| 1. |
- Bonapace, Stefano, et al.
(författare)
-
Brachial pulse pressure in acute heart failure. Results of the Heart Failure Registry
- 2019
-
Ingår i: ESC Heart Failure. - : WILEY PERIODICALS, INC. - 2055-5822. ; 6:6, s. 1167-1177
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims To investigate the still uncertain independent prognostic impact of pulse pressure (PP) in acute heart failure (HF), in particular across the left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) phenotypes, and the potential contribution of PP in outlining the individual phenotypes. Methods and results We prospectively evaluated 1-year death and rehospitalization in 4314 patients admitted for acute HF grouped by EF and stratified by their PP level on admission. In HF with reduced (amp;lt; 40%) EF (HFrEF), the highest quartiles of PP had the lowest unadjusted [hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.98] and adjusted (HR 0.64 0.50-0.82) risk of 1 year all cause death compared to the lowest quartile. Its prognostic impact was partially mediated by systolic blood pressure (SBP). In HF with preserved (amp;gt;= 50%) EF (HFpEF), the intermediate quartile of PP showed the lowest 1 year all cause mortality in unadjusted (HR 0.598, CI 0.416-0.858) and adjusted (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.388-0.801) models with no relationship with SBP. In a receiver operating characteristic analysis, a combination of PP amp;gt; 60 mmHg and SBP amp;gt; 140 mmHg was associated to a preserved EF with a high performance value. No prognostic significance of PP was found in the HF with mid-range EF subgroup. Conclusions In acute HFrEF, there is an almost linear inverse relation between mortality and PP, partly mediated by SBP. In HFpEF, a J-shaped relationship between mortality and PP was present with a better prognosis at the nadir. A combination of PP amp;gt; 60 mmHg with SBP amp;gt; 140 mmHg may be clinically helpful as marker of a preserved left ventricular EF.
|
|
| 2. |
- Remme, Willem J, et al.
(författare)
-
Awareness and perception of heart failure among European cardiologists, internists, geriatricians, and primary care physicians.
- 2008
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 29:14, s. 1739-52
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: To assess awareness of heart failure (HF) management recommendations in Europe among cardiologists (C), internists and geriatricians (I/G), and primary care physicians (PCPs). METHODS AND RESULTS: The Study group on HF Awareness and Perception in Europe (SHAPE) surveyed randomly selected C (2041), I/G (1881), and PCP (2965) in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. Each physician completed a 32-item questionnaire about the diagnosis and treatment of HF (left ventricular ejection fraction <40%). This report provides an analysis of HF awareness among C, I/G, and PCP. Seventy-one per cent I/G and 92% C use echocardiography, and 43% I/G and 82% C use echo-Doppler as a routine diagnostic test (both P < 0.0001). In contrast, 75% PCP use signs and symptoms to diagnose HF. Fewer I/G would use an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor in >90% of their patients (64 vs. 82% C, P < 0.0001), whereas only 47% PCP would routinely prescribe an ACE-inhibitor. Worsening HF was considered a risk of ACE-inhibitor therapy by 35% PCP. I/G and PCP consistently do not prescribe target ACE-inhibitor doses (P < 0.0001 vs. C). Only 39% I/G would use a beta-blocker in >50% of their patients (vs. 73% C, P < 0.0001). Also, only 5% PCP would always, and 35% often, prescribe a beta-blocker and reach target doses in only 7-29%. Moreover, 34% PCP and 26% I/G vs. 11% C (P < 0.0001) do not start a beta-blocker in patients with mild HF, who are already on an ACE-inhibitor and are on diuretic. In mild, stable HF, 39% PCP and 18% I/G would only prescribe diuretics, vs. 7% C (P < 0.0001). In patients with worsening HF in sinus rhythm and on an optimal ACE-inhibitor, beta-blockade and diuretics, significantly more C would add spironolactone, but I/G would more often add digoxin. CONCLUSION: Although each physician group lacks complete adherence to guideline-recommended management strategies, these are used significantly less well by I, G, and PCPs, indicating the need for education of these essential healthcare providers.
|
|
