| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Lenzen, M., et al.
(author)
-
Pharmacological treatment and perceived health status during 1-year follow up in patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease, but ineligible for revascularization. Results from the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization
- 2006
-
In: European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1474-5151 .- 1873-1953. ; 5:2, s. 115-121
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: It has been recognized that a clinically significant portion of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) continue to experience anginal and other related symptoms that are refractory to the combination of medical therapy and revascularization. The Euro Heart Survey on Revascularization (EHSCR) provided an opportunity to assess pharmacological treatment and outcome in patients with proven CAD who were ineligible for revascularization. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of EHS-CR data. After excluding patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and those in whom revascularization was not indicated, 4409 patients remained in the analyses. We selected two groups: (1) patients in whom revascularization was the preferred treatment option (n = 3777, 86%), and (2) patients who were considered ineligible for revascularization (n = 632, 14%). Results: Patient ineligible for revascularization had a worse risk profile, more often had a total occlusion (59% vs. 37%, p < 0.001), were treated more often with ACE-inhibitors (65% vs. 55%, p < 0.001) but less likely with aspirin (83% vs. 88%, p < 0.001). Overall, they had higher case-fatality at 1-year (7.0% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.001). Regarding self-perceived health status, measured via the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire, these same patients reported more problems on all dimensions of the EQ-5D. Furthermore, in the revascularization group we observed an increase between discharge and 1-year follow up (utility score from 0.85 to 1.00) whereas patients ineligible for revascularization did not improve over time (utility score remained 0.80). Conclusion: In this large cohort of European patients with CAD, those considered ineligible for revascularization had more co-morbidities and risk factors, and scored worse on self-perceived health status as compared to revascularized patients in the revascularization group. With the exception of ACE-inhibitors and aspirin, there were no major differences regarding drug treatment between the two groups. Given these clinically significant observations, there appears to be a role for nurse-led, multidisciplinary, rehabilitation teams that target clinically vulnerable patients whose symptoms remain refractory to standard medical care. © 2006 European Society of Cardiology.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Jaarsma, T, et al.
(author)
-
Heart failure management programmes in Europé
- 2006
-
In: European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1474-5151 .- 1873-1953. ; 5:3, s. 197-205
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: The ESC guidelines recommend that an organised system of specialist heart failure (HF) care should be established to improve outcomes of HF patients. The aim of this study was therefore to identify the number and the content of HF management programmes in Europe. Method: A two-phase descriptive study was conducted: an initial screening to identify the existence of HF management programmes, and a survey to describe the content in countries where at least 30% of the hospitals had a programme. Results: Of the 43 European countries approached, 26 (60%) estimated the percentage of HF management programmes. Seven countries reported that they had such programmes in more than 30% of their hospitals. Of the 673 hospitals responding to the questionnaire, 426 (63%) had a HF management programme. Half of the programmes (n = 205) were located in an outpatient clinic. In the UK a combination of hospital and home-based programmes was common (75%). The most programmes included physical examination, telephone consultation, patient education, drug titration and diagnostic testing. Most (89%) programmes involved nurses and physicians. Multi-disciplinary teams were active in 56% of the HF programmes. The most prominent differences between the 7 countries were the degree of collaboration with home care and GP's, the role in palliative care and the funding. Conclusion: Only a few European countries have a large number of organised programmes for HF care and follow up. To improve outcomes of HF patients throughout Europe more effort should be taken to increase the number of these programmes in all countries. © 2006 European Society of Cardiology.
|
|
| 6. |
- Lenzen, M. J., et al.
(author)
-
Differences between patients with a preserved and a depressed left ventricular function: a report from the EuroHeart Failure Survey
- 2004
-
In: European heart journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X. ; 25:14, s. 1214-20
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- AIMS: Due to a lack of clinical trials, scientific evidence regarding the management of patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left ventricular function (PLVF) is scarce. The EuroHeart Failure Survey provided information on the characteristics, treatment and outcomes of patients with PLVF as compared to patients with a left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a secondary analysis using data from the EuroHeart Failure Survey, only including patients with a measurement of LV function (n = 6806). We selected two groups: patients with LVSD (54%) and patients with a PLVF (46%). Patients with a PLVF were, on average, 4 years older and more often women (55% vs. 29%, respectively, p < 0.001) as compared to LVSD patients, and were more likely to have hypertension (59% vs. 50%, p < 0.001) and atrial fibrillation (25% vs. 23%, p = 0.01). PLVF patients received less cardiovascular medication compared to PLVF patients, with the exception of calcium antagonists. Multivariate analysis revealed that LVSD was an independent predictor for mortality, while no differences in treatment effect on mortality between the two groups was observed. A sensitivity analysis, using different thresholds to separate patients with and without LVSD revealed comparable findings. CONCLUSIONS: In the EuroHeart Failure Survey, a high percentage of heart failure patients had PLVF. Although major clinical differences were seen between the groups, morbidity and mortality was high in both groups.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Rivero-Ayerza, M., et al.
(author)
-
New-onset atrial fibrillation is an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality in hospitalized heart failure patients: results of the EuroHeart Failure Survey
- 2008
-
In: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 29:13, s. 1618-1624
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Aims The prognostic significance of atrial fibrillation (AF) in hospitalized patients with heart failure (HF) remains poorly understood. To evaluate in what way AF and its different modes of presentation affect the in-hospital mortality in patients admitted with HF. Methods and results The EuroHeart Failure Survey was conducted to ascertain how hospitalized HF patients are managed in Europe. The survey enrolled patients over a 6-week period in 115 hospitals from 24 countries. For this analysis, patients were categorized into three groups according to the type of AF, previous AF (patients known to have had AF prior to admission), new-onset AF (no previous AF with AF diagnosed during hospitalization), and no AF (no previous AF and no AF during hospitalization). Clinical variables, duration of hospitalization, and in-hospital survival status were assessed and compared among groups. Of the 10 701 patients included in the survey; 6027 (57%) had no AF, 3673 (34%) had previous AF, and 1001 (9%) had new-onset AF. Patients with new-onset AF had a longer stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) when compared with previous AF and no AF patients (mean 2.6 +/- 5.3, 1.2 +/- 3.5, and 1.5 +/- 4.1 days, respectively; P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher among patients with new-onset AF when compared with previous AF or no AF patients (12, 7, and 7% respectively; P < 0.001). After adjusting for multiple clinical variables, new-onset AF (not previous AF) was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.53, 95% CI 1.1-2.0). Conclusion In hospitalized patients with HF, new-onset AF is an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality and a longer ICU and hospital stay.
|
|
