Impacto pronóstico de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica y el asma bronquial en pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca / Prognostic impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchial asthma in patients with heart failure

Propósito Analizar el impacto de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) y el asma bronquial sobre el manejo terapéutico y el pronóstico de los pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca (IC). Métodos Análisis de la información contenida en un registro clínico de pacientes remitidos a una unidad especializada de IC entre enero de 2010 y junio de 2022. Se compararon su perfil clínico, el tratamiento y el pronóstico en base a la presencia de EPOC o asma bronquial. El análisis de supervivencia se realizó mediante los métodos de Kaplan-Meier y Cox. La mediana de seguimiento fue de 1.493 días. Resultados Se estudiaron 2.577 pacientes, de los cuales 251 (9,7%) presentaban EPOC y 96 (3,7%), asma bronquial. Observamos diferencias significativas entre los tres grupos con respecto a la prescripción de betabloqueantes (EPOC=89,6%; asma=87,5%; no broncopatía=94,1%; p=0,002) e inhibidores del cotransportador de sodio-glucosa tipo2 (EPOC=35,1%; asma=50%; no broncopatía=38,3%; p=0,036). Además, los pacientes con patología bronquial recibieron con menor frecuencia un desfibrilador (EPOC=20,3%; asma=20,8%; no broncopatía=29%; p=0,004). La presencia de EPOC se asoció de forma independiente con mayor riesgo de muerte por cualquier causa (HR=1,64; IC95%: 1,33-2,02), muerte u hospitalización por IC (HR=1,47; IC95%: 1,22-1,76) y muerte cardiovascular o trasplante cardiaco (HR=1,39; IC95%: 1,08-1,79) en comparación con la ausencia de broncopatía. La presencia de asma bronquial no se asoció a un impacto significativo sobre los desenlaces analizados. Conclusiones La EPOC, pero no el asma bronquial, es un factor pronóstico adverso e independiente en pacientes con IC. (AU)

Purpose To analyze the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and bronchial asthma on therapeutic management and prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). Methods Analysis of the information collected in a clinical registry of patients referred to a specialized HF unit from January-2010 to June-2012. Clinical profile, treatment and prognosis of patients was evaluated, according to the presence of COPD or asthma. Survival analyses were conducted by means of Kaplan-Meier and Cox's methods. Median follow-up was 1493 days. Results We studied 2577 patients, of which 251 (9.7%) presented COPD and 96 (3.7%) bronchial asthma. Significant differences among study groups were observed regarding to the prescription of beta-blockers (COPD=89.6%; asthma=87.5%; no bronchopathy=94.1%; P=.002) and SGLT2 inhibitors (COPD=35.1%; asthma=50%; no bronchopathy=38.3%; P=.036). Also, patients with bronchial disease received less frequently a defibrillator (COPD=20.3%; asthma=20.8%; no broncopathy=29%; P=.004). COPD was independently associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR=1.64; 95%CI: 1.33-2.02), all-cause death or HF admission (HR=1.47; 95%CI: 1.22-1.76) and cardiovascular death or heart transplantation (HR=1.39; 95%CI: 1.08-1.79) as compared with patients with no bronchopathy. Bronchial asthma was not significantly associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes. Conclusions COPD, but not asthma, is an adverse independent prognostic factor in patients with HF. (AU)

Prognostic impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchial asthma in patients with heart failure.

