Cardiac Failure Review最新文献

Heart failure (HF) is a common health condition that typically affects older adults. Many people with HF are cared for on an inpatient basis, by noncardiologists, such as acute medical physicians, geriatricians and other physicians. Treatment options for HF are ever increasing, and adherence to guidelines for prognostic therapy contributes to polypharmacy, which is very familiar to clinicians who care for older people. This article explores the recent trials in both HF with reduced ejection fraction and HF with preserved ejection fraction and the limitations of international guidance in their management with respect to older people. In addition, this article discusses the challenge of managing polypharmacy in those with advanced age, and the importance of involving a geriatrician and pharmacist in the HF multidisciplinary team to provide a holistic and person-centred approach to optimisation of HF therapies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the significance of every role within the interdisciplinary team and has exacerbated the challenges posed to every member. From the nursing perspective, many of these challenges were present before the pandemic but have become significantly larger problems that continue to demand global attention. This has provided an opportunity to critically evaluate and learn from the challenges the pandemic has both highlighted and created. We conclude that the nursing infrastructure requires a revolution in order to support, grow and retain nurses, who are vital to the delivery of high-quality healthcare.

Heart failure (HF) is linked to to high mortality rates and recurrent hospitalisations despite medical and device-based achievements. The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has improved survival among patients with advanced HF. Significant progress has been achieved with the new generation of continuous-flow devices, particularly with the fully magnetically levitated HeartMate 3. In June 2021, Medtronic announced the abrupt withdrawal of the HeartWare device from the market. This decision has introduced a new era in which the field of mechanical support for advanced HF patients is dominated by a single device - the HeartMate 3. The direct clinical and economic consequences of this change will necessitate new surgical considerations. Because of the expected need for HeartWare device replacement in small patients, new surgical techniques and device adaptation will be needed. The new single-device era will hopefully encourage scientists and engineers to create innovations in the advanced HF arena. Special considerations should be taken during the COVID-19 pandemic when treating patients with LVADs.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and AF are two common cardiovascular conditions that are inextricably linked to each other's development and progression, often in multimorbid patients. Current management is often directed to specific components of each disease without considering their joint impact on diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. The result for patients is suboptimal on all three levels, restricting clinicians from preventing major adverse events, including death, which occurs in 20% of patients at 2 years and in 45% at 4 years. New trial evidence and reanalysis of prior trials are providing a glimmer of hope that adverse outcomes can be reduced in those with concurrent HFpEF and AF. This will require a restructuring of care to integrate heart failure and AF teams, alongside those that manage comorbidities. Parallel commencement and non-sequential uptitration of therapeutics across different domains will be vital to ensure that all patients benefit at a personal level, based on their own needs and priorities.

Background: Worsening aortic insufficiency (AI) is a known sequela of prolonged continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support with a significant impact on patient outcomes. While medical treatment may relieve symptoms, it is unlikely to halt progression. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are among non-medical interventions available to address post-LVAD AI. Limited data are available on outcomes with either SAVR or TAVR for the management of post-LVAD AI. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample data collected for hospital admissions between the years 2015 and 2018 for patients with pre-existing continuous-flow LVAD undergoing TAVR or SAVR for AI were queried. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of in-hospital mortality, stroke, transient ischaemic attack, MI, pacemaker implantation, need for open aortic valve surgery, vascular complications and cardiac tamponade. Results: Patients undergoing TAVR were more likely to receive their procedure during an elective admission (57.1 versus 30%, p=0.002), and a significantly higher prevalence of comorbidities, as assessed by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, was observed in the SAVR group (29 versus 18; p=0.0001). We observed a significantly higher prevalence of the primary composite outcome in patients undergoing SAVR (30%) compared with TAVR (14.3%; p=0.001). Upon multivariable analysis adjusting for the type of admission and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, TAVR was associated with significantly lower odds of the composite outcome (odds ratio 0.243; 95% CI [0.06-0.97]; p=0.045). Conclusion: In this nationally representative cohort of LVAD patients with post-implant AI, it was observed that TAVR was associated with a lower risk of adverse short-term outcomes compared with SAVR.