104 research outputs found
Clinical profile and contemporary management of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: results from the CHECK-HF registry
Background:
Clinical management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) centres on treating comorbidities and is likely to vary between countries. Thus, to provide insight into the current management of HFpEF, studies from multiple countries are required. We evaluated the clinical profiles and current management of patients with HFpEF in the Netherlands.
Methods:
We included 2153 patients with HFpEF (defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%) from the CHECK-HF registry, which included patients from 2013 to 2016.
Results:
Median age was 77 (IQR 15) years, 55% were women and the most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (51%), renal insufficiency (45%) and atrial fibrillation (AF, 38%). Patients between 65 and 80 years and those over 80 years had on average more comorbidities (up to 64% and 74%, respectively, with two or more comorbidities) than patients younger than 65 years (38% with two or more comorbidities, p-value < 0.001). Although no specific drugs are available for HFpEF, treating comorbidities is advised. Beta-blockers were most frequently prescribed (78%), followed by loop diuretics (74%), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (67%) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs, 39%). Strongest predictors for loop-diuretic use were older age, higher New York Heart Association class and AF.
Conclusion:
The medical HFpEF profile is determined by the underlying comorbidities, sex and age. Comorbidities are highly prevalent in HFpEF patients, especially in elderly HFpEF patients. Despite the lack of evidence, many HFpEF patients receive regular beta-blockers, RAS inhibitors and MRAs, often for the treatment of comorbidities
Sex differences in the generalizability of randomized clinical trials in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction
Aims: In order to understand how sex differences impact the generalizability of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), we sought to compare clinical characteristics and clinical outcomes between RCTs and HF observational registries stratified by sex. Methods and results: Data from two HF registries and five HFrEF RCTs were used to create three subpopulations: one RCT population (n = 16 917; 21.7% females), registry patients eligible for RCT inclusion (n = 26 104; 31.8% females), and registry patients ineligible for RCT inclusion (n = 20 810; 30.2% females). Clinical endpoints included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and first HF hospitalization at 1 year. Males and females were equally eligible for trial enrolment (56.9% of females and 55.1% of males in the registries). One-year mortality rates were 5.6%, 14.0%, and 28.6% for females and 6.9%, 10.7%, and 24.6% for males in the RCT, RCT-eligible, and RCT-ineligible groups, respectively. After adjusting for 11 HF prognostic variables, RCT females showed higher survival compared to RCT-eligible females (standardized mortality ratio [SMR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.83), while RCT males showed higher adjusted mortality rates compared to RCT-eligible males (SMR 1.16; 95% CI 1.09–1.24). Similar results were also found for cardiovascular mortality (SMR 0.89; 95% CI 0.76–1.03 for females, SMR 1.43; 95% CI 1.33–1.53 for males). Conclusion: Generalizability of HFrEF RCTs differed substantially between the sexes, with females having lower trial participation and female trial participants having lower mortality rates compared to similar females in the registries, while males had higher than expected cardiovascular mortality rates in RCTs compared to similar males in registries
Reproducibility of onset and recovery oxygen uptake kinetics in moderately impaired patients with chronic heart failure
Oxygen (O2) kinetics reflect the ability to adapt to or recover from exercise that is indicative of daily life. In patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), parameters of O2 kinetics have shown to be useful for clinical purposes like grading of functional impairment and assessment of prognosis. This study compared the goodness of fit and reproducibility of previously described methods to assess O2 kinetics in these patients. Nineteen CHF patients, New York Heart Association class II–III, performed two constant-load tests on a cycle ergometer at 50% of the maximum workload. Time constants of O2 onset- and recovery kinetics (τ) were calculated by mono-exponential modeling with four different sampling intervals (5 and 10 s, 5 and 8 breaths). The goodness of fit was expressed as the coefficient of determination (R2). Onset kinetics were also evaluated by the mean response time (MRT). Considering O2 onset kinetics, τ showed a significant inverse correlation with peak-
\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{wasysym}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsbsy}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{upgreek}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}
\begin{document}
\ifmmode\expandafter\dot\else\expandafter\.\fi{V}{\text{O}}_{2} \end{document} (R = −0.88, using 10 s sampling intervals). The limits of agreement of both τ and MRT, however, were not clinically acceptable. O2 recovery kinetics yielded better reproducibility and goodness of fit. Using the most optimal sampling interval (5 breaths), a change of at least 13 s in τ is needed to exceed normal test-to-test variations. In conclusion, O2 recovery kinetics are more reproducible for clinical purposes than O2 onset kinetics in moderately impaired patients with CHF. It should be recognized that this observation cannot be assumed to be generalizable to more severely impaired CHF patients
Performance measures of the specialty referral process: a systematic review of the literature
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Performance of specialty referrals is coming under scrutiny, but a lack of identifiable measures impedes measurement efforts. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to identify published measures that assess specialty referrals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a systematic review of the literature for measures of specialty referral. Searches were made of MEDLINE and HealthSTAR databases, references of eligible papers, and citations provided by content experts. Measures were eligible if they were published from January 1973 to June 2009, reported on validity and/or reliability of the measure, and were applicable to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development healthcare systems. We classified measures according to a conceptual framework, which underwent content validation with an expert panel.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 2,964 potentially eligible papers. After abstract and full-text review, we selected 214 papers containing 244 measures. Most measures were applied in adults (57%), assessed structural elements of the referral process (60%), and collected data via survey (62%). Measures were classified into non-mutually exclusive domains: need for specialty care (N = 14), referral initiation (N = 73), entry into specialty care (N = 53), coordination (N = 60), referral type (N = 3), clinical tasks (N = 19), resource use (N = 13), quality (N = 57), and outcomes (N = 9).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Published measures are available to assess the specialty referral process, although some domains are limited. Because many of these measures have been not been extensively validated in general populations, assess limited aspects of the referral process, and require new data collection, their applicability and preference in assessment of the specialty referral process is needed.</p
Evaluation of B-type Natriuretic Peptide for validation of a heart failure register in primary care
Meeting report ESC Forum on Drug Eluting Stents, European Heart House, Nice, 27-28 September 2007
Medicine in the early twenty-first century: paradigm and anticipation - EPMA position paper 2016
Long-Term Evaluation of the Vagal Denervation by Cardioneuroablation Using Holter and Heart Rate Variability
CV7 MODELLING SURVIVAL AND COSTS IN SWITZERLAND OF NESIRITIDE VERSUS INOTROPIC THERAPY FOR ACUTE DECOMPENSATED HEART FAILURE
Differences in guideline-recommended heart failure medication between Dutch heart failure clinics: an analysis of the CHECK-HF registry
- …