Adjuvant Use of Ivabradine in Acute Heart Failure due to Myocarditis

We report two cases of young men in whom acute heart failure due to myocarditis was diagnosed. The patients had been transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) with commencing symptoms of acute heart failure and consecutive multiorgan failure for further treatment and to evaluate the indication for implantation of a ventricular assist device or for high urgent orthotopic heart transplantation. In both patients, the If-channel inhibitor ivabradine was administered off-label to provide selective heart rate reduction, and thus support hemodynamic stabilization. Though currently considered off-label use in patients suffering from severe hypotension and acute heart failure, the use of ivabradine may beneficially influence outcome by allowing optimization of the patient's heart rate concomitant to initial measures of clinical stabilization

Heart re-transplantation in Eurotransplant

Internationally 3% of the donor hearts are distributed to re-transplant patients. In Eurotransplant, only patients with a primary graft dysfunction (PGD) within 1 week after heart transplantation (HTX) are indicated for high urgency listing. The aim of this study is to provide evidence for the discussion on whether these patients should still be allocated with priority. All consecutive HTX performed in the period 1981-2015 were included. Multivariate Cox' model was built including: donor and recipient age and gender, ischaemia time, recipient diagnose, urgency status and era. The study population included 18 490 HTX, of these 463 (2.6%) were repeat transplants. The major indications for re-HTX were cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) (50%), PGD (26%) and acute rejection (21%). In a multivariate model, compared with first HTX hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval for repeat HTX were 2.27 (1.83-2.82) for PGD, 2.24 (1.76-2.85) for acute rejection and 1.22 (1.00-1.48) for CAV (P < 0.0001). Outcome after cardiac re-HTX strongly depends on the indication for re-HTX with acceptable outcomes for CAV. In contrast, just 47.5% of all hearts transplanted in patients who were re-transplanted for PGD still functioned at 1-month post-transplant. Alternative options like VA-ECMO should be first offered before opting for acute re-transplantation

Multilevel factors are associated with immunosuppressant nonadherence in heart transplant recipients: The international BRIGHT study

Factors at the level of family/healthcare worker, organization, and system are neglected in medication nonadherence research in heart transplantation (HTx). The 4-continent, 11-country cross-sectional Building Research Initiative Group: Chronic Illness Management and Adherence in Transplantation (BRIGHT) study used multistaged sampling to examine 36 HTx centers, including 36 HTx directors, 100 clinicians, and 1397 patients. Nonadherence to immunosuppressants\u2014defined as any deviation in taking or timing adherence and/or dose reduction\u2014was assessed using the Basel Assessment of Adherence to Immunosuppressive Medications Scale \ua9 (BAASIS \ua9 ) interview. Guided by the Integrative Model of Behavioral Prediction and Bronfenbrenner's ecological model, we analyzed factors at these multiple levels using sequential logistic regression analysis (6 blocks). The nonadherence prevalence was 34.1%. Six multilevel factors were associated independently (either positively or negatively) with nonadherence: patient level: barriers to taking immunosuppressants (odds ratio [OR]: 11.48); smoking (OR: 2.19); family/healthcare provider level: frequency of having someone to help patients read health-related materials (OR: 0.85); organization level: clinicians reporting nonadherent patients were targeted with adherence interventions (OR: 0.66); pickup of medications at physician's office (OR: 2.31); and policy level: monthly out-of-pocket costs for medication (OR: 1.16). Factors associated with nonadherence are evident at multiple levels. Improving medication nonadherence requires addressing not only the patient, but also family/healthcare provider, organization, and policy levels

Validation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) short form scale in heart transplant recipients: The international cross-sectional bright study

Background: Transplant recipients are chronically ill patients, who require lifelong follow-up to manage co-morbidities and prevent graft loss. This necessitates a system of care that is congruent with the Chronic Care Model. The eleven-item self-report Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) scale assesses whether chronic care is congruent with the Chronic Care Model, yet its validity for heart transplant patients has not been tested. Methods: We tested the validity of the English version of the PACIC, and compared the similarity of the internal structure of the PACIC across English-speaking countries (USA, Canada, Australia and United Kingdom) and across six languages (French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese). This was done using data from the cross-sectional international BRIGHT study that included 1378 heart transplant patients from eleven countries across 4 continents. To test the validity of the instrument, confirmatory factor analyses to check the expected unidimensional internal structure, and relations to other variables, were performed. Results: Main analyses confirmed the validity of the English PACIC version for heart transplant patients. Exploratory analyses across English-speaking countries and languages also confirmed the single factorial dimension, except in Italian and Spanish. Conclusion: This scale could help healthcare providers monitor level of chronic illness management and improve transplantation care. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT01608477, first patient enrolled in March 2012, registered retrospectively: May 30, 2012

Prognostic value of adenosine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with low-risk chest pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Approximately 5% of patients with an acute coronary syndrome are discharged from the emergency room with an erroneous diagnosis of non-cardiac chest pain. Highly accurate non-invasive stress imaging is valuable for assessment of low-risk chest pain patients to prevent these errors. Adenosine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (AS-CMR) is an imaging modality with increasing application. The goal of this study was to evaluate the negative prognostic value of AS-CMR among low-risk acute chest pain patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We studied 103 patients, mean 56.7 ± 12.3 years of age, with chest pain and no electrocardiographic evidence of ischemia and negative cardiac biomarkers of necrosis, who were admitted to the Cardiac Decision Unit of our institution. All patients underwent AS-CMR. A negative AS-CMR was defined as absence of all the following: regional wall motion abnormalities at rest; perfusion defects during stress (adenosine) and rest; and myocardial scar on late gadolinium enhancement images. The patients were followed for a mean of 277 (range 161-462) days. The primary end point was defined as the combination of cardiac death, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, re-hospitalization for chest pain, obstructive coronary artery disease (>50% coronary stenosis on invasive angiography) and coronary revascularization.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 14 patients (13.6%), AS-CMR was positive. The remaining 89 patients (86.4%), who had negative AS-CMR, were discharged. No patient with negative AS-CMR reached the primary end-point during follow-up. The negative predictive value of AS-CMR was 100%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>AS-CMR holds promise as a useful tool to rule out significant coronary artery disease in patients with low-risk chest pain. Patients with negative AS-CMR have an excellent short and mid-term prognosis.</p

Review of journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance 2010

There were 75 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2010, which is a 34% increase in the number of articles since 2009. The quality of the submissions continues to increase, and the editors were delighted with the recent announcement of the JCMR Impact Factor of 4.33 which showed a 90% increase since last year. Our acceptance rate is approximately 30%, but has been falling as the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. Last year for the first time, the Editors summarized the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, which we felt would be useful to practitioners of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) so that you could review areas of interest from the previous year in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles [1]. This experiment proved very popular with a very high rate of downloading, and therefore we intend to continue this review annually. The papers are presented in themes and comparison is drawn with previously published JCMR papers to identify the continuity of thought and publication in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality manuscripts to JCMR for publication