International Journal of Heart Failure最新文献

Background and objectives: The clinical significance of worsening renal function (WRF) in elderly patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is not completely understood. We compared the clinical conditions between younger and elderly patients with ADHF after the appearance of WRF to establish its prognostic influence.

Methods: We included 654 consecutive patients (37% women) admitted for ADHF. We divided the patients into four groups according to their age (<80 years, under-80, n=331; ≥80 years, over-80, n=323) and to their WRF statuses (either WRF or non-WRF group). We defined WRF as an increase in serum creatinine level ≥0.3 mg/dL or ≥150% within 48 hours after hospital arrival (under-80, n=62; over-80, n=75). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac events within 1 year.

Results: The survival analyses revealed that the WRF group had significantly more cardiac events than the non-WRF group in patients in the over-80 group (log-rank p=0.025), but not in those of the under-80 group (log-rank p=0.50). The patients in the over-80, WRF group presented more significant mean blood pressure (MBP) drops than those in the over-80 non-WRF group (p=0.003). Logistic regression analyses revealed that higher MBP at admission was a significant predictor of WRF.

Conclusions: WRF is a predictor of poor outcomes in elderly patients with ADHF.

Background and objectives: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic lockdown may have collaterally affected the care of patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). We aimed to evaluate the impact of lockdown pandemic on hospitalizations for ADHF.

Methods: We conducted a single-center study, performing a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. We included consecutive adult patients with a primary diagnosis of ADHF admitted to a cardiovascular disease specialized hospital. We compared those patients admitted between March-June of 2019 (before COVID-19 [BC]) and 2020 (after COVID-19 [AC]), during mandatory lockdown.

Results: A total 79 corresponding to BC period and 60 to AC period were included, representing a decrease of 25% (interquartile range [IQR], 11-33). During the BC period, 31.6% of patients were referred from other centers compared to 15% during the pandemic (p=0.02). In the AC period patients were older (median age, 81[IQR, 73-87] years vs. 77 [IQR, 64-84] years, p=0.014). The etiology of HF, cause of decompensation, left ventricular function, and laboratory parameters were similar in both periods. The use of mechanical ventilation (13.9% vs. 3.3%, p=0.03) and circulatory support (7.6% vs. 0%, p=0.02) was higher in the BC period. During the BC period, 5 emergency heart transplants were performed, and none in AC, (p=0.004). In-hospital mortality was similar in both periods (3.8% vs. 3.3%; p=0.80).

Conclusions: We observed a reduction in the number of hospitalizations and referral of patients for ADHF during COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite significant advances in disease modifying therapy in heart failure (HF), diuretics have remained the cornerstone of volume management in all HF phenotypes. Diuretics, alongside their definite acute haemodynamic and symptomatic benefits, also possess many possible deleterious side effects. Moreover, questions remain regarding the prognostic impact of chronic diuretic use. To date, few data exist pertaining to diuretic reduction as a result of individual traditional guideline directed medical therapy in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, diuretic reduction has been demonstrated with sacubitril/valsartan (angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor [ARNi]) from the PARADIGM study, as well as, post-marketing reports from our own group and others. Whether the ARNi compound represents the dawn of a new era, where effective therapies will have a more noticeable reduction on diuretic need, remains to be seen. The emergence of sodium glucose transport 2 inhibitors and guanylate cyclase stimulators may further exemplify this issue and potentially extend this benefit to HF patients outside of the HFrEF phenotype. In conclusion, emerging new therapies in HFrEF could reduce the reliance on diuretics in the management of this phenotype of HF. These developments further highlight the clinical importance to continually assess an individual's diuretic requirements through careful volume assessment.

Heart failure is a global health problem. An episode of acute heart failure (AHF) is a period of substantial morbidity and mortality with few advances in the management of an episode that have improved outcomes. The measurement of multiple biomarkers has become an integral adjunctive tool for the management of AHF. Many biomarkers are now well established in their ability to assist with diagnosis and prognostication of an AHF patient. There are also emerging biomarkers that are showing significant promise in the areas of diagnosis and prognosis. For improving the management of AHF, both established and novel biomarkers may assist in guiding medical therapy and subsequently improving outcomes. Thus, it is important to understand the different abilities and limitations of established and emerging biomarkers in AHF so that they may be correctly interpreted and integrated into clinical practice for AHF. This knowledge may improve the care of AHF patients. This review will summarize the evidence of both established and novel biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis and management in AHF so that the treating clinician may become more comfortable incorporating these biomarkers into clinical practice in an evidence-based manner.

