RESUMO
Introduction Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and/or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. Among HF types, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is the commonest form. However, the diagnosis and management of HFpEF are challenging. In addition, the perception of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards the diagnosis and management of HFpEF patients differs due to the existing gap between the guidelines and daily clinical practice. Therefore, an online survey was conducted to understand the HCPs' knowledge and practice gaps in the diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients with HFpEF. Methods A total of 160 respondents, i.e., cardiologists, internists, and cardiology residents from different community-based practices and hospitals across Indonesia participated in an online continuing medical education (CME) survey. A questionnaire was formulated to assess awareness, current practice patterns, challenges, and confidence of the HCPs related to the HFpEF. Results HCPs stated that diagnosis of HF is the prime responsibility of cardiologists and general physicians but not of general internists. According to the HCPs, reduction in mortality, reduction in hospitalization, and improved quality of life are the most important goals of HF treatment. The perceived prevalence of HFpEF is estimated to be 30-60% and mortality rates of HFpEF and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are similar. Further, mixed types of responses with different combinations of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention, were obtained when HCPs were asked about the challenges faced in HFpEF. Among the therapies, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), beta-blockers, and diuretics are frequently used for the treatment of HF. Conclusion The perception of the HCPs toward the diagnosis and management of HFpEF may affect optimal care. Based on our findings, the cardiologists are well aware of the current situation of HF in Indonesia and treat patients with HFpEF effectively.
RESUMO
AIMS: Hypertensive disorders occur in women with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM). How often hypertensive disorders co-exist, and to what extent they impact outcomes, is less clear. We describe differences in phenotype and outcomes in women with PPCM with and without hypertensive disorders during pregnancy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The European Society of Cardiology EURObservational Research Programme PPCM Registry enrolled women with PPCM from 2012-2018. Three groups were examined: (i) women without hypertension (PPCM-noHTN); (ii) women with hypertension but without pre-eclampsia (PPCM-HTN); (iii) women with pre-eclampsia (PPCM-PE). Maternal (6-month) and neonatal outcomes were compared. Of 735 women included, 452 (61.5%) had PPCM-noHTN, 99 (13.5%) had PPCM-HTN and 184 (25.0%) had PPCM-PE. Compared to women with PPCM-noHTN, women with PPCM-PE had more severe symptoms (New York Heart Association class IV in 44.4% vs. 29.9%, P < 0.001), more frequent signs of heart failure (pulmonary rales in 70.7% vs. 55.4%, P = 0.002), a higher baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (32.7% vs. 30.7%, P = 0.005) and a smaller left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (57.4 ± 6.7 mm vs. 59.8 ± 8.1 mm, P = 0.001). There were no differences in the frequencies of death from any cause, rehospitalization for any cause, stroke, or thromboembolic events. Compared to women with PPCM-noHTN, women with PPCM-PE had a greater likelihood of left ventricular recovery (LVEF ≥ 50%) (adjusted odds ratio 2.08, 95% confidence interval 1.21-3.57) and an adverse neonatal outcome (composite of termination, miscarriage, low birth weight or neonatal death) (adjusted odds ratio 2.84, 95% confidence interval 1.66-4.87). CONCLUSION: Differences exist in phenotype, recovery of cardiac function and neonatal outcomes according to hypertensive status in women with PPCM.