1,721,378 research outputs found
Left ventricular ejection fraction as the primary heart failure phenotyping parameter
No full textPeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/173109/1/ejhf2576.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/173109/2/ejhf2576_am.pd
From mid-range to mildly reduced ejection fraction heart failure: A call to treat
No full textThe historical classification of heart failure (HF) has considered two distinct subgroups, HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), generally classified as EF below 40%, and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) variably classified as EF above 40%, 45% or 50%. One of the principal reasons behind this distinction was related to presence of effective therapy in HFrEF, but not in HFpEF. Recently the expanding knowledge in the specific subgroup of patient with a LVEF between 41% and 49% and the potential benefit of new therapies and of those used in patients with LVEF below 40%, has led to rename this group as HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF). In this review we discuss the reasons behind this modification, we summarize the main characteristics of HFmrEF the similarities and differences with the two other EF categories, and finally we provide a comprehensive overview of the current available evidence supporting the treatment of patients with HFmrEF
principle ‘do no harm’?
No full textAlthough approaches to optimize volume status, such as modifying
fluid and salt intake, are important,1 use of loop diuretics
remains the mainstay of treatment for congestion in patients with
both acute (AHF) and chronic heart failure (CHF), regardless of
the underlying left ventricular ejection fraction.2 Characteristically,
more than 80% of patients with CHF receive regular treatment
with some kind of oral loop diuretic.3,4 The 2016 European guidelines
on heart failure (HF) recommend the use of diuretics for
patients with signs and symptoms of congestion (recommendation
class I, level of evidence B).5 However, loop diuretics may exert a
range of adverse effects including electrolyte depletion, which predispose
to life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, hyperglycaemia,
hyperuricaemia, orthostatic hypotension, vestibular symptoms and
renal function deterioration.2 Furthermore, they seem to activate
the neurohormonal system and hamper the up-titration of
guideline-recommended HF treatment.6,7 Thus, current guidelines
recommend use of diuretics at the lowest dose needed to achieve
and maintain euvolaemia, meaning that reduced loop diuretic dose
may often be indicated in stable CHF patients.5 Recently, the Heart
Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology
(ESC) put together a comprehensive consensus document on the
use of diuretics in HF,1 providing, among others, guidance on the
challenging task of assessing HF patients’ fluid status.
Herein we summarize the existing literature on loop diuretic
dose changes in CHF and call for randomized trials. Loop diuretic
strategies in AHF are not addressed
Persistent High Burden of Heart Failure Across the Ejection Fraction Spectrum in a Nationwide Setting
Full text linkBACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) has a dramatic impact on worldwide health care systems that is determined by the growing prevalence of and the high exposure to cardiovascular and noncardiovascular events. Prognosis remains poor. We sought to compare a large population with HF across the ejection fraction (EF) spectrum with a population without HF for patient characteristics, and HF, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HF registered in the Swedish HF registry in 2005 to 2018 were compared 1:3 with a sex‐, age‐, and county‐matched population without HF. Outcomes were cardiovascular and noncardiovascular mortality and hospitalizations. Of 76 453 patients with HF, 53% had reduced EF, 23% mildly reduced EF, and 24% preserved EF. Compared with those without HF, patients with HF had more cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbidities and worse socioeconomic status. Incidence of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular events was higher in people with HF versus non‐HF, with increased risk of all‐cause (hazard ratio [HR], 2.53 [95% CI, 2.50–2.56]), cardiovascular (HR, 4.67 [95% CI, 4.59–4.76]), and noncardiovascular (HR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.46–1.52]) mortality, 2‐ to 5‐fold higher risk of first/repeated cardiovascular and noncardiovascular hospitalizations, and ~4 times longer in‐hospital length of stay for any cause. Patients with HF with reduced EF had higher risk of HF hospitalizations, whereas those with HF with preserved EF had higher risk of all‐cause and noncardiovascular hospitalization and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HF exert a high health care burden, with a much higher risk of cardiovascular, all‐cause, and noncardiovascular events, and nearly 4 times as many days spent in hospital compared with those without HF. These epidemiological data may enable strategies for optimal resource allocation and HF trial design