PURPOSE: To analyze the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and bronchial asthma on therapeutic management and prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: Analysis of the information collected in a clinical registry of patients referred to a specialized HF unit from January-2010 to June-2012. Clinical profile, treatment and prognosis of patients was evaluated, according to the presence of COPD or asthma. Survival analyses were conducted by means of Kaplan-Meier and Cox's methods. Median follow-up was 1493 days. RESULTS: We studied 2577 patients, of which 251 (9.7%) presented COPD and 96 (3.7%) bronchial asthma. Significant differences among study groups were observed regarding to the prescription of beta-blockers (COPD=89.6%; asthma=87.5%; no bronchopathy=94.1%; p=0.002) and SGLT2 inhibitors (COPD=35.1%; asthma=50%; no bronchopathy=38.3%; p=0.036). Also, patients with bronchial disease received less frequently a defibrillator (COPD=20.3%; asthma=20.8%; no broncopathy=29%; p=0.004). COPD was independently associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR=1.64; 95% CI 1.33-2.02), all-cause death or HF admission (HR=1.47; 95% CI 1.22-1.76) and cardiovascular death or heart transplantation (HR=1.39; 95% CI 1.08-1.79) as compared with patients with no bronchopathy. Bronchial asthma was not significantly associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: COPD, but not asthma, is an adverse independent prognostic factor in patients with HF.

Clinical profile and causes of death according to ejection fraction in patients with heart failure cared for in a specialized Cardiology unit.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients with heart failure are classified into three phenotypes based on left ventricular ejection fraction. This work aimed to compare the clinical profile, treatment, prognosis, and causes of death of patients with heart failure and reduced (<40%, HF-rEF), preserved (≥50%, HF-pEF), or mid-range (40-49%, HF-mrEF) left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS: An analysis was conducted on the clinical data included in a prospective registry of patients with heart failure who were referred to a specific Cardiology unit from 2010 to 2019. RESULTS: A total of 1404 patients with HF-rEF, 239 patients with HF-mrEF, and 266 patients with HF-pEF were analyzed. Significant differences were observed among the groups in regard to several clinical characteristics and the frequency of prescription of neurohormonal blocking drugs. A multivariate Cox regression revealed an increased risk of all-cause mortality in patients with HF-pEF (hazard ratio 1.36; 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.80; p = 0.028) and patients with HF-mrEF (hazard ratio 1.36; 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.78; p = 0.029) as compared to patients with HF-rEF. Heart failure was the most frequent cause of death in the three subgroups. A higher relative weight of sudden death as a cause of death was observed among patients with HF-rEF while the relative weight of non-cardiovascular causes of death was higher among patients with HF-pEF and HF-mrEF. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the existence of significant differences among patients with HF-rEF, HF-mrEF, and HF-pEF with regard to their clinical profile, therapeutic management, prognosis, and causes of death.

Perfil clínico y causas de muerte de los pacientes con insuficiencia cardíaca atendidos en una unidad especializada de Cardiología según su fracción de eyección / Clinical profile and causes of death according to ejection fraction in patients with heart failure cared for in a specialized Cardiology unit

Antecedente y objetivo: Los pacientes con insuficiencia cardíaca se caracterizan en 3 fenotipos en función de su fracción de eyección ventricular izquierda. El propósito de este estudio fue comparar el perfil clínico, el tratamiento, el pronóstico y las causas de muerte de los pacientes con insuficiencia cardíaca y fracción de eyección ventricular izquierda reducida (<40%, IC-FEr), preservada (≥50%, IC-FEp) o en rango medio (40-49%, IC-FErm). Metodología: Análisis de la información clínica recogida en un registro prospectivo de pacientes con insuficiencia cardíaca remitidos a una consulta monográfica de Cardiología entre 2010 y 2019. Resultados: Se estudiaron 1.404 pacientes con IC-FEr, 239 pacientes con IC-FErm y 266 pacientes con IC-FEp. Se observaron diferencias significativas entre los 3 grupos en relación con diversas características clínicas, y en cuanto a la tasa de prescripción de fármacos moduladores de la respuesta neurohormonal. La regresión de Cox multivariante reveló un incremento del riesgo de muerte por cualquier causa en los pacientes con IC-FEp (hazard-ratio 1,36; intervalo de confianza al 95% 1,03-1,80; p=0,028) e IC-FErm (hazard-ratio 1,36; intervalo de confianza al 95% 1,03-1,78; p=0,029) en comparación con los pacientes con IC-FEr. La insuficiencia cardíaca fue la causa más frecuente de muerte en los 3 grupos; se observó un mayor peso relativo de la muerte súbita en los pacientes con IC-FEr, mientras que las causas no cardiovasculares de muerte tuvieron un peso relativo mayor en los pacientes con IC-FEp e IC-FErm. Conclusiones: El estudio confirma la existencia de diferencias significativas en el perfil clínico, manejo terapéutico, pronóstico y causas de muerte de los pacientes con IC-FEr, IC-FErm e IC-FEp (AU)

Background and objective: Patients with heart failure are classified into three phenotypes based on left ventricular ejection fraction. This work aimed to compare the clinical profile, treatment, prognosis, and causes of death of patients with heart failure and reduced (<40%, HF-rEF), preserved (≥50%, HF-pEF), or mid-range (40–49%, HF-mrEF) left ventricular ejection fraction. Methods: An analysis was conducted on the clinical data included in a prospective registry of patients with heart failure who were referred to a specific Cardiology unit from 2010 to 2019. Results: A total of 1,404 patients with HF-rEF, 239 patients with HF-mrEF, and 266 patients with HF-pEF were analyzed. Significant differences were observed among the groups in regard to several clinical characteristics and the frequency of prescription of neurohormonal blocking drugs. A multivariate Cox regression revealed an increased risk of all-cause mortality in patients with HF-pEF (hazard ratio 1.36; 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.80; p=0.028) and patients with HF-mrEF (hazard ratio 1.36; 95% confidence interval 1.03–1.78; p=0.029) as compared to patients with HF-rEF. Heart failure was the most frequent cause of death in the three subgroups. A higher relative weight of sudden death as a cause of death was observed among patients with HF-rEF while the relative weight of non-cardiovascular causes of death was higher among patients with HF-pEF and HF-mrEF. Conclusions: This study confirms the existence of significant differences among patients with HF-rEF, HF-mrEF, and HF-pEF with regard to their clinical profile, therapeutic management, prognosis, and causes of death (AU)

Evaginación ventricular izquierda congénita y foramen oval permeable: una combinación potencialmente embolígena / Congenital left ventricular outpouching and patent foramen ovale: A potentially emboligenic combinatio

No disponible

Conversion of heart transplant patients from standard to sustained-release tacrolimus requires a dosage increase.

INTRODUCTION: It has been suggested that for adequate maintenance of tacrolimus levels, the total daily dosage should be increased when switching from the conventional twice-daily regimen tacrolimus (CT) to once-daily sustained-release tacrolimus (SR-T). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a 25% increase in daily dosage when switching heart transplant (HT) patients from CT to SR-T. METHODS: We switched 75 HT patients including 72% males and an overall mean age of 55.6 years from CT to SR-T using a 25% increase in daily dosage. We screened for adverse events by measurements of lipids, creatinine, glycemia, and tacrolimus in blood samples taken at 1, 3, 7, and 12 weeks after the conversion, as well as by repeated echocardiography and routine clinical examinations. RESULTS: Just two patients (2.7%) were returned to CT because of failure of SR-T to attain therapeutic levels. In the remainder of subjects, tacrolimus levels remained stable, with trough values of 8.7±3.2, 8.7±2.9, 8.3±2.6, and 7.5±2.0 mg/dL, respectively. Twenty-three patients (31%) required no dosage change in the first 3 months, but 44 (33%) required one or two changes. No departure from therapeutic levels was associated with rejection; there was no case of severe intercurrent infection. We did not observe significant changes in glycemia, creatinine, lipid profile, or blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of SR-T at a dosage 25% higher than the daily dosage of CT was safe. It ensured adequate tacrolimus levels in one-third of patients. Nevertheless, strict analytical surveillance is necessary during the initial months to allow dosage adjustments and to detect the minority of patients for whom SR-T does not achieve therapeutic tacrolimus levels.