Indications and practical approach to non-invasive ventilation in acute heart failure

In acute heart failure (AHF) syndromes significant respiratory failure (RF) is essentially seen in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPE) or cardiogenic shock (CS). Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), the application of positive intrathoracic pressure through an interface, has shown to be useful in the treatment of moderate to severe RF in several scenarios. There are two main modalities of NIV: continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and pressure support ventilation (NIPSV) with positive end expiratory pressure. Appropriate equipment and experience is needed for NIPSV, whereas CPAP may be administered without a ventilator, not requiring special training. Both modalities have shown to be effective in ACPE, by a reduction of respiratory distress and the endotracheal intubation rate compared to conventional oxygen therapy, but the impact on mortality is less conclusive. Non-invasive ventilation is also indicated in patients with AHF associated to pulmonary disease and may be considered, after haemodynamic stabilization, in some patients with CS. There are no differences in the outcomes in the studies comparing both techniques, but CPAP is a simpler technique that may be preferred in low-equipped areas like the pre-hospital setting, while NIPSV may be preferable in patients with significant hypercapnia. The new modality 'high-flow nasal cannula' seems promising in cases of AHF with less severe RF. The correct selection of patients and interfaces, early application of the technique, the achievement of a good synchrony between patients and the ventilator avoiding excessive leakage, close monitoring, proactive management, and in some cases mild sedation, may warrant the success of the technique

Randomized comparison of primary stenting and provisional balloon angioplasty guided by flow velocity measurement.

BACKGROUND: Coronary stenting improves outcomes compared with balloon angioplasty, but it is costly and may have other disadvantages. Limiting stent use to patients with a suboptimal result after angioplasty (provisional angioplasty) may be as effective and less expensive. METHODS AND RESULTS: To analyze the cost-effectiveness of provisional angioplasty, patients scheduled for single-vessel angioplasty were first randomized to receive primary stenting (97 patients) or balloon angioplasty guided by Doppler flow velocity and angiography (523 patients). Patients in the latter group were further randomized after optimization to either additional stenting or termination of the procedure to further investigate what is "optimal." An optimal result was defined as a flow reserve >2.5 and a diameter stenosis <36%. Bailout stenting was needed in 129 patients (25%) who were randomized to balloon angioplasty, and an optimal result was obtained in 184 of the 523 patients (35%). There was no significant difference in event-free survival at 1 year between primary stenting (86.6%) and provisional angioplasty (85.6%). Costs after 1 year were significantly higher for provisional angioplasty (EUR 6573 versus EUR 5885; P:=0.014). Results after the second randomization showed that stenting was also more effective after optimal balloon angioplasty (1-year event free survival, 93.5% versus 84.1%; P:=0. 066). CONCLUSIONS: After 1 year of follow-up, provisional angioplasty was more expensive and without clinical benefit. The beneficial value of stenting is not limited to patients with a suboptimal result after balloon angioplasty

2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

peer reviewe

Diagnosis and risk stratification of chest pain patients in the emergency department: focus on acute coronary syndromes. A position paper of the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association.

This paper provides an update on the European Society of Cardiology task force report on the management of chest pain. Its main purpose is to provide an update on the decision algorithms and diagnostic pathways to be used in the emergency department for the assessment and triage of patients with chest pain symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes

2020 Update of the quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction : a position paper of the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care : the study group for quality indicators from the ACVC and the NSTE-ACS guideline group

Aims Quality indicators (QIs) are tools to improve the delivery of evidence-base medicine. In 2017, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) developed a set of QIs for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), which have been evaluated at national and international levels and across different populations. However, an update of these QIs is needed in light of the accumulated experience and the changes in the supporting evidence. Methods and results The ESC methodology for the QI development was used to update the 2017 ACVC QIs. We identified key domains of AMI care, conducted a literature review, developed a list of candidate QIs, and used a modified Delphi method to select the final set of indicators. The same seven domains of AMI care identified by the 2017 Study Group were retained for this update. For each domain, main and secondary QIs were developed reflecting the essential and complementary aspects of care, respectively. Overall, 26 QIs are proposed in this document, compared to 20 in the 2017 set. New QIs are proposed in this document (e.g. the centre use of high-sensitivity troponin), some were retained or modified (e.g. the in-hospital risk assessment), and others were retired in accordance with the changes in evidence [e.g. the proportion of patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) treated with fondaparinux] and the feasibility assessments (e.g. the proportion of patients with NSTEMI whom risk assessment is performed using the GRACE and CRUSADE risk scores). Conclusion Updated QIs for the management of AMI were developed according to contemporary knowledge and accumulated experience. These QIs may be applied to evaluate and improve the quality of AMI care

Recomendações Europeias para a prevenção da doença cardiovascular na prática clínica (versão de 2012)

n/