Killip scale reclassification according to lung ultrasound: Killip pLUS.

AIMS: The Killip scale remains a fundamental tool for prognostic assessment in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) due to its simplicity and predictive value. Lung ultrasound (LUS) has emerged as a valuable adjunct for diagnosing and predicting outcomes in heart failure (HF) and STEMI patients, even those with subclinical congestion. We created a new classification (Killip pLUS), which reclassifies Killip I and II patients into an intermediate category (Killip I pLUS) based on LUS results. This category included Killip I patients and ≥1 positive zone (≥3 B-lines) and Killip II with 0 positive zones. We aimed to evaluate this new classification by comparing it with the Killip scale and a previous LUS-based reclassification scale (LUCK scale). METHODS AND RESULTS: Lung ultrasound was performed within 24 h of admission in a multicentre cohort of 373 patients admitted for STEMI. In-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events within one year after admission, comprising mortality or readmission for HF, acute coronary syndrome, or stroke, were analysed. When predicting in-hospital mortality, the global comparison of these three classifications was statistically significant: Killip pLUS area under the curve (AUC) 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.95) vs. Killip AUC 0.85 (95% CI 0.73-0.96) vs. LUCK 0.83 (95% CI 0.70-0.95), P = 0.024. To predict events during follow-up, the comparison between scales was also significant: Killip pLUS 0.77 (95% CI 0.71-0.85) vs. Killip 0.72 (95% CI 0.65-0.79) vs. LUCK 0.73 (95% CI 0.66-0.81), P = 0.033. CONCLUSION: The Killip pLUS scale provides enhanced risk stratification compared to the Killip and LUCK scales while preserving simplicity.

Remote Dielectric Sensing Before and After Discharge in Patients With ADHF: The ReDS-SAFE HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Incomplete treatment of congestion often leads to worsening heart failure (HF). The remote dielectric sensing (ReDS) system is an electromagnetic energy-based technology that accurately quantifies changes in lung fluid concentration noninvasively. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess whether an ReDS-guided strategy during acutely decompensated HF hospitalization is superior to routine care for improving outcomes at 1 month postdischarge. METHODS: ReDS-SAFE HF (Use of ReDS for a SAFE discharge in patients with acute Heart Failure) was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, proof-of-concept trial in which 100 patients were randomized to a routine care strategy, with discharge criteria based on current clinical practice, or an ReDS-guided decongestion strategy, with discharge criteria requiring an ReDS value of ≤35%. ReDS measurements were performed daily and at a 7-day follow-up visit, with patients and treating physicians in the routine care arm blinded to the results. The primary outcome was a composite of unplanned visits for HF, HF rehospitalization, or death at 1 month after discharge. RESULTS: The mean age was 67 ± 14 years, and 74% were male. On admission, left ventricular ejection fraction was 37% ± 16%, and B-type natriuretic peptide was 940 pg/L (Q1-Q3: 529-1,665 pg/L). The primary endpoint occurred in 10 (20%) patients in the routine care group and 1 (2%) in the ReDS-guided strategy group (log-rank P = 0.005). The ReDS-guided strategy group experienced a lower event rate, with an HR of 0.094 (95% CI: 0.012-0.731; P = 0.003), and a number of patients needed to treat of 6 to avoid an event (95% CI: 3-17), mainly resulting from a decrease in HF readmissions. The median length of stay was 2 days longer in the ReDS-guided group vs the routine care group (8 vs 6; P = 0.203). CONCLUSIONS: A ReDS-guided strategy to treat congestion improved 1-month prognosis postdischarge in this proof-of-concept study, mainly because of a decrease of the number of HF readmissions. (Use of ReDS for a SAFE discharge in patients with acute Heart Failure [ReDS-SAFE HF]; NCT04305717).

Uso de ultrasonido pulmonar para la detección de neumonía intersticial en COVID-19 / Lung ultrasound for the identification of COVID-19 pneumonia

Resumen La infección por SARS-CoV-2 tiene como manifestación clínica la enfermedad conocida como COVID-19. Si bien el conocimiento de la naturaleza de la enfermedad es dinámico, publicándose cada día decenas de artículos científicos sobre nuevas características de COVID-19, la presentación típica es la de neumonía intersticial. A pesar de la gran cantidad de información que se ha desarrollado en las últimas semanas, se ha estimado que esta enfermedad puede llegar a tener hasta un 72% de infradiagnóstico, por lo que se requieren herramientas clínicas que sean simples, de fácil acceso, que incrementen la detección de casos de forma factible y que arrojen información con valor pronóstico. Ante esta necesidad, han surgido algunas propuestas para poder realizar el diagnóstico, seguimiento y respuesta al tratamiento de los pacientes con COVID-19, tales como el ultrasonido pulmonar (USP). Cabe mencionar que el USP ha probado ser una técnica eficiente y de fácil reproducibilidad para diagnosticar insuficiencia cardiaca y patologías pleuro-pulmonares, sobre todo en pacientes críticamente enfermos. La evidencia de la utilidad de USP en COVID-19 es aún escasa, aunque de forma preliminar, parece ser una técnica sensible cuyos hallazgos tienen una elevada gold-standard. En esta breve revisión haremos énfasis en sus aspectos técnicos, las ventajas y desventajas, y por último una propuesta para el abordaje en este tipo de pacientes.

Abstract The SARS-CoV-2 infection has as a clinical manifestation the disease known as COVID-19. Although knowledge of the nature of the disease is dynamic, with dozens of scientific articles being published every day about new features of COVID-19, the typical presentation is that of interstitial pneumonia. Despite the large amount of information that has been developed in recent weeks, it has been estimated that this disease can have up to 72% underdiagnosis, which requires clinical tools that are simple, easily accessible, and increase the detection of cases in a feasible way and that yield information with prognostic value. Given this need, some proposals have emerged to be able to diagnose, monitor and respond to the treatment of patients with COVID-19, such as pulmonary ultrasound (USP). It is worth mentioning that the USP has proven to be an efficient and easily reproducible technique for diagnosing heart failure and pleuro-pulmonary pathologies, especially in critically ill patients. Evidence of the usefulness of USP in COVID-19 is still scarce, although preliminary, it seems to be a sensitive technique whose findings have a high gold standard. In this brief review we will emphasize its technical aspects, the advantages and disadvantages, and finally a proposal for the approach in this type of patient.