It is unclear if guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) should be maintained in patients who have heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (HFiEF). Of the medications recommended for HF, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) is associated with heterogeneous results and considerable adverse events. We wish to evaluate whether MRA withdrawal is safe or associated with deterioration of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We will select 60 patients with HFiEF of a New York Heart Association functional class I-II who are receiving GDMT and randomize them in a 1:1 fashion into 2 groups: one that will continue treatment and one that will have spironolactone administration withdrawn. All patients will receive standard medical therapy other than MRA. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with declining LVEF ≥10%. Secondary outcomes include a change in LVEF, the estimated glomerular filtration rate, B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels, and adverse clinical events, including death, re-hospitalization, or an emergency department visit for HF. This trial will provide important evidence on whether MRA in addition to other standard therapy, should be maintained or withdrawn in patients with HFiEF.

Morbid obesity remains most common cause of high output failure. The prevalence of the obesity is growing when two-thirds of American adults already are overweight or obese. Obesity is the risk factor for heart disease and eventually leads to heart failure. High output heart failure is common in obese patients and is characterized by high cardiac output, decreased systemic vascular resistance, and increased oxygen consumption. It often occurs in patients with chronic severe anemia, hyperthyroidism, pregnancy, arterial-venous fistulas, and liver disease. However, the pathogenesis of obesity-related high output heart failure is not fully understood. The clinical management of obesity-related high output heart failure follows conventional heart failure regimens due to lack of specific clinical recommendations. This article reviews the possible pathophysiological mechanisms and causes that contribute to obesity-related high output heart failure. This review also focuses on the implications for clinical practice and future research involved with omics technologies to explore possible molecular pathways associated with obesity-related high output heart failure.

Background and objectives: Endurance exercise training (ET) can improve outcomes for patients with heart failure (HF). We investigated the preventive effects of ET on serum biomarkers for HF in mice treated with doxorubicin (DOX).

Methods: A cohort of male wild-type mice were randomly assigned to 3 groups: sedentary control (CON), DOX-treated sedentary (DOX), and DOX-treated endurance ET (ET-DOX) groups. ET groups performed moderate intensity endurance ET on a motor treadmill for 8 weeks. After 8 weeks, the DOX and ET-DOX groups were treated with DOX via weekly intraperitoneal injections of 8 mg/kg for a total of 4 weeks. We compared M-mode echocardiography, histology, and biomarkers for HF between groups.

Results: A total of 30 mice survived during the study period and were analyzed: CON (n=9), DOX (n=9) and ET-DOX (n=12). There was no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) or fractional shortening (FS) between DOX and ET-DOX groups. The ET-DOX group had a significantly lower soluble ST2 level (176.6±44.1 vs. 225.4±60.5 pg/mL, p=0.021) compared to the DOX group. Also similar between the ET-DOX and the DOX groups were the serum N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (30.3±12.5 vs. 34.0±21.7 pg/mL, p=0.849), troponin I (685.7±99.2 vs. 722.5±126.7 pg/mL, p=0.766), and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (324.3±82.4 vs. 312.7±68.2 pg/mL, p=0.922) levels. Histologically, there was no significant difference in degree of perivascular fibrosis between DOX and ET-DOX groups.

Conclusions: Endurance ET is effective for preventing increases in serum soluble ST2 in mice treated with DOX.

Despite clinical advances in its treatment, heart failure (HF) is associated with significant adverse clinical outcomes and is among the greatest drivers of healthcare utilization. Outpatient management of HF remains suboptimal, with gaps in the provision of evidence-based therapies, and difficulties in predicting and managing clinical decompensation. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) has the potential to address these issues, and thus has been of increasing interest to HF clinicians and health systems. Economic incentives, including increasing RPM reimbursement and HF readmission penalties, are also spurring increased interest in RPM. This review establishes a framework for evaluating RPM based on its various components: 1) patient data collection, 2) data transmission, analysis, and presentation, and 3) care team review and clinical action. The existing evidence regarding RPM in HF management is also reviewed. Based on the data, we identify RPM features associated with clinical efficacy and describe emerging digital tools that have the promise of addressing current needs.