Browsing by Author "Thiele, Holger (57223640812)"

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multifactorial clinical syndrome with extremely high mortality, developing as a continuum, and progressing from the initial insult (underlying cause) to the subsequent occurrence of organ failure and death. There is a large spectrum of CS presentations resulting from the interaction between an acute cardiac insult and a patient's underlying cardiac and overall medical condition. Phenotyping patients with CS may have clinical impact on management because classification would support initiation of appropriate therapies. CS management should consider appropriate organization of the health care services, and therapies must be given to the appropriately selected patients, in a timely manner, whilst avoiding iatrogenic harm. Although several consensus-driven algorithms have been proposed, CS management remains challenging and substantial investments in research and development have not yielded proof of efficacy and safety for most of the therapies tested, and outcome in this condition remains poor. Future studies should consider the identification of the new pathophysiological targets, and high-quality translational research should facilitate incorporation of more targeted interventions in clinical research protocols, aimed to improve individual patient outcomes. Designing outcome clinical trials in CS remains particularly challenging in this critical and very costly scenario in cardiology, but information from these trials is imperiously needed to better inform the guidelines and clinical practice. The goal of this review is to summarize the current knowledge concerning the definition, epidemiology, underlying causes, pathophysiology and management of CS based on important lessons from clinical trials and registries, with a focus on improving in-hospital management. © 2020 European Society of Cardiology

Aims: Since its emergence in early 2020, the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has reached pandemic levels, and there have been repeated outbreaks across the globe. The aim of this two part series is to provide practical knowledge and guidance to aid clinicians in the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular (CV) disease in association with COVID-19. Methods and results: A narrative literature review of the available evidence has been performed, and the resulting information has been organized into two parts. The first, which was reported previously, focused on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and diagnosis of CV conditions that may be manifest in patients with COVID-19. This second part addresses the topics of: care pathways and triage systems and management and treatment pathways, both of the most commonly encountered CV conditions and of COVID-19; and information that may be considered useful to help patients with CV disease (CVD) to avoid exposure to COVID-19. Conclusion: This comprehensive review is not a formal guideline but rather a document that provides a summary of current knowledge and guidance to practicing clinicians managing patients with CVD and COVID-19. The recommendations are mainly the result of observations and personal experience from healthcare providers. Therefore, the information provided here may be subject to change with increasing knowledge, evidence from prospective studies, and changes in the pandemic. Likewise, the guidance provided in the document should not interfere with recommendations provided by local and national healthcare authorities. © The European Society of Cardiology 2021. All rights reserved.

Aims: Since its emergence in early 2020, the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has reached pandemic levels, and there have been repeated outbreaks across the globe. The aim of this two part series is to provide practical knowledge and guidance to aid clinicians in the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular (CV) disease in association with COVID-19. Methods and results: A narrative literature review of the available evidence has been performed, and the resulting information has been organized into two parts. The first, which was reported previously, focused on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and diagnosis of CV conditions that may be manifest in patients with COVID-19. This second part addresses the topics of: care pathways and triage systems and management and treatment pathways, both of the most commonly encountered CV conditions and of COVID-19; and information that may be considered useful to help patients with CV disease (CVD) to avoid exposure to COVID-19. Conclusion: This comprehensive review is not a formal guideline but rather a document that provides a summary of current knowledge and guidance to practicing clinicians managing patients with CVD and COVID-19. The recommendations are mainly the result of observations and personal experience from healthcare providers. Therefore, the information provided here may be subject to change with increasing knowledge, evidence from prospective studies, and changes in the pandemic. Likewise, the guidance provided in the document should not interfere with recommendations provided by local and national healthcare authorities. © 2021 The European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

Aims: Since its emergence in early 2020, the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has reached pandemic levels, and there have been repeated outbreaks across the globe. The aim of this two-part series is to provide practical knowledge and guidance to aid clinicians in the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in association with COVID-19. Methods and results: A narrative literature review of the available evidence has been performed, and the resulting information has been organized into two parts. The first, reported here, focuses on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and diagnosis of cardiovascular (CV) conditions that may be manifest in patients with COVID-19. The second part, which will follow in a later edition of the journal, addresses the topics of care pathways, treatment, and follow-up of CV conditions in patients with COVID-19. Conclusion: This comprehensive review is not a formal guideline but rather a document that provides a summary of current knowledge and guidance to practicing clinicians managing patients with CVD and COVID-19. The recommendations are mainly the result of observations and personal experience from healthcare providers. Therefore, the information provided here may be subject to change with increasing knowledge, evidence from prospective studies, and changes in the pandemic. Likewise, the guidance provided in the document should not interfere with recommendations provided by local and national healthcare authorities. © 2021 The European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

