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).

Gender Differences in Cardiogenic Shock Patients: Clinical Features, Risk Prediction, and Outcomes in a Hub Center.

Introduction: There is scarce knowledge about gender differences in clinical presentation, management, use of risk stratification tools and prognosis in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients. Purpose: The primary endpoint was to investigate the differences in characteristics, management, and in-hospital mortality according to gender in a cohort of CS patients admitted to a tertiary hub center. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the prognostic performance of the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) classification in predicting in-hospital mortality according to sex. Methods: This is a retrospective single-Center cohort study of CS patients treated by a multidisciplinary shock team between September 2014 and December 2020. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes according to gender were registered. Discrimination of SCAI classification was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Overall, 163 patients were included, 39 of them female (24%). Mean age of the overall cohort was 55 years (44-62), similar between groups. Compared with men, women were less likely to be smokers and the prevalence of COPD and diabetes mellitus was significantly lower in this group (p < 0.05). Postcardiotomy (44 vs. 31%) and fulminant myocarditis (13 vs. 2%) were more frequent etiologies in females than in males (p = 0.01), whereas acute myocardial infarction was less common among females (13 vs. 33%). Regarding management, the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support, mechanical ventilation, or renal replacement therapy was frequent and no different between the groups (88, 87, and 49%, respectively, in females vs. 42, 91, and 41% in males, p > 0.05). In-hospital survival in the overall cohort was 53%, without differences between groups (52% in females vs. 55% in males, p = 0.76). Most of the patients (60.7%) were in SCAIE at presentation without differences between sexes. The SCAI classification showed a moderate ability for predicting in-hospital mortality (overall, AUC: 0.653, 95% CI 0.582-0.725). The AUC was 0.636 for women (95% CI 0.491-0.780) and 0.658 for men (95% CI 0.575-0.740). Conclusions: Only one in four of patients treated at a dedicated CS team were female. This may reflect differences in prevalence of severe heart disease at young (<65) ages, although a patient-selection bias cannot be ruled out. In this very high-risk CS population of multiple etiologies, overall, in-hospital survival was slightly above 50% and showed no differences between sexes. Treatment approaches, procedures, and SCAI risk stratification performance did not show gender disparities among treated patients.

Respuesta al ECG de abril de 2020 / Response to ECG, April 2020

No disponible

ECG de abril de 2020 / ECG, April 2020

No disponible