The emergency department arrival mode and its relations to ED management and 30-day mortality in acute heart failure: an ancillary analysis from the EURODEM study.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure patients are often encountered in emergency departments (ED) from 11% to 57% using emergency medical services (EMS). Our aim was to evaluate the association of EMS use with acute heart failure patients' ED management and short-term outcomes. METHODS: This was a sub-analysis of a European EURODEM study. Data on patients presenting with dyspnoea were collected prospectively from European EDs. Patients with ED diagnosis of acute heart failure were categorized into two groups: those using EMS and those self-presenting (non- EMS). The independent association between EMS use and 30-day mortality was evaluated with logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 500 acute heart failure patients, with information about the arrival mode to the ED, 309 (61.8%) arrived by EMS. These patients were older (median age 80 vs. 75 years, p < 0.001), more often female (56.4% vs. 42.1%, p = 0.002) and had more dementia (18.7% vs. 7.2%, p < 0.001). On admission, EMS patients had more often confusion (14.2% vs. 2.1%, p < 0.001) and higher respiratory rate (24/min vs. 21/min, p = 0.014; respiratory rate > 30/min in 17.1% patients vs. 7.5%, p = 0.005). The only difference in ED management appeared in the use of ventilatory support: 78.3% of EMS patients vs. 67.5% of non- EMS patients received supplementary oxygen (p = 0.007), and non-invasive ventilation was administered to 12.5% of EMS patients vs. 4.2% non- EMS patients (p = 0.002). EMS patients were more often hospitalized (82.4% vs. 65.9%, p < 0.001), had higher in-hospital mortality (8.7% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.014) and 30-day mortality (14.3% vs. 4.9%, p < 0.001). The use of EMS was an independent predictor of 30-day mortality (OR = 2.54, 95% CI 1.11-5.81, p = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Most acute heart failure patients arrive at ED by EMS. These patients suffer from more severe respiratory distress and receive more often ventilatory support. EMS use is an independent predictor of 30-day mortality.

The FAST-FURO study: effect of very early administration of intravenous furosemide in the prehospital setting to patients with acute heart failure attending the emergency department.

AIMS: The effect of early administration of intravenous (IV) furosemide in the emergency department (ED) on short-term outcomes of acute heart failure (AHF) patients remains controversial, with one recent Japanese study reporting a decrease of in-hospital mortality and one Korean study reporting a lack of clinical benefit. Both studies excluded patients receiving prehospital IV furosemide and only included patients requiring hospitalization. To assess the impact on short-term outcomes of early IV furosemide administration by emergency medical services (EMS) before patient arrival to the ED. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a secondary analysis of the Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Emergency Departments (EAHFE) registry of consecutive AHF patients admitted to Spanish EDs, patients treated with IV furosemide at the ED were classified according to whether they received IV furosemide from the EMS (FAST-FURO group) or not (CONTROL group). In-hospital all-cause mortality, 30-day all-cause mortality, and prolonged hospitalization (>10 days) were assessed. We included 12 595 patients (FAST-FURO = 683; CONTROL = 11 912): 968 died during index hospitalization [7.7%; FAST-FURO = 10.3% vs. CONTROL = 7.5%; odds ratio (OR) = 1.403, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.085-1.813; P = 0.009], 1269 died during the first 30 days (10.2%; FAST-FURO = 13.4% vs. CONTROL = 9.9%; OR = 1.403, 95% CI = 1.146-1.764; P = 0.004), and 2844 had prolonged hospitalization (22.8%; FAST-FURO = 25.8% vs. CONTROL = 22.6%; OR = 1.189, 95% CI = 0.995-1.419; P = 0.056). FAST-FURO group patients had more diabetes mellitus, ischaemic cardiomyopathy, peripheral artery disease, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and severe decompensations, and had a better New York Heart Association class and had less atrial fibrillation. After adjusting for these significant differences, early IV furosemide resulted in no impact on short-term outcomes: OR = 1.080 (95% CI = 0.817-1.427) for in-hospital mortality, OR = 1.086 (95% CI = 0.845-1.396) for 30-day mortality, and OR = 1.095 (95% CI = 0.915-1.312) for prolonged hospitalization. Several sensitivity analyses, including analysis of 599 pairs of patients matched by propensity score, showed consistent findings. CONCLUSION: Early IV furosemide during the prehospital phase was administered to the sickest patients, was not associated with changes in short-term mortality or length of hospitalization after adjustment for several confounders.

Pre-hospital management protocols and perceived difficulty in diagnosing acute heart failure.