Aims:Since its emergence in early 2020, the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has reached pandemic levels, and there have been repeated outbreaks across the globe. The aim of this two-part series is to provide practical knowledge and guidance to aid clinicians in the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in association with COVID-19. Methods and results: A narrative literature review of the available evidence has been performed, and the resulting information has been organized into two parts. The first, reported here, focuses on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and diagnosis of cardiovascular (CV) conditions that may be manifest in patients with COVID-19. The second part, which will follow in a later edition of the journal, addresses the topics of care pathways, treatment, and follow-up of CV conditions in patients with COVID-19. Conclusion: This comprehensive review is not a formal guideline but rather a document that provides a summary of current knowledge and guidance to practicing clinicians managing patients with CVD and COVID-19. The recommendations are mainly the result of observations and personal experience from healthcare providers. Therefore, the information provided here may be subject to change with increasing knowledge, evidence from prospective studies, and changes in the pandemic. Likewise, the guidance provided in the document should not interfere with recommendations provided by local and national healthcare authorities. © The European Society of Cardiology 2021. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: The role of fibrinolytic therapy in patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism is controversial. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, we compared tenecteplase plus heparin with placebo plus heparin in normotensive patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Eligible patients had right ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography or computed tomography, as well as myocardial injury as indicated by a positive test for cardiac troponin I or troponin T. The primary outcome was death or hemodynamic decompensation (or collapse) within 7 days after randomization. The main safety outcomes were major extracranial bleeding and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke within 7 days after randomization. RESULTS: Of 1006 patients who underwent randomization, 1005 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Death or hemodynamic decompensation occurred in 13 of 506 patients (2.6%) in the tenecteplase group as compared with 28 of 499 (5.6%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.87; P = 0.02). Between randomization and day 7, a total of 6 patients (1.2%) in the tenecteplase group and 9 (1.8%) in the placebo group died (P = 0.42). Extracranial bleeding occurred in 32 patients (6.3%) in the tenecteplase group and 6 patients (1.2%) in the placebo group (P<0.001). Stroke occurred in 12 patients (2.4%) in the tenecteplase group and was hemorrhagic in 10 patients; 1 patient (0.2%) in the placebo group had a stroke, which was hemorrhagic (P = 0.003). By day 30, a total of 12 patients (2.4%) in the tenecteplase group and 16 patients (3.2%) in the placebo group had died (P = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism, fibrinolytic therapy prevented hemodynamic decompensation but increased the risk of major hemorrhage and stroke. Copyright © 2014 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

[No abstract available]

Aims: Anaemia and iron deficiency (ID) are common comorbidities in cardiovascular patients and are associated with a poor clinical status, as well as a worse outcome in patients with heart failure and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Nevertheless, data concerning the impact of anaemia and ID on clinical outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) are scarce. This study aimed to assess the impact of anaemia and ID on clinical outcomes in patients with CS complicating AMI. Methods and results: The presence of anaemia (haemoglobin <13 g/dl in men and <12 g/dl in women) or ID (ferritin <100 ng/ml or transferrin saturation <20%) was determined in patients with CS due to AMI from the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial. Blood samples were collected in the catheterization laboratory during initial percutaneous coronary intervention. Clinical outcomes were compared in four groups of patients having neither anaemia nor ID, against patients with anaemia with or without ID and patients with ID only. A total of 427 CS patients were included in this analysis. Anaemia without ID was diagnosed in 93 (21.7%), anaemia with ID in 54 study participants (12.6%), ID without anaemia in 72 patients (16.8%), whereas in 208 patients neither anaemia nor ID was present (48.9%). CS patients with anaemia without ID were older (73 ± 10 years, p = 0.001), had more frequently a history of arterial hypertension (72.8%, p = 0.01), diabetes mellitus (47.8%, p = 0.001), as well as chronic kidney disease (14.1%, p = 0.004) compared to CS patients in other groups. Anaemic CS patients without ID presence were at higher risk to develop a composite from all-cause death or renal replacement therapy at 30-day follow-up (odds ratio [OR] 3.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23–6.62, p < 0.001) than CS patients without anaemia/ID. The presence of ID in CS patients, with and without concomitant anaemia, did not increase the risk for the primary outcome (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.64–2.13, p = 0.64; and OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59–1.73, p = 0.54; respectively) within 30 days of follow-up. In time-to-event Kaplan–Meier analysis, anaemic CS patients without ID had a significantly higher hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.52–2.89, p < 0.001), as well as for death from any cause (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36–2.65, p < 0.001) and renal replacement therapy during 30-day follow-up (HR 2.99, 95% CI 1.69–5.31, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Concomitant anaemia without ID presence in patients with CS at hospital presentation is associated with higher risk for death from any cause or renal replacement therapy and the individual components of this composite endpoint within 30 days after hospitalization. ID has no relevant impact on clinical outcomes in patients with CS. © 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

