Clinical phenotypes of acute heart failure based on signs and symptoms of perfusion and congestion at emergency department presentation and their relationship with patient management and outcomes

Objective To compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with acute heart failure (AHF) according to clinical profiles based on congestion and perfusion determined in the emergency department (ED). Methods and results Overall, 11 261 unselected AHF patients from 41 Spanish EDs were classified according to perfusion (normoperfusion = warm; hypoperfusion = cold) and congestion (not = dry; yes = wet). Baseline and decompensation characteristics were recorded as were the main wards to which patients were admitted. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were need for hospitalisation during the index AHF event, in-hospital all-cause mortality, prolonged hospitalisation, 7-day post-discharge ED revisit for AHF and 30-day post-discharge rehospitalisation for AHF. A total of 8558 patients (76.0%) were warm+ wet, 1929 (17.1%) cold+ wet, 675 (6.0%) warm+ dry, and 99 (0.9%) cold+ dry; hypoperfused (cold) patients were more frequently admitted to intensive care units and geriatrics departments, and warm+ wet patients were discharged home without admission. The four phenotypes differed in most of the baseline and decompensation characteristics. The 1-year mortality was 30.8%, and compared to warm+ dry, the adjusted hazard ratios were significantly increased for cold+ wet (1.660; 95% confidence interval 1.400-1.968) and cold+ dry (1.672; 95% confidence interval 1.189-2.351). Hypoperfused (cold) phenotypes also showed higher rates of index episode hospitalisation and in-hospital mortality, while congestive (wet) phenotypes had a higher risk of prolonged hospitalisation but decreased risk of rehospitalisation. No differences were observed among phenotypes in ED revisit risk. Conclusions Bedside clinical evaluation of congestion and perfusion of AHF patients upon ED arrival and classification according to phenotypic profiles proposed by the latest European Society of Cardiology guidelines provide useful complementary information and help to rapidly predict patient outcomes shortly after ED patient arrival

Combined testing of copeptin and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T at presentation in comparison to other algorithms for rapid rule-out of acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: We aimed to directly compare the diagnostic and prognostic performance of a dual maker strategy (DMS) with combined testing of copeptin and high-sensitivity (hs) cardiac troponin T (cTnT) at time of presentation with other algorithms for rapid rule-out of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: 922 patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected AMI and available baseline copeptin measurements qualified for the present TRAPID-AMI substudy. Diagnostic measures using the DMS (copeptin <10, <14 or < 20 pmol/L and hs-cTnT≤14 ng/L), the 1 h-algorithm (hs-cTnT<12 ng/L and change <3 ng/L at 1 h), as well as the hs-cTnT limit-of-blank (LoB, <3 ng/L) and -detection (LoD, <5 ng/L) were compared. Outcomes were assessed as combined end-points of death and myocardial re-infarction. RESULTS: True-negative rule-out using the DMS could be achieved in 50.9%-62.3% of all patients compared to 35.0%, 45.3% and 64.5% using LoB, LoD or the 1 h-algorithm, respectively. The DMS showed NPVs of 98.1%-98.3% compared to 99.2% for the 1 h-algorithm, 99.4% for the LoB and 99.3% for the LoD. Sensitivities were 93.5%-94.8%, as well as 96.8%, 98.7% and 98.1%, respectively. Addition of clinical low-risk criteria such as a HEART-score ≤ 3 to the DMS resulted in NPVs and sensitivities of 100% with a true-negative rule-out to 33.8%-41.6%. Rates of the combined end-point of death/MI within 30 days ranged between 0.2% and 0.3% for all fast-rule-out protocols. CONCLUSION: Depending on the applied copeptin cut-off and addition of clinical low-risk criteria, the DMS might be an alternative to the hs-cTn-only-based algorithms for rapid AMI rule-out with comparable diagnostic measures and outcomes