Heart failure pharmacological treatments and outcomes in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction
Full text linkBackground Guideline recommendations for the treatment of heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) derive from small subgroups in post-hoc analyses of randomized trials. Objectives We investigated predictors of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors/angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (RASI/ARNI) and beta-blockers use, and the associations between these medications and mortality/morbidity in a large real-world cohort with HFmrEF. Methods and results Patients with HFmrEF (EF 40-49%) from the Swedish HF Registry were included. The associations between medications and cardiovascular (CV) mortality/HF hospitalization (HFH), and all-cause mortality were assessed through Cox regressions in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort. A positive control analysis was performed in patients with EF < 40%, while a negative control outcome analysis had cancer-related hospitalization as endpoint. Of 12 421 patients with HFmrEF, 84% received RASI/ARNI and 88% beta-blockers. Shared-independent predictors of RASI/ARNI and beta-blockers use were younger age, being an outpatient, follow-up in specialty care, and hypertension. In the matched cohorts, use of both RASI/ARNI and beta-blocker use was separately associated with lower risk of CV mortality/HFH [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83-0.98 and HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74-0.90, respectively] and of all-cause mortality (HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.69-0.81 and HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72-0.87, respectively). Results were consistent at the positive control analysis, and there were no associations between treatment use and the negative control outcome. Conclusions RASI/ARNI and beta-blockers were extensively used in this large real-world cohort with HFmrEF. Their use was safe since associated with lower mortality and morbidity. Our findings confirm the real-world evidence from previous post-hoc analyses of trials, and represent a further call for implementing guideline recommendations
Reductions in N-Terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide Levels Are Associated With Lower Mortality and Heart Failure Hospitalization Rates in Patients With Heart Failure With Mid-Range and Preserved Ejection Fraction
No full textIn heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), feasible surrogate end points are needed for phase II trials. The aim was to assess whether a reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) is associated with improved mortality/morbidity in an unselected population of HFmrEF and HFpEF patients
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Status and timing of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor implementation in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry [Elektronisk resurs]
Full text linkAims We explored timing, settings and predictors of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) initiation in a large, nationwide cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results Patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction &lt;40%) registered in the Swedish HF Registry in 2017-2021 and na & iuml;ve to ARNI were evaluated for timing and location of, and their characteristics at ARNI initiation. ARNI use increased from 8.3% in 2017 to 26.7% in 2021. Among 3892 hospitalized patients, 8% initiated ARNI in-hospital or &lt;= 14 days after discharge, 4% between 15 and 90 days, and 88% &gt;90 days after discharge or never initiated. Factors associated with earlier initiation included follow-up in specialized HF care, more severe HF, previous HF treatment use and higher income, whereas older age, higher comorbidity burden and living alone were associated with later/no initiation. Of 16 486 HFrEF patients, 8.1% inpatients and 5.9% outpatients initiated an ARNI at the index date. Factors associated with initiation in outpatients were overall consistent with those linked with an in-hospital/earlier ARNI initiation; 4.9% of 10 209 with HF duration &lt;6 months and 9.1% of 5877 with HF duration &gt;= 6 months initiated ARNI. Predictors of ARNI initiation in HF duration &lt;6 months were inpatient status, lower ejection fraction, hypertension, whereas previous angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use was associated with less likely initiation. Discontinuation at 1 year ranged between 13% and 20% across the above-reported analyses. Conclusions In-hospital and early initiation of ARNI are limited in real-world care but still slightly more likely than in outpatients. ARNI were more likely initiated in patients with more severe HF, which might suggest its use as a second-line treatment and only following worsening of clinical status. One-year discontinuation rates were consistent regardless of the timing/setting of ARNI initiation.</p
- …