Iron deficiency is a major heart failure co-morbidity present in about 50% of patients with stable heart failure irrespective of the left ventricular function. Along with compromise of daily activities, it also increases patient morbidity and mortality, which is independent of anaemia. Several trials have established parenteral iron supplementation as an important complimentary therapy to improve patient well-being and physical performance. Intravenous iron preparations, in the first-line ferric carboxymaltose, demonstrated in previous clinical trials superior clinical effect in comparison with oral iron preparations, improving New York Heart Association functional class, 6 min walk test distance, peak oxygen consumption, and quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure. Beneficial effect of iron deficiency treatment on morbidity and mortality of heart failure patients is waiting for conformation in ongoing trials. Although the current guidelines for treatment of chronic and acute heart failure acknowledge importance of iron deficiency correction and recommend intravenous iron supplementation for its treatment, iron deficiency remains frequently undertreated and insufficiently diagnosed in setting of the chronic heart failure. This paper highlights the current state of the art in the pathophysiology of iron deficiency, associations with heart failure trajectory and outcome, and an overview of current guideline-suggested treatment options. © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

Background A routine invasive strategy is recommended for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS). However, optimal timing of invasive strategy is less clearly defined. Individual clinical trials were underpowered to detect a mortality benefit; we therefore did a meta-analysis to assess the effect of timing on mortality. Methods We identified randomised controlled trials comparing an early versus a delayed invasive strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. We included trials that reported all-cause mortality at least 30 days after in-hospital randomisation and for which the trial investigators agreed to collaborate (ie, providing individual patient data or standardised tabulated data). We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) using random-effects models. This meta-analysis is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42015018988). Findings We included eight trials (n=5324 patients) with a median follow-up of 180 days (IQR 180–360). Overall, there was no significant mortality reduction in the early invasive group compared with the delayed invasive group HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·64–1·03; p=0·0879). In pre-specified analyses of high-risk patients, we found lower mortality with an early invasive strategy in patients with elevated cardiac biomarkers at baseline (HR 0·761, 95% CI 0·581–0·996), diabetes (0·67, 0·45–0·99), a GRACE risk score more than 140 (0·70, 0·52–0·95), and aged 75 years older (0·65, 0·46–0·93), although tests for interaction were inconclusive. Interpretation An early invasive strategy does not reduce mortality compared with a delayed invasive strategy in all patients with NSTE-ACS. However, an early invasive strategy might reduce mortality in high-risk patients. Funding None. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd

Acute heart failure is a fatal syndrome. Emergency physicians, cardiologists, intensivists, nurses and other health care providers have to cooperate to provide optimal benefit. However, many treatment decisions are opinion-based and few are evidenced-based. This consensus paper provides guidance to practicing physicians and nurses to manage acute heart failure in the pre-hospital and hospital setting. Criteria of hospitalization and of discharge are described. Gaps in knowledge and perspectives in the management of acute heart failure are also detailed. This consensus paper on acute heart failure might help enable contiguous practice. © 2015 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2015 European Society of Cardiology.

[No abstract available]

Cardiogenic shock (CS) represents one of the foremost concerns in the field of acute cardiovascular medicine. Despite major advances in treatment, mortality of CS remains high. International societies recommend the development of expert CS centers with standardized protocols for CS diagnosis and treatment. In these terms, devices for temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) can be used to support the compromised circulation and could improve clinical outcome in selected patient populations presenting with CS. In the past years, we have witnessed an immense increase in the utilization of MCS devices to improve the clinical problem of low cardiac output. Although some treatment guidelines include the use of temporary MCS up to now no large randomized controlled trial confirmed a reduction in mortality in CS patients after MCS and additional research evidence is necessary to fully comprehend the clinical value of MCS in CS. In this article, we provide an overview of the most important diagnostic and therapeutic modalities in CS with the main focus on contemporary MCS devices, current state of art and scientific evidence for its clinical application and outline directions of future research efforts. © 2021 Elsevier Inc.