Browsing by Author "Crespo-Leiro, Maria G. (35401291200)"

Aims: To perform a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure (AHF) with preserved (HFpEF), versus mildly reduced (HFmrEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: Of 5951 participants in the ESC HF Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF (acute coronary syndromes excluded), 29% had HFpEF, 18% HFmrEF, and 53% HFrEF. Hospitalization reasons were most commonly atrial fibrillation (more in HFmrEF and HFpEF), followed by ischaemia (HFmrEF), infection (HFmrEF and HFpEF), worsening renal function (HFrEF), and uncontrolled hypertension (HFmrEF and HFpEF). Hospitalization characteristics included lower blood pressure, more oedema and higher natriuretic peptides with lower ejection fraction, similar pulmonary congestion, more mitral regurgitation in HFrEF and HFmrEF and more tricuspid regurgitation in HFrEF. In-hospital mortality was 3.4% in HFrEF, 2.1% in HFmrEF and 2.2% in HFpEF. Intravenous diuretic (∼80%) and nitrate (∼15%) use was similar but inotrope use greater in HFrEF (16%, vs. HFmrEF 7.4% vs. HFpEF 5.3%). Weight loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate improvement were greater in HFrEF, whereas reduction in natriuretic peptides was similar. Over 1 year post-discharge, events per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) in HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF were: all-cause death 22 (20–24) versus 17 (14–20) versus 17 (15–20); cardiovascular (CV) death 12 (10–13) versus 8.6 (6.6–11) versus 8.4 (6.9–10); non-CV death 2.4 (1.8–3.1) versus 3.3 (2.1–4.8) versus 4.5 (3.5–5.9); all-cause hospitalization 48 (45–51) versus 35 (31–40) versus 42 (39–46); HF hospitalization 29 (27–32) versus 19 (16–22) versus 17 (15–20); and non-CV hospitalization 7.7 (6.6–8.9) versus 9.6 (7.5–12) versus 15 (13–17). Conclusion: In AHF, HFrEF is more severe and has greater in-hospital mortality. Post-discharge, HFrEF has greater CV risk, HFpEF greater non-CV risk, and HFmrEF lower overall risk. © 2021 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

Aims: Classification of acute heart failure (AHF) patients into four clinical profiles defined by evidence of congestion and perfusion is advocated by the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)guidelines. Based on the ESC-EORP-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry, we compared differences in baseline characteristics, in-hospital management and outcomes among congestion/perfusion profiles using this classification. Methods and results: We included 7865 AHF patients classified at admission as: ‘dry-warm’ (9.9%), ‘wet-warm’ (69.9%), ‘wet-cold’ (19.8%) and ‘dry-cold’ (0.4%). These groups differed significantly in terms of baseline characteristics, in-hospital management and outcomes. In-hospital mortality was 2.0% in ‘dry-warm’, 3.8% in ‘wet-warm’, 9.1% in ‘dry-cold’ and 12.1% in ‘wet-cold’ patients. Based on clinical classification at admission, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality were: ‘wet-warm’ vs. ‘dry-warm’ 1.78 (1.43–2.21) and ‘wet-cold’ vs. ‘wet-warm’ 1.33 (1.19–1.48). For profiles resulting from discharge classification, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality were: ‘wet-warm’ vs. ‘dry-warm’ 1.46 (1.31–1.63) and ‘wet-cold’ vs. ‘wet-warm’ 2.20 (1.89–2.56). Among patients discharged alive, 30.9% had residual congestion, and these patients had higher 1-year mortality compared to patients discharged without congestion (28.0 vs. 18.5%). Tricuspid regurgitation, diabetes, anaemia and high New York Heart Association class were independently associated with higher risk of congestion at discharge, while beta-blockers at admission, de novo heart failure, or any cardiovascular procedure during hospitalization were associated with lower risk of residual congestion. Conclusion: Classification based on congestion/perfusion status provides clinically relevant information at hospital admission and discharge. A better understanding of the clinical course of the two entities could play an important role towards the implementation of targeted strategies that may improve outcomes. © 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology

This article updates the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2007 classification of advanced heart failure and describes new diagnostic and treatment options for these patients. Recognizing the patient with advanced heart failure is critical to facilitate timely referral to advanced heart failure centres. Unplanned visits for heart failure decompensation, malignant arrhythmias, co-morbidities, and the 2016 ESC guidelines criteria for the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are included in this updated definition. Standard treatment is, by definition, insufficient in these patients. Inotropic therapy may be used as a bridge strategy, but it is only a palliative measure when used on its own, because of the lack of outcomes data. Major progress has occurred with short-term mechanical circulatory support devices for immediate management of cardiogenic shock and long-term mechanical circulatory support for either a bridge to transplantation or as destination therapy. Heart transplantation remains the treatment of choice for patients without contraindications. Some patients will not be candidates for advanced heart failure therapies. For these patients, who are often elderly with multiple co-morbidities, management of advanced heart failure to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life should be emphasized. Robust evidence from prospective studies is lacking for most therapies for advanced heart failure. There is an urgent need to develop evidence-based treatment algorithms to prolong life when possible and in accordance with patient preferences, increase life quality, and reduce the burden of hospitalization in this vulnerable patient population. © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology

