| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Gheorghiade, Mihai, et al.
(författare)
-
Assessing and grading congestion in acute heart failure : a scientific statement from the acute heart failure committee of the heart failure association of the European Society of Cardiology and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.
- 2010
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 12:5, s. 423-33
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Patients with acute heart failure (AHF) require urgent in-hospital treatment for relief of symptoms. The main reason for hospitalization is congestion, rather than low cardiac output. Although congestion is associated with a poor prognosis, many patients are discharged with persistent signs and symptoms of congestion and/or a high left ventricular filling pressure. Available data suggest that a pre-discharge clinical assessment of congestion is often not performed, and even when it is performed, it is not done systematically because no method to assess congestion prior to discharge has been validated. Grading congestion would be helpful for initiating and following response to therapy. We have reviewed a variety of strategies to assess congestion which should be considered in the care of patients admitted with HF. We propose a combination of available measurements of congestion. Key elements in the measurement of congestion include bedside assessment, laboratory analysis, and dynamic manoeuvres. These strategies expand by suggesting a routine assessment of congestion and a pre-discharge scoring system. A point system is used to quantify the degree of congestion. This score offers a new instrument to direct both current and investigational therapies designed to optimize volume status during and after hospitalization. In conclusion, this document reviews the available methods of evaluating congestion, provides suggestions on how to properly perform these measurements, and proposes a method to quantify the amount of congestion present.
|
|
| 4. |
- Krum, Henry, et al.
(författare)
-
Effect on Mode of Death of Heart Failure Treatment Started with Bisoprolol Followed by Enalapril, Compared to the Opposite Order: Results of the Randomized CIBIS III Trial
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Cardiovascular Therapeutics. - : Wiley. - 1755-5914. ; 29:2, s. 89-98
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- P>Background: Mode of death in chronic heart failure (CHF) may be of relevance to choice of therapy for this condition. Sudden death is particularly common in patients with early and/or mild/moderate CHF. beta-Blockade may provide better protection against sudden death than ACE inhibition (ACEI) in this setting. Methods: We randomized 1010 patients with mild or moderate, stable CHF and left ventricular ejection fraction < 35%, without ACEI, beta-blocker or angiotensin-receptor-blocker therapy, to either bisoprolol (n = 505) or enalapril (n = 505) for 6 months, followed by their combination for 6-24 months. The two strategies were blindly compared regarding adjudicated mode of death, including sudden death and progressive pump failure death. Results: During the monotherapy phase, 8 of 23 deaths in the bisoprolol-first group were sudden, compared to 16 of 32 in the enalapril-first group: hazard ratio (HR) for sudden death 0.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-1.16; P = 0.107. At 1 year, 16 of 42 versus 29 of 60 deaths were sudden: HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.29-1.00; P = 0.049. At study end, 29 of 65 versus 34 of 73 deaths were sudden: HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.51-1.38; P = 0.487. Comparable figures for pump failure death were: monotherapy, 7 of 23 deaths versus 2 of 32: HR 3.43; 95% CI 0.71-16.53; P = 0.124, at 1 year, 13 of 42 versus 5 of 60: HR 2.57; 95% CI 0.92-7.20; P = 0.073, at study end, 17 of 65 versus 7 of 73: HR 2.39; 95% CI 0.99-5.75; P = 0.053. There were no significant between-group differences in any other fatal events. Conclusion: Initiating therapy with bisoprolol compared to enalapril decreased the risk of sudden death during the first year in this mild systolic CHF cohort. This was somewhat offset by an increase in pump failure deaths in the bisoprolol-first cohort.
|
|
| 5. |
- Sliwa, Karen, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical presentation, management, and 6-month outcomes in women with peripartum cardiomyopathy: an ESC EORP registry.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European heart journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1522-9645 .- 0195-668X. ; 41:39, s. 3787-3797
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We sought to describe the clinical presentation, management, and 6-month outcomes in women with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) globally.In 2011, >100 national and affiliated member cardiac societies of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) were contacted to contribute to a global registry on PPCM, under the auspices of the ESC EURObservational Research Programme. These societies were tasked with identifying centres who could participate in this registry. In low-income countries, e.g. Mozambique or Burkina Faso, where there are no national societies due to a shortage of cardiologists, we identified potential participants through abstracts and publications and encouraged participation into the study. Seven hundred and thirty-nine women were enrolled in 49 countries in Europe (33%), Africa (29%), Asia-Pacific (15%), and the Middle East (22%). Mean age was 31±6years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 31±10%, and 10% had a previous pregnancy complicated by PPCM. Symptom-onset occurred most often within 1month of delivery (44%). At diagnosis, 67% of patients had severe (NYHA III/IV) symptoms and 67% had a LVEF ≤35%. Fifteen percent received bromocriptine with significant regional variation (Europe 15%, Africa 26%, Asia-Pacific 8%, the Middle East 4%, P<0.001). Follow-up was available for 598 (81%) women. Six-month mortality was 6% overall, lowest in Europe (4%), and highest in the Middle East (10%). Most deaths were due to heart failure (42%) or sudden (30%). Re-admission for any reason occurred in 10% (with just over half of these for heart failure) and thromboembolic events in 7%. Myocardial recovery (LVEF > 50%) occurred only in 46%, most commonly in Asia-Pacific (62%), and least commonly in the Middle East (25%). Neonatal death occurred in 5% with marked regional variation (Europe 2%, the Middle East 9%).Peripartum cardiomyopathy is a global disease, but clinical presentation and outcomes vary by region. Just under half of women experience myocardial recovery. Peripartum cardiomyopathy is a disease with substantial maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Willenheimer, Ronnie, et al.
(författare)
-
Effect on Survival and Hospitalization of Initiating Treatment for Chronic Heart Failure With Bisoprolol Followed by Enalapril, as Compared With the Opposite Sequence. Results of the Randomized Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS) III.
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 1524-4539. ; 112:16, s. 2426-2435
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background - In patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), a beta-blocker is generally added to a regimen containing an angiotensin-converting-enzyme ( ACE) inhibitor. It is unknown whether beta-blockade as initial therapy may be as useful. Methods and Results - We randomized 1010 patients with mild to moderate CHF and left ventricular ejection fraction <= 35%, who were not receiving ACE inhibitor, beta-blocker, or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy, to open-label monotherapy with either bisoprolol ( target dose 10 mg QD; n = 505) or enalapril ( target dose 10 mg BID; n = 505) for 6 months, followed by their combination for 6 to 24 months. The 2 strategies were blindly compared with regard to the combined primary end point of all-cause mortality or hospitalization and with regard to each of these end point components individually. Bisoprolol-first treatment was noninferior to enalapril-first treatment if the upper limit of the ;95% confidence interval (CI) for the absolute between-group difference was < 5%, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.17. In the intention-to-treat sample, the primary end point occurred in 178 patients allocated to bisoprolol-first treatment versus 186 allocated to enalapril-first treatment ( absolute difference - 1.6%, 95% CI - 7.6 to 4.4%, HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.16). In the per-protocol sample, 163 patients allocated to bisoprolol-first treatment had a primary end point, versus 165 allocated to enalapril-first treatment ( absolute difference - 0.7%, 95% CI - 6.6 to 5.1%, HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.21). With bisoprolol-first treatment, 65 patients died, versus 73 with enalapril-first treatment ( HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.22), and 151 versus 157 patients were hospitalized ( HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.19). Conclusion - Although noninferiority of bisoprolol-first versus enalapril-first treatment was not proven in the per-protocol analysis, our results indicate that it may be as safe and efficacious to initiate treatment for CHF with bisoprolol as with enalapril.
|
|