AIM: To illustrate the pre-hospital management arsenals and protocols in different EMS units, and to estimate the perceived difficulty of diagnosing suspected acute heart failure (AHF) compared with other common pre-hospital conditions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multinational survey included 104 emergency medical service (EMS) regions from 18 countries. Diagnostic and therapeutic arsenals related to AHF management were reported for each type of EMS unit. The prevalence and contents of management protocols for common medical conditions treated pre-hospitally was collected. The perceived difficulty of diagnosing AHF and other medical conditions by emergency medical dispatchers and EMS personnel was interrogated. Ultrasound devices and point-of-care testing were available in advanced life support and helicopter EMS units in fewer than 25% of EMS regions. AHF protocols were present in 80.8% of regions. Protocols for ST-elevation myocardial infarction, chest pain, and dyspnoea were present in 95.2, 80.8, and 76.0% of EMS regions, respectively. Protocolized diagnostic actions for AHF management included 12-lead electrocardiogram (92.1% of regions), ultrasound examination (16.0%), and point-of-care testings for troponin and BNP (6.0 and 3.5%). Therapeutic actions included supplementary oxygen (93.2%), non-invasive ventilation (80.7%), intravenous furosemide, opiates, nitroglycerine (69.0, 68.6, and 57.0%), and intubation 71.5%. Diagnosing suspected AHF was considered easy to moderate by EMS personnel and moderate to difficult by emergency medical dispatchers (without significant differences between de novo and decompensated heart failure). In both settings, diagnosis of suspected AHF was considered easier than pulmonary embolism and more difficult than ST-elevation myocardial infarction, asthma, and stroke. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of AHF protocols is rather high but the contents seem to vary. Difficulty of diagnosing suspected AHF seems to be moderate compared with other pre-hospital conditions.

Effects of the intensity of prehospital treatment on short-term outcomes in patients with acute heart failure: the SEMICA-2 study.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about treatments provided by advanced life support (ALS) ambulance teams to patients with acute heart failure (AHF) during the prehospital phase, and their influence on short-term outcome. We evaluated the effect of prehospital care in consecutive patients diagnosed with AHF in Spanish emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: We selected patients from the EAHFE registry arriving at the ED by ALS ambulances with available follow-up data. We recorded specific prehospital ALS treatments (supplemental oxygen, diuretics, nitroglycerin, non-invasive ventilation) and patients were grouped according to whether they received low- (LIPHT; 0/1 treatments) or high-intensity prehospital therapy (HIPHT; > 1 treatment) for AHF. We also recorded 46 covariates. The primary endpoint was all-cause 7-day mortality, and secondary endpoints were prolonged hospitalisation (> 10 days) and in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios were calculated to compare the groups. RESULTS: We included 1493 patients [mean age 80.7 (10) years; women 54.8%]. Prehospital treatment included supplemental oxygen in 71.2%, diuretics in 27.9%, nitroglycerin in 13.5%, and non-invasive ventilation in 5.3%. The LIPHT group included 1041 patients (70.0%) with an unadjusted OR for 7-day mortality of 1.770 (95% CI 1.115-2.811; p = 0.016), and 1.939 (95% CI 1.114-3.287, p = 0.014) after adjustment for 16 discordant covariables. The adjusted ORs for all secondary endpoints were always > 1 in the LIPHT group, but none reached statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients finally diagnosed with AHF at then ED that have received LIPHT by the ALS ambulance teams have a poorer short-term outcome, especially during the first 7 days.

¿Podemos hacer más por los pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca aguda en la fase prehospitalaria? / Can we do more for patients with acute heart failure before arrival at the hospital?

No disponible

The impact of emergency medical services in acute heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Real-life data on the role of emergency medical services (EMS) in acute heart failure (AHF) are scarce. Our aim was to describe prehospital treatment of AHF and to compare patients using EMS with self-presented, non-EMS patients. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from three university hospitals in Helsinki metropolitan area between July 1, 2012 and July 31, 2013. According to the use of EMS, patients were divided into EMS and non-EMS groups. RESULTS: The study included 873 AHF patients. One hundred were (11.5%) EMS and 773 (88.5%) non-EMS. EMS patients more often had comorbidities. Initial heart rate (HR) and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) differed between EMS and non-EMS patients; mean HR 89.2 (SD 22.5) vs. 83.7 (21.5)/min (p=0.02) and SpO2 90.3 (8.6) vs. 92.9 (6.6)% (p=0.01). However, on presentation to ED EMS patients' vital signs were similar to non-EMS patients'. On presentation to ED 46.0% were normotensive and 68.2% "warm and wet". Thirty-four percentage of EMS patients received prehospital medication. In-hospital mortality was 6.0% and 7.1% (p=0.84) and length of stay (LOS) 7.7 (7.0) and 8.5 (7.9) days (p=0.36) in EMS and non-EMS groups. CONCLUSION: The use of EMS and administration of prehospital medication was low. EMS patients had initially worse HR and SpO2 than non-EMS patients. However, EMS patients' signs improved and were similar on presentation to ED. There were no differences in in-hospital mortality and LOS. This underscores the need for equal attention to any AHF patient independent of the arrival mode.