Browsing by Author "Goncalvesova, Eva (55940355200)"

Background: To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF) comparing sacubitril/valsartan to valsartan in reducing morbidity and mortality. Methods and Results: We report key demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings, and baseline therapies, of 4822 patients randomized in PARAGON-HF, grouped by factors that influence criteria for study inclusion. We further compared baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF with those patients enrolled in other recent trials of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Among patients enrolled from various regions (16% Asia-Pacific, 37% Central Europe, 7% Latin America, 12% North America, 28% Western Europe), the mean age of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF was 72.7±8.4 years, 52% of patients were female, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 57.5%, similar to other trials of HFpEF. Most patients were in New York Heart Association class II, and 38% had ≥1 hospitalizations for heart failure within the previous 9 months. Diabetes mellitus (43%) and chronic kidney disease (47%) were more prevalent than in previous trials of HFpEF. Many patients were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (85%), β-blockers (80%), calcium channel blockers (36%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (24%). As specified in the protocol, virtually all patients were on diuretics, had elevated plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (median, 911 pg/mL; interquartile range, 464-1610), and structural heart disease. Conclusions: PARAGON-HF represents a contemporary group of patients with HFpEF with similar age and sex distribution compared with prior HFpEF trials but higher prevalence of comorbidities. These findings provide insights into the impact of inclusion criteria on, and regional variation in, HFpEF patient characteristics. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711. © 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.

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

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD supported patients. Device-related, and patient–device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of LVAD implanting centres. The probability of an LVAD supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local ambulance team, emergency department medical team and internal or surgical wards in a non-LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this paper is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non-LVAD specialized physician — ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, and internists — to comply with the medical needs of this fast-growing population of LVAD supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department, and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually back to the general practitioner. © 2021 European Society of Cardiology.

The improvement in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology and scarcity of donor hearts have increased dramatically the population of the LVAD-supported patients and the probability of those patients to present to the emergency department with expected and non-expected device-related and patient–device interaction complications. The ageing of the LVAD-supported patients, mainly those supported with the ‘destination therapy’ indication, increases the risk for those patients to suffer from other co-morbidities common in the older population. In this second part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the LVAD-supported patient presenting to the emergency department with bleeding, neurological event, pump thrombosis, chest pain, syncope, and other events are presented. The very challenging issue of declaring death in an LVAD-supported patient, as the circulation is artificially preserved by the device despite no other signs of life, is also discussed in detail. © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

Aims: We analysed baseline characteristics and guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) use and decisions in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Heart Failure (HF) III Registry. Methods and results: Between 1 November 2018 and 31 December 2020, 10 162 patients with acute HF (AHF, 39%, age 70 [62–79], 36% women) or outpatient visit for HF (61%, age 66 [58–75], 33% women), with HF with reduced (HFrEF, 57%), mildly reduced (HFmrEF, 17%) or preserved (HFpEF, 26%) ejection fraction were enrolled from 220 centres in 41 European or ESC-affiliated countries. With AHF, 97% were hospitalized, 2.2% received intravenous treatment in the emergency department, and 0.9% received intravenous treatment in an outpatient clinic. AHF was seen by most by a general cardiologist (51%) and outpatient HF most by a HF specialist (48%). A majority had been hospitalized for HF before, but 26% of AHF and 6.1% of outpatient HF had de novo HF. Baseline use, initiation and discontinuation of GDMT varied according to AHF versus outpatient HF, de novo versus pre-existing HF, and by ejection fraction. After the AHF event or outpatient HF visit, use of any renin–angiotensin system inhibitor, angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor, beta-blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist and loop diuretics was 89%, 29%, 92%, 78%, and 85% in HFrEF; 89%, 9.7%, 90%, 64%, and 81% in HFmrEF; and 77%, 3.1%, 80%, 48%, and 80% in HFpEF. Conclusion: Use and initiation of GDMT was high in cardiology centres in Europe, compared to previous reports from cohorts and registries including more primary care and general medicine and regions more local or outside of Europe and ESC-affiliated countries. © 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of the LVAD-supported patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD-supported patients. The expected and non-expected device-related and patient–device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of the LVAD implanting centres. The ageing of the LVAD-supported patients, mainly those supported with the ‘destination therapy’ indication, increases the risk for those patients to experience comorbidities common in the older population. The probability of an LVAD-supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local emergency department, internal, or surgical ward of a non-LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this trilogy is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non-LVAD specialized physician: ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, internists, anaesthesiologists, and surgeons, to comply with the medical needs of this fast-growing population of LVAD-supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually to the discharge home from the hospital back to the general practitioner. In this first part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, after the introduction on the assist devices technology in general, definitions and structured approach to the assessment of the LVAD-supported patient in the ambulance and emergency department is presented including cardiopulmonary resuscitation for LVAD-supported patients. © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

The growing population of left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-supported patients increases the probability of an LVAD- supported patient hospitalized in the internal or surgical wards with certain expected device related, and patient-device interaction complication as well as with any other comorbidities requiring hospitalization. In this third part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the hospitalized LVAD-supported patient are presented including blood pressure assessment, medical therapy of the LVAD supported patient, and challenges related to anaesthesia and non-cardiac surgical interventions. Finally, important aspects to consider when discharging an LVAD patient home and palliative and end-of-life approaches are described. © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

Aims: The Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed the HFA Atlas to provide a contemporary description of heart failure (HF) epidemiology, resources, reimbursement of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and activities of the National Heart Failure Societies (NHFS) in ESC member countries. Methods and results: The HFA Atlas survey was conducted in 2018–2019 in 42 ESC countries. The quality and completeness of source data varied across countries. The median incidence of HF was 3.20 [interquartile range (IQR) 2.66–4.17] cases per 1000 person-years, ranging from ≤2 in Italy and Denmark to >6 in Germany. The median HF prevalence was 17.20 (IQR 14.30–21) cases per 1000 people, ranging from ≤12 in Greece and Spain to >30 in Lithuania and Germany. The median number of HF hospitalizations was 2671 (IQR 1771–4317) per million people annually, ranging from <1000 in Latvia and North Macedonia to >6000 in Romania, Germany and Norway. The median length of hospital stay for an admission with HF was 8.50 (IQR 7.38–10) days. Diagnostic and management resources for HF varied, with high-income ESC member countries having substantially more resources compared with middle-income countries. The median number of hospitals with dedicated HF centres was 1.16 (IQR 0.51–2.97) per million people, ranging from <0.10 in Russian Federation and Ukraine to >7 in Norway and Italy. Nearly all countries reported full or partial reimbursement of standard GDMT, except ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan. Almost all countries reported having NHFS or working groups and nearly half had HF patient organizations. Conclusions: The first report from the HFA Atlas has shown considerable heterogeneity in HF disease burden, the resources available for its management and data quality across ESC member countries. The findings emphasize the need for a systematic approach to the capture of HF statistics so that inequalities and improvements in care may be quantified and addressed. © 2021 European Society of Cardiology