Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 212
Filtrar
Filtros adicionais











País/Região como assunto
Intervalo de ano
1.
Eur J Prev Cardiol ; 26(13): 1351-1354, 2019 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31409177
2.
Eur J Prev Cardiol ; 26(14): 1463-1465, 2019 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31423834
4.
Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care ; : 2048872619858285, 2019 Jun 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31303009

RESUMO

Risk assessment and risk prediction have become essential in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Even though risk prediction tools are recommended in the European guidelines, they are not adequately implemented in clinical practice. Risk prediction tools are meant to estimate prognosis in an unbiased and reliable way and to provide objective information on outcome probabilities. They support informed treatment decisions about the initiation or adjustment of preventive medication. Risk prediction tools facilitate risk communication to the patient and their family, and this may increase commitment and motivation to improve their health. Over the years many risk algorithms have been developed to predict 10-year cardiovascular mortality or lifetime risk in different populations, such as in healthy individuals, patients with established cardiovascular disease and patients with diabetes mellitus. Each risk algorithm has its own limitations, so different algorithms should be used in different patient populations. Risk algorithms are made available for use in clinical practice by means of - usually interactive and online available - tools. To help the clinician to choose the right tool for the right patient, a summary of available tools is provided. When choosing a tool, physicians should consider medical history, geographical region, clinical guidelines and additional risk measures among other things. Currently, the U-prevent.com website is the only risk prediction tool providing prediction algorithms for all patient categories, and its implementation in clinical practice is suggested/advised by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

5.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 21(9): 1142-1148, 2019 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31343108

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Exercise training programmes (ETPs) are a crucial component in cardiac rehabilitation in heart failure (HF) patients. The Exercise Training in HF (ExTraHF) survey has reported poor implementation of ETPs in countries affiliated to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). The aim of the present sub-analysis was to investigate the regional variations in the implementation of ETPs for HF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study was designed as a web-based survey of cardiac units, divided into five areas, according to the geographical location of the countries surveyed. Overall, 172 centres replied to the survey, in charge of 78 514 patients, differentiated in 52 Northern (n = 15 040), 48 Southern (n = 27 127), 34 Western (n = 11 769), 24 Eastern European (n = 12 748), and 14 extra-European centres (n = 11 830). Greater ETP implementation was observed in Western (76%) and Northern (63%) regions, whereas lower rates were seen in Southern (58%), Eastern European (50%) and extra-European (36%) regions. The leading barrier was the lack of resources in all (83-65%) but Western region (37%) where patients were enrolled in dedicated settings and specialized units (75%). In 40% of centres, non-inclusion of ETP in the national or local guideline pathway accounted for the lack of ETP implementation. CONCLUSION: Exercise training programmes are poorly implemented in the ESC affiliated countries, mainly because of the lack of resources and/or national and local guidelines. The linkage with dedicated cardiac rehabilitation centres (as in the Western region) or the model of local rehabilitation services adopted in Northern countries may be considered as options to overcome these gaps.

7.
Eur J Prev Cardiol ; 26(9): 899-901, 2019 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31154831
8.
Eur J Prev Cardiol ; 26(10): 1011-1013, 2019 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31188671
9.
Eur J Prev Cardiol ; 26(11): 1123-1126, 2019 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31225745
10.
Eur J Prev Cardiol ; 26(14): 1534-1544, 2019 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31234648

RESUMO

Risk assessment have become essential in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Even though risk prediction tools are recommended in the European guidelines, they are not adequately implemented in clinical practice. Risk prediction tools are meant to estimate prognosis in an unbiased and reliable way and to provide objective information on outcome probabilities. They support informed treatment decisions about the initiation or adjustment of preventive medication. Risk prediction tools facilitate risk communication to the patient and their family, and this may increase commitment and motivation to improve their health. Over the years many risk algorithms have been developed to predict 10-year cardiovascular mortality or lifetime risk in different populations, such as in healthy individuals, patients with established cardiovascular disease and patients with diabetes mellitus. Each risk algorithm has its own limitations, so different algorithms should be used in different patient populations. Risk algorithms are made available for use in clinical practice by means of - usually interactive and online available - tools. To help the clinician to choose the right tool for the right patient, a summary of available tools is provided. When choosing a tool, physicians should consider medical history, geographical region, clinical guidelines and additional risk measures among other things. Currently, the U-prevent.com website is the only risk prediction tool providing prediction algorithms for all patient categories, and its implementation in clinical practice is suggested/advised by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

11.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 21(7): 827-843, 2019 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31243866

