Outcomes of patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure: does nesiritide make a difference?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Nesiritide is indicated in the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure. However, a recent meta-analysis reported that nesiritide may be associated with an increased risk of death. Our goal was to evaluate the impact of nesiritide treatment on four outcomes among adults hospitalized for congestive heart failure (CHF) during a three-year period.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>CHF patients discharged between 1/1/2002 and 12/31/2004 from the Adventist Health System, a national, not-for-profit hospital system, were identified. 25,330 records were included in this retrospective study. Nesiritide odds ratios (OR) were adjusted for various factors including nine medications and/or an APR-DRG severity score.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Initially, treatment with nesiritide was found to be associated with a 59% higher odds of hospital mortality (Unadjusted OR = 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31–1.93). Adjusting for race, low economic status, APR-DRG severity of illness score, and the receipt of nine medications yielded a nonsignificant nesiritide OR of 1.07 for hospital death (95% CI: 0.85–1.35). Nesiritide was positively associated with the odds of prolonged length of stay (all adjusted ORs = 1.66) and elevated pharmacy cost (all adjusted ORs > 5).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this observational study, nesiritide therapy was associated with increased length of stay and pharmacy cost, but not hospital mortality. Randomized trials are urgently needed to better define the efficacy, if any, of nesiritide in the treatment of decompensated heart failure.</p

Dyspnoea and worsening heart failure in patients with acute heart failure: results from the Pre-RELAX-AHF study

Although dyspnoea is the most common cause of admission for acute heart failure (AHF), more needs to be known about its clinical course and prognostic significance. The Pre-RELAX-AHF study randomized 232 subjects with AHF to placebo or four doses of relaxin and evaluated early (6-24 h Likert scale) and persistent [change in visual analogue scale area under the curve (VAS AUC) through Day 5] dyspnoea relief. Worsening heart failure (WHF) was defined as worsening AHF signs and symptoms requiring additional therapy. Patients were followed until Day 180. Early dyspnoea relief was observed in only 25% of all patients, and VAS AUC at 5 days was 45% over baseline values in all patients (32% placebo; 50% all relaxin-treated patients). Worsening heart failure to Day 5 was observed in 16% of all patients (21% placebo; 14% relaxin). Lack of persistent dyspnoea relief and WHF were associated with a longer length of initial hospital stay and worse 60-day outcomes. Dyspnoea relief in patients admitted with AHF is often incomplete, and many may show WHF after the initial stabilization. Both lack of persistent dyspnoea relief and in-hospital WHF predict a longer length of stay and worse outcome

Vasodilators in the treatment of acute heart failure: what we know, what we don’t

Although we have recently witnessed substantial progress in management and outcome of patients with chronic heart failure, acute heart failure (AHF) management and outcome have not changed over almost a generation. Vasodilators are one of the cornerstones of AHF management; however, to a large extent, none of those currently used has been examined by large, placebo-controlled, non-hemodynamic monitored, prospective randomized studies powered to assess the effects on outcomes, in addition to symptoms. In this article, we will discuss the role of vasodilators in AHF trying to point out which are the potentially best indications to their administration and which are the pitfalls which may be associated with their use. Unfortunately, most of this discussion is only partially evidence based due to lack of appropriate clinical trials. In general, we believe that vasodilators should be administered early to AHF patients with normal or high blood pressure (BP) at presentation. They should not be administered to patients with low BP since they may cause hypotension and hypoperfusion of vital organs, leading to renal and/or myocardial damage which may further worsen patients’ outcome. It is not clear whether vasodilators have a role in either patients with borderline BP at presentation (i.e., low-normal) or beyond the first 1–2 days from presentation. Given the limitations of the currently available clinical trial data, we cannot recommend any specific agent as first line therapy, although nitrates in different formulations are still the most widely used in clinical practice