.24% vs 61.63%). Clinical signs were broadly similar in each group. Brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and BNP prohormone were higher in group 1 than group 2 (1157.5 vs 534 ng/L and 5120 vs 2513 ng/mL), and more patients in group 1 were positive for troponin (58.2% vs 44.19%), had cardiomegaly (51.04% vs 37.21%) and interstitial opacities (60.3% vs 47.67%). The only difference in emergency treatment was the use of nitrates, (higher in group 1 (21.9% vs 12.21%)). In-hospital mortality and the percentage of patients still hospitalised after 30 days were similar between groups, but the median stay was longer in group 1 (8 days vs 6 days). CONCLUSIONS: Renal impairment in AHF should not limit the use of loop diuretics and/or vasodilators, but early assessment of pulmonary congestion and close monitoring of the efficacy of conventional therapies is encouraged to allow rapid and appropriate implementation of alternative therapies if necessary.

Impact of diuretic dosing on mortality in acute heart failure using a propensity-matched analysis.

AIMS: Loop diuretics are recommended to treat congestion in heart failure (HF), despite limited quality evidence. High-dose (HD) loop diuretics seem to worsen outcomes in chronic HF, though; data for acute HF are scarce, with equivocal results. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ALARM-HF study recorded in-hospital HF therapy in 4953 patients from nine countries. A post-hoc analysis was performed to determine if there was an interaction between intravenous (iv) bolus diuretic dosing and outcomes. Patients were classified as receiving high- or low-dose iv furosemide if their total initial 24 h dose was above (HD) or below [low dose (LD)] 1 mg/kg. Propensity scoring, matching an extensive list of variables, was performed. High-dose and LD patients were matched by propensity scores and outcomes determined. We identified 2460 LD and 848 HD patients, with overall in-hospital mortality of 9 and 13% (P= 0.002), respectively. After propensity matching, there were 506 patients in each subgroup, with the matched LD and HD cohorts having similar mortality (13 vs. 15%; P= 0.4). We further investigated in which subgroups of patients HD diuretics influenced mortality. Before matching, HD diuretics were associated with a greater risk of in-hospital death in some subgroups, including patients aged >80 years, those with an acute coronary syndrome, or with a left ventricular ejection fraction <40%. However, after propensity score matching, no association was found between diuretic dosing and death in any of the studied subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In the initial management of acute HF, HD iv diuretics, per se, do not influence short-term mortality.