RESUMO

Peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) is a potentially life-threatening condition typically presenting as heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the last month of pregnancy or in the months following delivery in women without another known cause of heart failure. This updated position statement summarizes the knowledge about pathophysiological mechanisms, risk factors, clinical presentation, diagnosis and management of PPCM. As shortness of breath, fatigue and leg oedema are common in the peripartum period, a high index of suspicion is required to not miss the diagnosis. Measurement of natriuretic peptides, electrocardiography and echocardiography are recommended to promptly diagnose or exclude heart failure/PPCM. Important differential diagnoses include pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, hypertensive heart disease during pregnancy, and pre-existing heart disease. A genetic contribution is present in up to 20% of PPCM, in particular titin truncating variant. PPCM is associated with high morbidity and mortality, but also with a high probability of partial and often full recovery. Use of guideline-directed pharmacological therapy for HFrEF is recommended in all patients respecting contraindications during pregnancy/lactation. The oxidative stress-mediated cleavage of the hormone prolactin into a cardiotoxic fragment has been identified as a driver of PPCM pathophysiology. Pharmacological blockade of prolactin release using bromocriptine as a disease-specific therapy in addition to standard therapy for heart failure treatment has shown promising results in two clinical trials. Thresholds for devices (implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy and implanted long-term ventricular assist devices) are higher in PPCM than in other conditions because of the high rate of recovery. The important role of education and counselling around contraception and future pregnancies is emphasised.

12.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 8(13): e012419, 2019 Jul 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31237174

RESUMO

Background The contribution of the lung or the plant gain ( PG ; ie, change in blood gases per unit change in ventilation) to Cheyne-Stokes respiration ( CSR ) in heart failure has only been hypothesized by mathematical models, but never been directly evaluated. Methods and Results Twenty patients with systolic heart failure (age, 72.4±6.4 years; left ventricular ejection fraction, 31.5±5.8%), 10 with relevant CSR (24-hour apnea-hypopnea index [ AHI ] ≥10 events/h) and 10 without ( AHI <10 events/h) at 24-hour cardiorespiratory monitoring underwent evaluation of chemoreflex gain (CG) to hypoxia ([Formula: see text]) and hypercapnia ([Formula: see text]) by rebreathing technique, lung-to-finger circulation time, and PG assessment through a visual system. PG test was feasible and reproducible (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.98; 95% CI , 0.91-0.99); the best-fitting curve to express the PG was a hyperbola ( R2≥0.98). Patients with CSR showed increased PG , [Formula: see text] (but not [Formula: see text]), and lung-to-finger circulation time, compared with patients without CSR (all P<0.05). PG was the only predictor of the daytime AHI ( R=0.56, P=0.01) and together with the [Formula: see text] also predicted the nighttime AHI ( R=0.81, P=0.0003) and the 24-hour AHI ( R=0.71, P=0.001). Lung-to-finger circulation time was the only predictor of CSR cycle length ( R=0.82, P=0.00006). Conclusions PG is a powerful contributor of CSR and should be evaluated together with the CG and circulation time to individualize treatments aimed at stabilizing breathing in heart failure.

13.
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs ; : 1474515119856207, 2019 Jun 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31234638

RESUMO

Risk assessment and risk prediction have become essential in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Even though risk prediction tools are recommended in the European guidelines, they are not adequately implemented in clinical practice. Risk prediction tools are meant to estimate prognosis in an unbiased and reliable way and to provide objective information on outcome probabilities. They support informed treatment decisions about the initiation or adjustment of preventive medication. Risk prediction tools facilitate risk communication to the patient and their family, and this may increase commitment and motivation to improve their health. Over the years many risk algorithms have been developed to predict 10-year cardiovascular mortality or lifetime risk in different populations, such as in healthy individuals, patients with established cardiovascular disease and patients with diabetes mellitus. Each risk algorithm has its own limitations, so different algorithms should be used in different patient populations. Risk algorithms are made available for use in clinical practice by means of - usually interactive and online available - tools. To help the clinician to choose the right tool for the right patient, a summary of available tools is provided. When choosing a tool, physicians should consider medical history, geographical region, clinical guidelines and additional risk measures among other things. Currently, the U-prevent.com website is the only risk prediction tool providing prediction algorithms for all patient categories, and its implementation in clinical practice is suggested/advised by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

14.
Eur J Prev Cardiol ; 26(8): 787-789, 2019 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31066590
15.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 2019 May 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31127678

