Pre-hospital management protocols and perceived difficulty in diagnosing acute heart failure

Aim To illustrate the pre-hospital management arsenals and protocols in different EMS units, and to estimate the perceived difficulty of diagnosing suspected acute heart failure (AHF) compared with other common pre-hospital conditions. Methods and results A multinational survey included 104 emergency medical service (EMS) regions from 18 countries. Diagnostic and therapeutic arsenals related to AHF management were reported for each type of EMS unit. The prevalence and contents of management protocols for common medical conditions treated pre-hospitally was collected. The perceived difficulty of diagnosing AHF and other medical conditions by emergency medical dispatchers and EMS personnel was interrogated. Ultrasound devices and point-of-care testing were available in advanced life support and helicopter EMS units in fewer than 25% of EMS regions. AHF protocols were present in 80.8% of regions. Protocols for ST-elevation myocardial infarction, chest pain, and dyspnoea were present in 95.2, 80.8, and 76.0% of EMS regions, respectively. Protocolized diagnostic actions for AHF management included 12-lead electrocardiogram (92.1% of regions), ultrasound examination (16.0%), and point-of-care testings for troponin and BNP (6.0 and 3.5%). Therapeutic actions included supplementary oxygen (93.2%), non-invasive ventilation (80.7%), intravenous furosemide, opiates, nitroglycerine (69.0, 68.6, and 57.0%), and intubation 71.5%. Diagnosing suspected AHF was considered easy to moderate by EMS personnel and moderate to difficult by emergency medical dispatchers (without significant differences between de novo and decompensated heart failure). In both settings, diagnosis of suspected AHF was considered easier than pulmonary embolism and more difficult than ST-elevation myocardial infarction, asthma, and stroke. Conclusions The prevalence of AHF protocols is rather high but the contents seem to vary. Difficulty of diagnosing suspected AHF seems to be moderate compared with other pre-hospital conditions

Kinetics of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 in cardiogenic shock - Insights from the CardShock study

Background: Inflammatory responses play an important role in the pathophysiology of cardiogenic shock (CS). The aim of this study was to investigate the kinetics of procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) in CS and to assess their relation to clinical presentation, other biochemical variables, and prognosis. Methods: Levels of PCT, CRP and IL-6 were analyzed in serial plasma samples (0-120h) from 183 patients in the CardShock study. The study population was dichotomized by PCTmax >= and < 0.5 mu g/L, and IL-6 and CRPmax above/below median. Results: PCT peaked already at 24 h [median PCTmax 0.71 mu g/L (IQR 0.24-3.4)], whereas CRP peaked later between 48 and 72 h [median CRPmax 137mg/L (59-247)]. PCT levels were significantly higher among non-survivors compared with survivors from 12 h on, as were CRP levels from 24 h on (p < 0.001). PCTmax >= 0.5 mu g/L (60% of patients) was associated with clinical signs of systemic hypoperfusion, cardiac and renal dysfunction, acidosis, and higher levels of blood lactate, IL-6, growth-differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15), and CRPmax. Similarly, IL-6 > median was associated with clinical signs and biochemical findings of systemic hypoperfusion. PCTmax >= 0.5 mu g/L and IL-6 > median were associated with increased 90-day mortality (50% vs. 30% and 57% vs. 22%, respectively; p < 0.01 for both), while CRPmax showed no prognostic significance. The association of inflammatory markers with clinical infections was modest. Conclusions: Inflammatory markers are highly related to signs of systemic hypoperfusion in CS. Moreover, high PCT and IL-6 levels are associated with poor prognosis. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Epinephrine and short-term survival in cardiogenic shock: an individual data meta-analysis of 2583 patients (vol 44, pg 847, 2018)

Because of a technical error, the code corresponding to the outcome for the Basir et al. cohort was mis-implemented in the original version of our article. Characteristics of the cohort are in fact the followings