Gender differences in characteristics and outcomes in heart failure patients referred for end-stage treatment.

AIMS: Despite signals from clinical trials and mechanistic studies implying different resilience to heart failure (HF) depending on gender, the impact of gender on presentation and outcomes in patients with HF remains unclear. This study assessed the impact of gender on clinical presentation and outcomes in patients with HF referred to a specialised tertiary HF service. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients with HF referred to a specialised tertiary HF service offering advanced therapy options including left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) and heart transplantation were prospectively enrolled from August 2015 until March 2018. We assessed clinical characteristics at baseline and performed survival analyses and age-adjusted Cox regression analyses in men vs. women for all-cause death and a combined disease-related endpoint comprising death, heart transplantation, and LVAD implantation. Analyses were performed for the overall study population and for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Of 356 patients included, 283 (79.5%) were male. The median age was 58 years (interquartile range 50-67). Two hundred and fifty-one (74.5%) patients had HFrEF. HF aetiology, ejection fraction, functional status measures, and most of the cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities did not differ between men and women. In a median follow-up of 3.2 years, 50 patients died (45 men, 5 women), 15 patients underwent LVAD implantation, and 8 patients heart transplantation. While all-cause death was not significantly different between both genders in the overall population [16.9 vs. 6.0%, P = 0.065, hazard ratio (HR) 2.29 (95% confidence interval 0.91-5.78), P = 0.078], in the HFrEF subgroup, a significant difference between men and women was observed [20.7% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.017, HR 3.67 (95% confidence interval 1.13-11.91), P = 0.031]. The combined endpoint was more often reached in men than in women in both the overall population [21.6% vs. 9.0%, P = 0.053, HR 2.51 (1.08-5.82), P = 0.032] and the HFrEF subgroup [27.1% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.015, HR 3.58 (1.29-9.94), P = 0.014]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients referred to a specialised tertiary HF service showed a similar clinical profile without relevant gender differences. In the mid-term follow-up, more male than female patients died or underwent heart transplantation and LVAD implantation. These findings call for independent validation and for further research into gender-specific drivers of HF progression.

Assessing palliative care need in left ventricular assist device patients and heart transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVES: Palliative care (PC) has gained rising attention in a holistic treatment approach to chronic heart failure (HF). It is unclear whether there is a need for PC in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients or heart transplant recipients. METHODS: In a cross-sectional explorative pilot study, outpatients after heart transplantation (HTx, n = 69) or LVAD implantation (n = 21) underwent screening for palliative care (PC) need and evaluation of symptom burden and psychological distress using tools that emanated from palliative cancer care. RESULTS: The 'Palliative Care Screening Tool for Heart Failure Patients' revealed scores of 4.3 ± 2.2 in HTx and 6.0 ± 2.1 in LVAD patients (max. 12 points, P = 0.003), indicating the need for PC (≥5 points) in 32% of HTx and 67% of LVAD patients. Symptom burden, as assessed by MIDOS ('Minimal Documentation System for Palliative Care') scores was substantial in both groups (4.9 ± 4.7 in HTx vs 6.6 ± 5.3 in LVAD, max. 30 points, P = 0.181). 'Fatigue', 'weakness' and 'pain' were the most frequent symptoms. Using the 'Distress-Thermometer', 'clinically relevant' distress was detected in 57% of HTx and 47% of LVAD patients (P = 0.445). In the PHQ-4 ('4-Item Patient Health Questionnaire'), 45% of LVAD patients, compared to only 10% of HTx patients, reported mild symptoms of anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Findings reveal substantial need for PC in LVAD patients and, to a lesser extent, in heart transplant recipients, suggesting that multi-disciplinary PC should be introduced into routine aftercare.

Severe ischaemic cardiogenic shock with cardiac arrest and prolonged asystole: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) by veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a valuable treatment option during severe cardiogenic shock and during cardiac arrest unresponsive to conventional management. It is applied to bridge the first critical days until the patient recovers or a destination therapy is established.1 Prolonged episodes without cardiac electrical activity during VA-ECMO are a major problem, as they may cause pulmonary oedema and severe left ventricular (LV) thrombosis.2 Here, we report a case of a 50-year-old man who presented with a 30-h episode of complete absence of electromechanical activity during ECLS and finally recovered with favourable neurological outcome. CASE SUMMARY: A 50-year-old man with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest was transferred to a peripheral hospital after initial successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In the emergency room, he presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock with third-degree atrioventricular block. After immediate insertion of a temporary pacemaker, he received percutaneous coronary intervention of the left anterior descending artery and the circumflex artery. Due to worsening cardiogenic shock, ECLS with VA-ECMO and an Impella® pump was established. Cumulative time of CPR (out of hospital and in hospital) was 41 min. After transfer to our institution's intensive care unit, both the heart's mechanical and electrical activity ceased for more than 24 h and recovered slowly thereafter. After showing promising neurological outcome, epicardial pacemaker leads, an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and finally, a LV assist device were implanted. He was dismissed into rehabilitation with only minor neurological residua 6 weeks later. DISCUSSION: Impella® implantation on top of VA-ECMO may be considered beneficial in the therapy of prolonged cardiac arrest.3 While VA-ECMO ensures oxygenation and organ perfusion, Impella® vents the left ventricle and enhances coronary perfusion. In the presented case, a favourable outcome was reached despite an 'untreated' prolonged absence of cardiac electromechanical activity. Under specific circumstances during ECLS with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella®, waiving of temporary pacing may be considered in absent cardiac electromechanical activity to avoid further complications.