RESUMO

AIMS: Classification of acute heart failure (AHF) patients into four clinical profiles defined by evidence of congestion and perfusion is advocated by the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)guidelines. Based on the ESC-EORP-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry, we compared differences in baseline characteristics, in-hospital management and outcomes among congestion/perfusion profiles using this classification. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 7865 AHF patients classified at admission as: 'dry-warm' (9.9%), 'wet-warm' (69.9%), 'wet-cold' (19.8%) and 'dry-cold' (0.4%). These groups differed significantly in terms of baseline characteristics, in-hospital management and outcomes. In-hospital mortality was 2.0% in 'dry-warm', 3.8% in 'wet-warm', 9.1% in 'dry-cold' and 12.1% in 'wet-cold' patients. Based on clinical classification at admission, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality were: 'wet-warm' vs. 'dry-warm' 1.78 (1.43-2.21) and 'wet-cold' vs. 'wet-warm' 1.33 (1.19-1.48). For profiles resulting from discharge classification, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality were: 'wet-warm' vs. 'dry-warm' 1.46 (1.31-1.63) and 'wet-cold' vs. 'wet-warm' 2.20 (1.89-2.56). Among patients discharged alive, 30.9% had residual congestion, and these patients had higher 1-year mortality compared to patients discharged without congestion (28.0 vs. 18.5%). Tricuspid regurgitation, diabetes, anaemia and high New York Heart Association class were independently associated with higher risk of congestion at discharge, while beta-blockers at admission, de novo heart failure, or any cardiovascular procedure during hospitalization were associated with lower risk of residual congestion. CONCLUSION: Classification based on congestion/perfusion status provides clinically relevant information at hospital admission and discharge. A better understanding of the clinical course of the two entities could play an important role towards the implementation of targeted strategies that may improve outcomes.

16.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 2019 May 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31132222

RESUMO

AIMS: To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM-HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA Long-Term Heart Failure (HF-LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM-HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM-HF and guidelines. One-year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all-cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM-HF. CONCLUSIONS: Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA HF-LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM-HF enalapril group.

17.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 2019 May 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31129923

RESUMO

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has published a series of guidelines on heart failure (HF) over the last 25 years, most recently in 2016. Given the amount of new information that has become available since then, the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC recognized the need to review and summarise recent developments in a consensus document. Here we report from the HFA workshop that was held in January 2019 in Frankfurt, Germany. This expert consensus report is neither a guideline update nor a position statement, but rather a summary and consensus view in the form of consensus recommendations. The report describes how these guidance statements are supported by evidence, it makes some practical comments, and it highlights new research areas and how progress might change the clinical management of HF. We have avoided re-interpretation of information already considered in the 2016 ESC/HFA guidelines. Specific new recommendations have been made based on the evidence from major trials published since 2016, including sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus, MitraClip for functional mitral regurgitation, atrial fibrillation ablation in HF, tafamidis in cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis, rivaroxaban in HF, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in non-ischaemic HF, and telemedicine for HF. In addition, new trial evidence from smaller trials and updated meta-analyses have given us the chance to provide refined recommendations in selected other areas. Further, new trial evidence is due in many of these areas and others over the next 2 years, in time for the planned 2021 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure.

18.
Eur J Prev Cardiol ; 26(7): 675-677, 2019 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31030558
19.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 21(5): 553-576, 2019 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30989768

RESUMO

Cardiomyopathies are a heterogeneous group of heart muscle diseases and an important cause of heart failure (HF). Current knowledge on incidence, pathophysiology and natural history of HF in cardiomyopathies is limited, and distinct features of their therapeutic responses have not been systematically addressed. Therefore, this position paper focuses on epidemiology, pathophysiology, natural history and latest developments in treatment of HF in patients with dilated (DCM), hypertrophic (HCM) and restrictive (RCM) cardiomyopathies. In DCM, HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has high incidence and prevalence and represents the most frequent cause of death, despite improvements in treatment. In addition, advanced HF in DCM is one of the leading indications for heart transplantation. In HCM, HF with preserved ejection (HFpEF) affects most patients with obstructive, and ∼10% of patients with non-obstructive HCM. A timely treatment is important, since development of advanced HF, although rare in HCM, portends a poor prognosis. In RCM, HFpEF is common, while HFrEF occurs later and more frequently in amyloidosis or iron overload/haemochromatosis. Irrespective of RCM aetiology, HF is a harbinger of a poor outcome. Recent advances in our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the development of HF in cardiomyopathies have significant implications for therapeutic decision-making. In addition, new aetiology-specific treatment options (e.g. enzyme replacement therapy, transthyretin stabilizers, immunoadsorption, immunotherapy, etc.) have shown a potential to improve outcomes. Still, causative therapies of many cardiomyopathies are lacking, highlighting the need for the development of effective strategies to prevent and treat HF in cardiomyopathies.

20.
Eur J Prev Cardiol ; 26(5): 451-453, 2019 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30880460
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA