1,721,824 research outputs found
Advanced chronic heart failure: A position statement from the Study Group on Advanced Heart Failure of the Heart Failure Association of the European Societyof Cardiology
No full textTherapy has improved the survival of heart failure (HF) patients. However, many patients progress to advanced chronic HF (ACHF). We propose a practical clinical definition and describe the characteristics of this condition. Patients that are generally recognised as ACHF often exhibit the following characteristics: 1) severe symptoms (NYHA class III to IV); 2) episodes with clinical signs of fluid retention and/or peripheral hypoperfusion; 3) objective evidence of severe cardiac dysfunction, shown by at least one of the following: left ventricular ejection fraction1 HF hospitalisation in the past 6 months; 6) presence of all the previous features despite optimal therapy. This definition identifies a group of patients with compromised quality of life, poor prognosis, and a high risk of clinical events. These patients deserve effective therapeutic options and should be potential targets for future clinical research initiative
Advanced chronic heart failure: A position statement from the Study Group on Advanced Heart Failure of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology
No full textTherapy has improved the survival of heart failure (HF) patients. However, many patients progress to advanced chronic HF (ACHF). We propose a practical clinical definition and describe the characteristics of this condition. Patients that are generally recognised as ACHF often exhibit the following characteristics: 1) severe symptoms (NYHA class III to IV); 2) episodes with clinical signs of fluid retention and/or peripheral hypoperfusion; 3) objective evidence of severe cardiac dysfunction, shown by at least one of the following: left ventricular ejection fraction1 HF hospitalisation in the past 6 months; 6) presence of all the previous features despite optimal therapy. This definition identifies a group of patients with compromised quality of life, poor prognosis, and a high risk of clinical events. These patients deserve effective therapeutic options and should be potential targets for future clinical research initiatives
Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology Quality of Care Centres Programme:design and accreditation document
No full textHeart failure (HF) is the major contributor to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Given its rising prevalence, the costs of HF care can be expected to increase. Multidisciplinary management of HF can improve quality of care and survival. However, specialized HF programmes are not widely available in most European countries. These circumstances underlie the suggestion of the Heart Failure Association (HFA)of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for the development of quality of care centres (QCCs). These are defined as health care institutions that provide multidisciplinary HF management at all levels of care (primary, secondary and tertiary), are accredited by the HFA/ESC and are implemented into existing health care systems. Their major goals are to unify and improve the quality of HF care, and to promote collaboration in education and research activities. Three types of QCC are suggested: community QCCs (primary care facilities able to provide non-invasive assessment and optimal therapy); specialized QCCs (district hospitals with intensive care units, able to provide cardiac catheterization and device implantation services), and advanced QCCs (national reference centres able to deliver advanced and innovative HF care and research). QCC accreditation will require compliance with general and specific HFA/ESC accreditation standards. General requirements include confirmation of the centre's existence, commitment to QCC implementation, and collaboration with other QCCs. Specific requirements include validation of the centre's level of care, service portfolio, facilities and equipment, management, human resources, process measures, quality indicators and outcome measures. Audit and recertification at 4-6-year intervals are also required. The implementation of QCCs will evolve gradually, following a pilot phase in selected countries. The present document summarizes the definition, major goals, development, classification and crucial aspects of the accreditation process of the HFA/ESC QCC Programme.</p
Is heart failure misdiagnosed in hospitalized patients with preserved ejection fraction? From the European Society of Cardiology - Heart Failure Association EURObservational Research Programme Heart Failure Long-Term Registry
Get PDFAIMS: In hospitalized patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the aims of this study were (i) to assess the proportion meeting the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HFpEF criteria and (ii) to compare patients with restrictive/pseudonormal mitral inflow pattern (MIP) vs. patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included hospitalized participants of the ESC-Heart Failure Association (HFA) EURObservational Research Programme (EORP) HF Long-Term Registry who had echocardiogram with ejection fraction (EF) >/= 50% during index hospitalization. As no data on e', E/e' and left ventricular (LV) mass index were gathered in the registry, the 2016 ESC HFpEF definition was modified as follows: elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (>/=100 pg/mL for acute HF) and/or N-terminal pro-BNP (>/=300 pg/mL) and at least one of the echocardiographic criteria: (i) presence of LV hypertrophy (yes/no), (ii) left atrial volume index (LAVI) of >34 mL/m(2) ), or (iii) restrictive/pseudonormal MIP. Next, all patients were divided into four groups: (i) patients with restrictive/pseudonormal MIP on echocardiography [i.e. with presumably elevated left atrial (LA) pressure], (ii) patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (i.e. with presumably normal LA pressure), (iii) atrial fibrillation (AF) group, and (iv) 'grey area' (no consistent description of MIP despite no report of AF). Of 6365 hospitalized patients, 1848 (29%) had EF >/= 50%. Natriuretic peptides were assessed in 28%, LV hypertrophy in 92%, LAVI in 13%, and MIP in 67%. The 2016 ESC HFpEF criteria could be assessed in 27% of the 1848 patients and, if assessed, were met in 52%. Of the 1848 patients, 19% had restrictive/pseudonormal MIP, 43% had MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal, 18% had AF and 20% were grey area. There were no differences in long-term all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, or all-cause hospitalizations or HF rehospitalizations between the four groups. Despite fewer non-cardiac comorbidities reported at baseline, patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (i.e. with presumably normal LA pressure) had more non-cardiovascular (14.0 vs. 6.7 per 100 patient-years, P < 0.001) and cardiovascular non-HF (13.2 vs. 8.0 per 100 patient-years, P = 0.016) hospitalizations in long-term follow-up than patients with restrictive/pseudonormal MIP. CONCLUSIONS: Acute HFpEF diagnosis could be assessed (based on the 2016 ESC criteria) in only a quarter of patients and confirmed in half of these. When assessed, only one in three patients had restrictive/pseudonormal MIP suggestive of elevated LA pressure. Patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (suggestive of normal LA pressure) could have been misdiagnosed with acute HFpEF or had echocardiography performed after normalization of LA pressure. They were more often hospitalized for non-HF reasons during follow-up. Symptoms suggestive of acute HFpEF may in some patients represent non-HF comorbidities
Is heart failure misdiagnosed in hospitalized patients with preserved ejection fraction? From the European Society of Cardiology ‐ Heart Failure Association EURObservational Research Programme Heart Failure Long‐Term Registry
No full textAbstract Aims In hospitalized patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the aims of this study were (i) to assess the proportion meeting the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HFpEF criteria and (ii) to compare patients with restrictive/pseudonormal mitral inflow pattern (MIP) vs. patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal. Methods and results We included hospitalized participants of the ESC‐Heart Failure Association (HFA) EURObservational Research Programme (EORP) HF Long‐Term Registry who had echocardiogram with ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 50% during index hospitalization. As no data on e', E/e' and left ventricular (LV) mass index were gathered in the registry, the 2016 ESC HFpEF definition was modified as follows: elevated B‐type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (≥100 pg/mL for acute HF) and/or N‐terminal pro‐BNP (≥300 pg/mL) and at least one of the echocardiographic criteria: (i) presence of LV hypertrophy (yes/no), (ii) left atrial volume index (LAVI) of >34 mL/m 2 ), or (iii) restrictive/pseudonormal MIP. Next, all patients were divided into four groups: (i) patients with restrictive/pseudonormal MIP on echocardiography [i.e. with presumably elevated left atrial (LA) pressure], (ii) patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (i.e. with presumably normal LA pressure), (iii) atrial fibrillation (AF) group, and (iv) ‘grey area’ (no consistent description of MIP despite no report of AF). Of 6365 hospitalized patients, 1848 (29%) had EF ≥ 50%. Natriuretic peptides were assessed in 28%, LV hypertrophy in 92%, LAVI in 13%, and MIP in 67%. The 2016 ESC HFpEF criteria could be assessed in 27% of the 1848 patients and, if assessed, were met in 52%. Of the 1848 patients, 19% had restrictive/pseudonormal MIP, 43% had MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal, 18% had AF and 20% were grey area. There were no differences in long‐term all‐cause or cardiovascular mortality, or all‐cause hospitalizations or HF rehospitalizations between the four groups. Despite fewer non‐cardiac comorbidities reported at baseline, patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (i.e. with presumably normal LA pressure) had more non‐cardiovascular (14.0 vs. 6.7 per 100 patient‐years, P < 0.001) and cardiovascular non‐HF (13.2 vs. 8.0 per 100 patient‐years, P = 0.016) hospitalizations in long‐term follow‐up than patients with restrictive/pseudonormal MIP. Conclusions Acute HFpEF diagnosis could be assessed (based on the 2016 ESC criteria) in only a quarter of patients and confirmed in half of these. When assessed, only one in three patients had restrictive/pseudonormal MIP suggestive of elevated LA pressure. Patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (suggestive of normal LA pressure) could have been misdiagnosed with acute HFpEF or had echocardiography performed after normalization of LA pressure. They were more often hospitalized for non‐HF reasons during follow‐up. Symptoms suggestive of acute HFpEF may in some patients represent non‐HF comorbidities.Vifor Pharma https://doi.org/10.13039/501100006484Servier https://doi.org/10.13039/501100011725Sanofi https://doi.org/10.13039/100004339ResMed Foundation https://doi.org/10.13039/100003305Edwards Lifesciences https://doi.org/10.13039/100006520Boston Scientific Corporation https://doi.org/10.13039/100008497Boehringer Ingelheim https://doi.org/10.13039/100001003Bayer https://doi.org/10.13039/100004326AstraZeneca https://doi.org/10.13039/10000432
HRS/EHRA expert consensus on the monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): description of techniques, indications, personnel, frequency and ethical considerations
No full textThis document represents expert consensus concerning the Monitoring of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs). The views expressed are of the international writing group consisting of seven cardiac electrophysiologists representing the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), six from the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) as well as one heart failure specialist representing the Heart Failure Society of America and another from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology
Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology Quality of Care Centres Programme: design and accreditation document
No full textHeart failure (HF) is the major contributor to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Given its rising prevalence, the costs of HF care can be expected to increase. Multidisciplinary management of HF can improve quality of care and survival. However, specialized HF programmes are not widely available in most European countries. These circumstances underlie the suggestion of the Heart Failure Association (HFA). of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for the development of quality of care centres (QCCs). These are defined as health care institutions that provide multidisciplinary HF management at all levels of care (primary, secondary and tertiary), are accredited by the HFA/ESC and are implemented into existing health care systems. Their major goals are to unify and improve the quality of HF care, and to promote collaboration in education and research activities. Three types of QCC are suggested: community QCCs (primary care facilities able to provide non-invasive assessment and optimal therapy); specialized QCCs (district hospitals with intensive care units, able to provide cardiac catheterization and device implantation services), and advanced QCCs (national reference centres able to deliver advanced and innovative HF care and research). QCC accreditation will require compliance with general and specific HFA/ESC accreditation standards. General requirements include confirmation of the centre's existence, commitment to QCC implementation, and collaboration with other QCCs. Specific requirements include validation of the centre's level of care, service portfolio, facilities and equipment, management, human resources, process measures, quality indicators and outcome measures. Audit and recertification at 4–6-year intervals are also required. The implementation of QCCs will evolve gradually, following a pilot phase in selected countries. The present document summarizes the definition, major goals, development, classification and crucial aspects of the accreditation process of the HFA/ESC QCC Programme. © 2020 European Society of Cardiolog
The New Heart Failure Association Definition of Advanced Heart Failure
Get PDFThe clinical course of heart failure is characterised by progressive worsening of cardiac function and symptoms. Patients progress to a condition where traditional treatment is no longer effective and advanced therapies, such as mechanical circulatory support, heart transplantation and/or palliative care, are needed. This condition is called advanced chronic heart failure. The Heart Failure Association first defined it in 2007 and this definition was updated in 2018. The updated version emphasises the role of comorbidities, including tachyarrhythmias, and the role of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Improvements in mechanical circulatory support technology and better disease management programmes are major advances and are radically changing the management of these patients
Guía ESC 2021 sobre el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la insuficiencia cardiaca aguda y crónica
No full textLas guías de práctica clínica (GPC) tienen como objetivo reunir y evaluar toda la evidencia relevante disponible durante el proceso de elaboración sobre un tema particular para ayudar a los médicos a seleccionar la mejor estrategia posible de tratamiento para un paciente en particular, que sufre una enfermedad determinada, no solo teniendo en cuenta el resultado final, sino también sopesando los riesgos y los beneficios de un procedimiento diagnóstico o terapéutico concreto. Las GPC deben ayudar a los profesionales de
la salud en la toma de decisiones clínicas en su ejercicio diario. No obstante, la decisión final sobre un paciente concreto la debe tomar el médico responsable de su salud, en consulta con el propio
paciente y, si fuera necesario, con su representante legal
Highlights of the 2011 Scientific Sessions of the Congress of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology
No full text The Annual Scientific Sessions of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology was held in Gothenburg, Sweden, 21–24 May 2011. Over 700 abstracts, along with many invited programs and several satellite programs were presented. Some of the late-breaking clinical trials are summarized here. </jats:p
- …
