Left Ventricular Diastolic Response to Isometric Handgrip Exercise in Physically Active and Sedentary Individuals.

Aims: This study aims to investigate the diastolic left ventricular (LV) response to isometric handgrip exercise among healthy middle-aged men with high physical activity levels, versus matched sedentary individuals. Methods: Two groups of 10 men aged 41−51 years were studied. Men in the first group had high weekly self-reported physical activity levels (>3000 METs × min/week). In comparison, men in the second group reported low physical activity levels (<300 METs × min/week). An isometric handgrip exercise (IHE) stress echocardiography test was performed in all of them. Results: Both groups showed a similar and statistically significant increase in heart rate, systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure following IHE. The group of active men under study did not show a statistically significant change in the ratio of early diastolic mitral valve inflow velocity to early diastolic lateral wall tissue velocity (E/e' ratio) in response to IHE. Conversely, the inactive participants' E/e' ratio was higher at peak activity in the isometric handgrip exercise. Conclusions: Apparently, healthy middle-aged men with high levels of physical activity seem to have an improved lusitropic cardiac function compared to men with low levels of physical activity, as observed by the different diastolic LV responses induced by isometric handgrip exercise.

Impact of dopamine infusion on renal function in hospitalized heart failure patients: results of the Dopamine in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (DAD-HF) Trial.

BACKGROUND: Worsening renal function (WRF) and hypokalemia related to diuretic use for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) are common and associated with poor prognosis. Low-dose dopamine infusion improves renal perfusion; its effect on diuresis or renal function specifically in ADHF is not known. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty consecutive ADHF patients (age 75.7 ± 11.2 years; 51.7% female; left ventricular ejection fraction 35.3 ± 12.1%) were randomized, after receiving a 40 mg intravenous furosemide bolus, to either high-dose furosemide (HDF, 20 mg/h continuous infusion for 8 hours) or low-dose furosemide combined with low-dose dopamine (LDFD, furosemide 5 mg/h plus dopamine 5 µg kg(-1) min(-1) continuous infusion for 8 hours). Both strategies were compared for total diuresis, WRF (defined as a rise in serum creatinine of >0.3 mg/dL from baseline to 24 hours), electrolyte balance, and 60-day postdischarge outcomes. Mean hourly excreted urine volume (272 ± 149 mL in HDF vs 278 ± 186 mL in LDFD group; P = .965) and changes in dyspnea score (Borg index: -4.4 ± 2.1 in HDF group vs -4.7 ± 2.0 in LDFD group; P = .575) during the 8 hours of protocol treatment were similar in the two groups. WRF was more frequent in the HDF (n = 9; 30%) than in the LDFD group (n = 2; 6.7%; P = .042). Serum potassium changed from 4.3 ± 0.5 to 3.9 ± 0.4 mEq/L at 24 hours (P = .003) in the HDF group and from 4.4 ± 0.5 to 4.2 ± 0.5 mEq/L at 24 hours (P = .07) in the LDFD group. Length of stay and 60-day mortality or rehospitalization rates (all-cause, cardiovascular, and worsening HF) were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In ADHF patients, the combination of low-dose furosemide and low-dose dopamine is equally effective as high-dose furosemide but associated with improved renal function profile and potassium homeostasis.

Efficacy and safety of high dose versus low dose furosemide with or without dopamine infusion: the Dopamine in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure II (DAD-HF II) trial.

AIMS: The role of low-dose dopamine infusion in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) remains controversial. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high- versus low-dose furosemide with or without low-dose dopamine infusion in this patient population. METHODS AND RESULTS: 161 ADHF patients (78 years; 46% female; ejection fraction 31%) were randomized to 8-hour continuous infusions of: a) high-dose furosemide (HDF, n=50, 20mg/h), b) low-dose furosemide and low-dose dopamine (LDFD, n=56, 5mg/h and 5 µg kg(-1)min(-1) respectively), or c) low-dose furosemide (LDF, n=55, furosemide 5mg/h). The main outcomes were 60-day and one-year all-cause mortality (ACM) and hospitalization for HF (HHF). Dyspnea relief (Borg index), worsening renal function (WRF, rise in serum creatinine (sCr) ≥ 0.3mg/dL), and length of stay (LOS) were also assessed. The urinary output at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 24h was not significantly different in the three groups. Neither the ACM at day 60 (4.0%, 7.1%, and 7.2%; P=0.74) or at one year (38.1%, 33.9% and 32.7%, P=0.84) nor the HHF at day 60 (22.0%, 21.4%, and 14.5%, P=0.55) or one year (60.0%, 50.0%, and 47%, P=0.40) differed between HDF, LDFD, and LDF groups, respectively. No differences in the Borg index or LOS were noted. WRF was higher in the HDF than in LDFD and LDF groups at day 1 (24% vs. 11% vs. 7%, P<0.0001) but not at sCr peak (44% vs. 38% vs. 29%, P=0.27). No significant differences in adverse events were noted. CONCLUSIONS: In ADHF patients, there were no significant differences in the in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes between high- vs. low-dose furosemide infusion; the addition of low-dose dopamine infusion was not associated with any beneficial effects.

Do health economic evaluations using observational data provide reliable assessment of treatment effects?

Economic evaluation in modern health care systems is seen as a transparent scientific framework that can be used to advance progress towards improvements in population health at the best possible value. Despite the perceived superiority that trial-based studies have in terms of internal validity, economic evaluations often employ observational data. In this review, the interface between econometrics and economic evaluation is explored, with emphasis placed on highlighting methodological issues relating to the evaluation of cost-effectiveness within a bivariate framework. Studies that satisfied the eligibility criteria exemplified the use of matching, regression analysis, propensity scores, instrumental variables, as well as difference-in-differences approaches. All studies were reviewed and critically appraised using a structured template. The findings suggest that although state-of-the-art econometric methods have the potential to provide evidence on the causal effects of clinical and policy interventions, their application in economic evaluation is subject to a number of limitations. These range from no credible assessment of key assumptions and scarce evidence regarding the relative performance of different methods, to lack of reporting of important study elements, such as a summary outcome measure and its associated sampling uncertainty. Further research is required to better understand the ways in which observational data should be analysed in the context of the economic evaluation framework.

Health economic evaluation in Greece.

OBJECTIVES: There is a growing volume of literature on health economic evaluation, with this form of analysis becoming increasingly influential at the decision-making level worldwide. The purpose of this study was to review the current state of health economic evaluation in Greece, with a view to uncovering reasons why its use in this country is limited. METHODS: A search of the NHS Economic Evaluation Database was undertaken. The search included cost, cost-of-illness, cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-consequences, cost-utility, and cost-benefit analyses and was narrowed only to Greek authors undertaking solo or joint health economic evaluation in Greece. RESULTS: The search revealed that, in Greece, very little health economic evaluation has been undertaken. The main reason for the lack of interest is that the current chaotic healthcare system structure and financing does not provide the appropriate incentives to stimulate a powerful interest in this type of research. This condition is a result of the lack of a long-term national health policy and the hesitation of the present and past Greek governments to date to proceed to large-scale reforms because of political considerations. The Greek governments have also been content with the good health indicators being achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Even if it is accepted that good health prevails in Greece, slower economic growth rates, an ageing population, and the continuous immigration will place increasing pressure on healthcare resources and will necessitate a more rational use of these resources. Health economic evaluation, by weighing benefits against costs, therefore, has an important role to play.