Implications for Clinical Practice from a Multicenter Survey of Heart Failure Management Centers.

OBJECTIVES: This observational, cross-sectional study based aimed to test whether heart failure (HF)-disease management program (DMP) components are influencing care and clinical decision-making in Brazil. METHODS: The survey respondents were cardiologists recommended by experts in the field and invited to participate in the survey via printed form or email. The survey consisted of 29 questions addressing site demographics, public versus private infrastructure, HF baseline data of patients, clinical management of HF, performance indicators, and perceptions about HF treatment. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 98 centers (58% public and 42% private practice) distributed across Brazil. Public HF-DMPs compared to private HF-DMP were associated with a higher percentage of HF-DMP-dedicated services (79% vs 24%; OR: 12, 95% CI: 94-34), multidisciplinary HF (MHF)-DMP [84% vs 65%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-8), HF educational programs (49% vs 18%; OR: 4; 95% CI: 1-2), written instructions before hospital discharge (83% vs 76%; OR: 1; 95% CI: 0-5), rehabilitation (69% vs 39%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), monitoring (44% vs 29%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-5), guideline-directed medical therapy-HF use (94% vs 85%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15), and less B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) dosage (73% vs 88%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), and key performance indicators (37% vs 60%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-7). In comparison to non- MHF-DMP, MHF-DMP was associated with more educational initiatives (42% vs 6%; OR: 12; 95% CI: 1-97), written instructions (83% vs 68%; OR: 2: 95% CI: 1-7), rehabilitation (69% vs 17%; OR: 11; 95% CI: 3-44), monitoring (47% vs 6%; OR: 14; 95% CI: 2-115), GDMT-HF (92% vs 83%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15). In addition, there were less use of BNP as a biomarker (70% vs 84%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-8) and key performance indicators (35% vs 51%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 91,6) in the non-MHF group. Physicians considered changing or introducing new medications mostly when patients were hospitalized or when observing worsening disease and/or symptoms. Adherence to drug treatment and non-drug treatment factors were the greatest medical problems associated with HF treatment. CONCLUSION: HF-DMPs are highly heterogeneous. New strategies for HF care should consider the present study highlights and clinical decision-making processes to improve HF patient care.

Implications for clinical practice from a multicenter survey of heart failure management centers

OBJECTIVES: This observational, cross-sectional study based aimed to test whether heart failure (HF)-disease management program (DMP) components are influencing care and clinical decision-making in Brazil. METHODS: The survey respondents were cardiologists recommended by experts in the field and invited to participate in the survey via printed form or email. The survey consisted of 29 questions addressing site demographics, public versus private infrastructure, HF baseline data of patients, clinical management of HF, performance indicators, and perceptions about HF treatment. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 98 centers (58% public and 42% private practice) distributed across Brazil. Public HF-DMPs compared to private HF-DMP were associated with a higher percentage of HF-DMP-dedicated services (79% vs 24%; OR: 12, 95% CI: 94-34), multidisciplinary HF (MHF)-DMP [84% vs 65%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-8), HF educational programs (49% vs 18%; OR: 4; 95% CI: 1-2), written instructions before hospital discharge (83% vs 76%; OR: 1; 95% CI: 0-5), rehabilitation (69% vs 39%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), monitoring (44% vs 29%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-5), guideline-directed medical therapy-HF use (94% vs 85%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15), and less B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) dosage (73% vs 88%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), and key performance indicators (37% vs 60%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-7). In comparison to non- MHF-DMP, MHF-DMP was associated with more educational initiatives (42% vs 6%; OR: 12; 95% CI: 1-97), written instructions (83% vs 68%; OR: 2: 95% CI: 1-7), rehabilitation (69% vs 17%; OR: 11; 95% CI: 3-44), monitoring (47% vs 6%; OR: 14; 95% CI: 2-115), GDMT-HF (92% vs 83%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15). In addition, there were less use of BNP as a biomarker (70% vs 84%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-8) and key performance indicators (35% vs 51%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 91,6) in the non-MHF group. Physicians considered changing or introducing new medications mostly when patients were hospitalized or when observing worsening disease and/or symptoms. Adherence to drug treatment and non-drug treatment factors were the greatest medical problems associated with HF treatment. CONCLUSION: HF-DMPs are highly heterogeneous. New strategies for HF care should consider the present study highlights and clinical decision-making processes to improve HF patient care.

Main Considerations of Cardiogenic Shock and Its Predictors: Systematic Review.

The mortality rate of post-infarction cardiogenic shock (CS) was 80.0-90.0%. Recent studies show a significant reduction of hospital mortality to approximately 50.0%. CS is defined as systemic tissue hypoperfusion resulting from systolic and/or diastolic heart dysfunction, the main cause of which is acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The main predictors are biological markers such as troponin, CKMB and lactate. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis is performed in order to present and correlate the main literary findings on CS and its evolution with possible changes in biomarkers such as troponin, lactate and CKMB. After criteria of literary search with the use of the mesh terms: cardiogenic shock; acute myocardial infarction; biomarkers; troponin; CKMB; lactate; clinical trials and use of the bouleanos "and" between the mesh terms and "or" among the historical findings. In the main databases such as Pubmed, Medline, Bireme, EBSCO, Scielo, etc., a total of 96 papers that were submitted to the eligibility analysis were collated and, after that, 41 studies were selected, following the rules of systematic review - PRISMA (Transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyzes-http://www.prisma-statement.org/). Some risk factors for its development in AMI are advanced age, female gender, anterior wall infarction, diabetes mellitus, systemic arterial hypertension, previous history of infarction and angina. The CS associated with AMI depends on its extent and its complications, being the main ones: mitral regurgitation, rupture of the interventricular septum and rupture of the free wall of the left ventricule. The diagnosis is based on the clinical manifestations, such as mental confusion, oliguria, hypotension, tachycardia, fine pulse, sweating, and cold extremities; in hemodynamic aspects: systolic blood pressure was < 90.0 mm Hg or 30 mm Hg below baseline, pulmonary capillary pressure was > 18.0 mm Hg and cardiac index was < 2.2 L/min/m2. Laboratory and imaging exams should be requested to evaluate the possible etiology of CS, its systemic repercussions and comorbidities. The treatment aims at the rapid reestablishment of the blood flow in the affected artery, to improve the patient's prognosis. The biomarkers dosage in the daily clinical practice of the different cardiological centers can facilitate the diagnosis and the conduction of the dubious cases and the best evaluation of the degree of myocardial suffering after CS.