[Geographical differences in clinical characteristics and management of stable outpatients with coronary artery disease: comparison between the Italian and international population included in the Worldwide CLARIFY registry]. / Differenze geografiche nelle caratteristiche cliniche e nel trattamento dei pazienti ambulatoriali con cardiopatia coronarica stabile: paragone tra la situazione italiana e quella internazionale. Risultati dal registro CLARIFY.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding specific differences among countries in demographic and clinical characteristics and treatment of patients with stable coronary artery disease. METHODS: CLARIFY is an international, prospective and longitudinal registry including more than 33 000 patients with stable coronary artery disease enrolled in 45 countries worldwide. Data were used to compare the characteristics of patients enrolled in Italy with those enrolled in Europe and in the rest of the world. RESULTS: Baseline data were available for 33 283 patients, 2112 of whom from Italy and 12 614 from the remaining western European countries. Italian patients were found to be older, more frequently smoker, hypertensive and with sedentary habits. In addition, they presented more frequently a history of myocardial infarction, carotid arterial disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In addition, when compared with patients of both European and international cohorts, more Italian patients had undergone coronary angiography and angioplasty. As far as treatment was concerned, a greater number of Italian patients were taking ivabradine, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers, nitrates, thienopyridines, while those taking beta-blockers, calcium antagonists and other antianginal medications were fewer. CONCLUSIONS: Among ambulatory patients with stable coronary artery disease, there are important geographic differences in terms of risk factors, clinical characteristics, surgical and pharmacological treatment.

In-hospital and 1-year outcomes of acute heart failure patients according to presentation (de novo vs. worsening) and ejection fraction. Results from IN-HF Outcome Registry.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the outcomes of hospitalized patients with both de-novo and worsening heart failure (HF) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HFpEF) (LVEF ≥ 50%), compared to those with reduced LVEF (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 1669 patients (22.6% HFpEF) hospitalized for acute HF in the prospective multi-center nationwide Italian Network on Heart Failure (IN-HF) Outcome Registry. In all patients LVEF was assessed during hospitalization. De-novo HF presentations constituted 49.6% of HFpEF and 43.1% of HFrEF hospitalizations. All-cause mortality during hospitalization was lower in HFpEF than HFrEF (2.9% vs 6.5%, p=0.01), but this mortality difference was not significant at 1 year (19.6% vs 24.4%, p=0.06), even after adjusting for clinical covariates. Similarly, there were no differences in 1-year mortality between HFpEF and HFrEF when compared by cause of death (cardiovascular vs non-cardiovascular) or mode of presentation (worsening HF vs de novo). Rehospitalization rates (all-cause, non-cardiovascular, cardiovascular, HF-related) at 90 days and 1 year were also similar. Mode of presentation influenced rehospitalizations in HFpEF, where those presenting with worsening HFpEF had higher all-cause (36.8% vs 21.6%, p=0.001), cardiovascular (28.1% vs 14.9%, p=0.002), and HF-related (21.1% vs 7.7%, p=0.0003) rehospitalization rates at 1 year compared to those with de novo presentations. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes at 1 year following hospitalization for HFpEF are as poor as that of HFrEF. A prior history of HF decompensation or hospitalization identifies patients with HFpEF at particularly high risk of recurrent events. These findings may have implications for clinical practice, quality and process improvements and trial design.

Contrast-enhanced Doppler hemodynamics for noninvasive assessment of patients with chronic heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

We sought to evaluate whether contrast-enhanced Doppler echocardiography can improve the noninvasive estimation of hemodynamic variables in left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Right-heart catheterization and Doppler echocardiography were simultaneously performed in 45 patients with LV dysfunction (ejection fraction: 29 +/- 7%) in sinus rhythm. Noninvasive variables were estimated as follows: cardiac output by pulsed Doppler of LV outflow tract; pulmonary capillary wedge pressure by a regression equation including mitral and pulmonary venous flow variables; pulmonary artery mean pressure from the calculated systolic and diastolic pulmonary artery pressures; and pulmonary vascular resistance from the previous measurements according to hemodynamic definition. Contrast enhancement increased the feasibility of pulmonary capillary wedge pressure estimation from 60% to 100%; of pulmonary artery mean pressure from 42% to 91%; and of pulmonary vascular resistance from 42% to 91%. Strong correlations between invasive and noninvasive hemodynamic variables were found: r = 0.90, standard error of the estimate (SEE) 0.45 L/min for cardiac output; r = 0.90, SEE 3.1 mm Hg for pulmonary capillary wedge pressure; r = 0.93, SEE 3.7 mm Hg for pulmonary artery mean pressure; and r = 0.85 SEE 1.0 Wood units for pulmonary vascular resistance. Weaker correlations for PAMP (r = 0.82, SEE 5.6 mm Hg) and PVR (r = 0.66, SEE 1.7 Wood units) were apparent prior to contrast enhancement. When patients were separated according to PVR threshold values, the contrast allowed the correct placement of 88% of patients, whereas only 57% were correctly assigned without it. The contrast increased accuracy and reduced interobserver variability in the evaluation of hemodynamic variables. The contrast-enhanced study is capable of increasing the value of noninvasive hemodynamic assessment in LV dysfunction.