Aims: To identify differences in clinical epidemiology, in-hospital management and 1-year outcomes among patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) and enrolled in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term (ESC-HF-LT) Registry, stratified by clinical profile at admission. Methods and results: The ESC-HF-LT Registry is a prospective, observational study collecting hospitalization and 1-year follow-up data from 6629 AHF patients. Among AHF patients enrolled in the registry, 13.2% presented with pulmonary oedema (PO), 2.9% with cardiogenic shock (CS), 61.1% with decompensated heart failure (DHF), 4.8% with hypertensive heart failure (HT-HF), 3.5% with right heart failure (RHF) and 14.4% with AHF and associated acute coronary syndromes (ACS-HF). The 1-year mortality rate was 28.1% in PO, 54.0% in CS, 27.2% in DHF, 12.8% in HT-HF, 34.0% in RHF and 20.6% in ACS-HF patients. When patients were classified by systolic blood pressure (SBP) at initial presentation, 1-year mortality was 34.8% in patients with SBP <85 mmHg, 29.0% in those with SBP 85–110 mmHg, 21.2% in patients with SBP 110–140 mmHg and 17.4% in those with SBP >140 mmHg. These differences tended to diminish in the months post-discharge, and 1-year mortality for the patients who survived at least 6 months post-discharge did not vary significantly by either clinical profile or SBP classification. Conclusion: Rates of adverse outcomes in AHF remain high, and substantial differences have been found when patients were stratified by clinical profile or SBP. However, patients who survived at least 6 months post-discharge represent a more homogeneous group and their 1-year outcome is less influenced by clinical profile or SBP at admission. © 2017 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2017 European Society of Cardiology

This paper provides a practical clinical application of guideline recommendations relating to the inpatient monitoring of patients with acute heart failure, through the evaluation of various clinical, biomarker, imaging, invasive and non-invasive approaches. Comprehensive inpatient. monitoring is crucial to the optimal management of acute heart failure patients. The European Society of Cardiology heart failure guidelines provide recommendations for the inpatient monitoring of acute heart failure, but the level of evidence underpinning most recommendations is limited. Many tools are available for the in-hospital monitoring of patients with acute heart failure, and each plays a role at various points throughout the patient's treatment course, including the emergency department, intensive care or coronary care unit, and the general ward. Clinical judgment is the preeminent factor guiding application of inpatient monitoring tools, as the various techniques have different patient population targets. When applied appropriately, these techniques enable decision making. However, there is limited evidence demonstrating that implementation of these tools improves patient outcome. Research priorities are identified to address these gaps in evidence. Future research initiatives should aim to identify the optimal in-hospital monitoring strategies that decrease morbidity and prolong survival in patients with acute heart failure. © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology

Acute right ventricular (RV) failure is a complex clinical syndrome that results from many causes. Research efforts have disproportionately focused on the failing left ventricle, but recently the need has been recognized to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of RV anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology, and of management approaches. Right ventricular mechanics and function are altered in the setting of either pressure overload or volume overload. Failure may also result from a primary reduction of myocardial contractility owing to ischaemia, cardiomyopathy, or arrhythmia. Dysfunction leads to impaired RV filling and increased right atrial pressures. As dysfunction progresses to overt RV failure, the RV chamber becomes more spherical and tricuspid regurgitation is aggravated, a cascade leading to increasing venous congestion. Ventricular interdependence results in impaired left ventricular filling, a decrease in left ventricular stroke volume, and ultimately low cardiac output and cardiogenic shock. Identification and treatment of the underlying cause of RV failure, such as acute pulmonary embolism, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute decompensation of chronic pulmonary hypertension, RV infarction, or arrhythmia, is the primary management strategy. Judicious fluid management, use of inotropes and vasopressors, assist devices, and a strategy focusing on RV protection for mechanical ventilation if required all play a role in the clinical care of these patients. Future research should aim to address the remaining areas of uncertainty which result from the complexity of RV haemodynamics and lack of conclusive evidence regarding RV-specific treatment approaches. © 2016 European Society of Cardiology.

