Ambulatory intravenous furosemide for decompensated heart failure: safe, feasible, and effective.

AIMS: This study aims to establish the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of outpatient intravenous (IV) diuretic treatment for the management of decompensated heart failure (HF) for patients enrolled in the HeartFailure@Home service. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analysed the clinical episodes of decompensated HF for patients enrolled in the HeartFailure@Home service, managed by ambulatory IV diuretic treatment either at home or on a day-case unit. A control group consisting of HF patients admitted to hospital for IV diuretics (standard-of-care) was also evaluated. In total, 203 episodes of decompensated HF (n = 154 patients) were evaluated. One hundred and fourteen episodes in 79 patients were managed exclusively by the ambulatory IV diuretic service-78 (68.4%) on a day-case unit and 36 (31.6%) domiciliary; 84.1% of patient episodes under the HF@Home service were successfully managed entirely in an out-patient setting without hospitalization. Eleven patients required admission in order to administer higher doses of IV diuretics than could be provided in the ambulatory setting. During follow-up, there were 20 (17.5%) 30 day re-admissions with HF or death in the ambulatory IV group and 29 (32.6%) in the standard-of-care arm (P = 0.02). There was no difference in 30 day HF readmissions between the two groups (14.9% ambulatory vs. 13.5% inpatients, P = 0.8), but 30 day mortality was significantly lower in the ambulatory group (3.5% vs. 21.3% inpatients, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient ambulatory management of decompensated HF with IV diuretics given either on a day case unit or in a domiciliary setting is feasible, safe, and effective in selected patients with decompensated HF. This should be explored further as a model in delivering HF services in the outpatient setting during COVID-19

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are expensive and associated with prolonged hospitalisation: UK Retrospective Observational Study

Background There are limited reports outlining the financial cost of treating cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection outside the United States. This study aimed to determine the average treatment cost of CIED infection in a large UK tertiary referral centre and compared costs of different treatment pathways that are recognised in the management of CIED infection (early versus delayed re-implantation). Methods We retrospectively analysed cost and length of stay (LOS) data for consecutive patients undergoing infected CIED extraction with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D [with defibrillator], CRT-P [with pacemaker]), implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and permanent pacemakers (PPMs). Results Between January 2013 and March 2015, complete data was available for 84 patients (18 [21.4%] CRT-D, 24 [28.6%] ICDs and 42 [50.0%] PPMs). When all cases were considered the cost of infection ranged from £5,139 (PPM) to £24,318 (CRT-D). Considering different treatment strategies; 41 (48.8%) underwent CIED extraction and re-implantation during the same admission (early re-implant strategy (ER). 43 (51.2%) underwent extraction, but were then discharged home to be re-admitted for day-case re-implantation (delayed re-implant strategy (DR)). Median LOS was significantly shorter in DR compared to ER (5.0 vs. 18.0 days, p<0.001). The total cost of CIED infection episode was similar for both treatment strategies (median £14,241.48 vs. £14,741.70 including wearable defibrillator (Lifevest) and outpatient antibiotics costs, ER vs. DR; p = 0.491). Conclusion CIED infections are expensive and associated with significant health-economic burden. When all device types were considered, a DR strategy is associated with reduced LOS without an increased cost penalty

Early diagnosis of cardiac implantable electronic device generator pocket infection using F-18-FDG-PET/CT

Aims: To examine the utility of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) in the early diagnosis of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) generator pocket infection. Methods and results: A total of 86 patients with CIEDs were evaluated with 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging: 46 with suspected generator pocket infection and 40 without any history of infection. 18F-FDG activity in the region of the generator pocket was expressed as a semi-quantitative ratio (SQR)—defined as the maximum count rate around the CIED divided by the mean count rate between normal right and left lung parenchyma. All patients underwent standard clinical management, independent of the PET/CT result. Patients with suspected generator pocket infection that required CIED extraction (n = 32) had significantly higher 18F-FDG activity compared with those that did not (n = 14), and compared with controls (n = 40) [SQR: 4.80 (3.18–7.05) vs. 1.40 (0.88–1.73) vs. 1.10 (0.98–1.40), respectively; P 2.0 (sensitivity = 97%; specificity = 98%). Conclusion: This study highlights the potential benefits of evaluating patients with suspected CIED generator pocket infection using 18F-FDG PET/CT. In this study, 18F-FDG PET/CT had a high diagnostic accuracy in the early diagnosis of CIED generator pocket infection, even where initial clinical signs were underwhelming