Aims: The objectives of the present study were to describe epidemiology and outcomes in ambulatory heart failure (HF) patients stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and to identify predictors for mortality at 1 year in each group. Methods and results: The European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry is a prospective, observational study collecting epidemiological information and 1-year follow-up data in 9134 HF patients. Patients were classified according to baseline LVEF into HF with reduced EF [EF <40% (HFrEF)], mid-range EF [EF 40–50% (HFmrEF)] and preserved EF [EF >50% (HFpEF)]. In comparison with HFpEF subjects, patients with HFrEF were younger (64 years vs. 69 years), more commonly male (78% vs. 52%), more likely to have an ischaemic aetiology (49% vs. 24%) and left bundle branch block (24% vs. 9%), but less likely to have hypertension (56% vs. 67%) or atrial fibrillation (18% vs. 32%). The HFmrEF group resembled the HFrEF group in some features, including age, gender and ischaemic aetiology, but had less left ventricular and atrial dilation. Mortality at 1 year differed significantly between HFrEF and HFpEF (8.8% vs. 6.3%); HFmrEF patients experienced intermediate rates (7.6%). Age, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV status and chronic kidney disease predicted mortality in all LVEF groups. Low systolic blood pressure and high heart rate were predictors for mortality in HFrEF and HFmrEF. A lower body mass index was independently associated with mortality in HFrEF and HFpEF patients. Atrial fibrillation predicted mortality in HFpEF patients. Conclusions: Heart failure patients stratified according to different categories of LVEF represent diverse phenotypes of demography, clinical presentation, aetiology and outcomes at 1 year. Differences in predictors for mortality might improve risk stratification and management goals. © 2017 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2017 European Society of Cardiology

Aims: The European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry (ESC-HF-LT-R) was set up with the aim of describing the clinical epidemiology and the 1-year outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF) with the added intention of comparing differences between participating countries. Methods and results: The ESC-HF-LT-R is a prospective, observational registry contributed to by 211 cardiology centres in 21 European and/or Mediterranean countries, all being member countries of the ESC. Between May 2011 and April 2013 it collected data on 12 440 patients, 40.5% of them hospitalized with acute HF (AHF) and 59.5% outpatients with chronic HF (CHF). The all-cause 1-year mortality rate was 23.6% for AHF and 6.4% for CHF. The combined endpoint of mortality or HF hospitalization within 1 year had a rate of 36% for AHF and 14.5% for CHF. All-cause mortality rates in the different regions ranged from 21.6% to 36.5% in patients with AHF, and from 6.9% to 15.6% in those with CHF. These differences in mortality between regions are thought reflect differences in the characteristics and/or management of these patients. Conclusion: The ESC-HF-LT-R shows that 1-year all-cause mortality of patients with AHF is still high while the mortality of CHF is lower. This registry provides the opportunity to evaluate the management and outcomes of patients with HF and identify areas for improvement. © 2016 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2016 European Society of Cardiology

Aims: To comprehensively assess hyponatraemia in acute heart failure (AHF) regarding prevalence, associations, hospital course, and post-discharge outcomes. Methods and results: Of 8298 patients in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF with any ejection fraction, 20% presented with hyponatraemia (serum sodium <135 mmol/L). Independent predictors included lower systolic blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and haemoglobin, along with diabetes, hepatic disease, use of thiazide diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, digoxin, higher doses of loop diuretics, and non-use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers. In-hospital death occurred in 3.3%. The prevalence of hyponatraemia and in-hospital mortality with different combinations were: 9% hyponatraemia both at admission and discharge (hyponatraemia Yes/Yes, in-hospital mortality 6.9%), 11% Yes/No (in-hospital mortality 4.9%), 8% No/Yes (in-hospital mortality 4.7%), and 72% No/No (in-hospital mortality 2.4%). Correction of hyponatraemia was associated with improvement in eGFR. In-hospital development of hyponatraemia was associated with greater diuretic use and worsening eGFR but also more effective decongestion. Among hospital survivors, 12-month mortality was 19% and adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were for hyponatraemia Yes/Yes 1.60 (1.35–1.89), Yes/No 1.35 (1.14–1.59), and No/Yes 1.18 (0.96–1.45). For death or heart failure hospitalization they were 1.38 (1.21–1.58), 1.17 (1.02–1.33), and 1.09 (0.93–1.27), respectively. Conclusion: Among patients with AHF, 20% had hyponatraemia at admission, which was associated with more advanced heart failure and normalized in half of patients during hospitalization. Admission hyponatraemia (possibly dilutional), especially if it did not resolve, was associated with worse in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes. Hyponatraemia developing during hospitalization (possibly depletional) was associated with lower risk. © 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

This clinical consensus statement reviews the use of inotropic support in patients with advanced heart failure. The current guidelines only support use of inotropes in the setting of acute decompensated heart failure with evidence of organ malperfusion or shock. However, inotropic support may be reasonable in other patients with advanced heart failure without acute severe decompensation. The clinical evidence supporting use of inotropes in these situations is reviewed. Particularly, patients with persistent congestion, systemic hypoperfusion, or advanced heart failure with need for palliation, and specific situations relevant to implantation of left ventricular assist devices or heart transplantation are discussed. Traditional and novel drugs with inotropic effects are discussed and use of guideline-directed therapy during inotropic support is reviewed. Finally, home inotropic therapy is described, and palliative care and end-of-life aspects are reviewed in relation to management of ongoing inotropic support (including guidance for maintenance and weaning of chronic inotropic therapy support). © 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

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/m2), 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. © 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology

[No abstract available]