Ferenc Follath

ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the ESC (HFA) and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM).

Authors/Task Force Members: Kenneth Dickstein (Chairperson) (Norway)*, Alain Cohen-Solal (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), John J.V. McMurray (UK), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Philip Alexander Poole-Wilson (UK), Anna Strömberg (Sweden), Dirk J. van Veldhuisen (The Netherlands), Dan Atar (Norway), Arno W. Hoes (The Netherlands), Andre Keren (Israel), Alexandre Mebazaa (France), Markku Nieminen (Finland), Silvia Giuliana Priori (Italy), Karl Swedberg (Sweden)

The EuroHeart Failure survey programme-- a survey on the quality of care among patients with heart failure in Europe. Part 1: patient characteristics and diagnosis.

BACKGROUND The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has published guidelines for the investigation of patients with suspected heart failure and, if the diagnosis is proven, their subsequent management. Hospitalisation provides a key point of care at which time diagnosis and treatment may be refined to improve outcome for a group of patients with a high morbidity and mortality. However, little international data exists to describe the features and management of such patients. Accordingly, the EuroHeart Failure survey was conducted to ascertain if appropriate tests were being performed with which to confirm or refute a diagnosis of heart failure and how this influenced subsequent management. METHODS The survey screened consecutive deaths and discharges during 2000-2001 predominantly from medical wards over a 6-week period in 115 hospitals from 24 countries belonging to the ESC, to identify patients with known or suspected heart failure. RESULTS A total of 46788 deaths and discharges were screened from which 11327 (24%) patients were enrolled with suspected or confirmed heart failure. Forty-seven percent of those enrolled were women. Fifty-one percent of women and 30% of men were aged >75 years. Eighty-three percent of patients had a diagnosis of heart failure made on or prior to the index admission. Heart failure was the principal reason for admission in 40%. The great majority of patients (>90%) had had an ECG, chest X-ray, haemoglobin and electrolytes measured as recommended in ESC guidelines, but only 66% had ever had an echocardiogram. Left ventricular ejection fraction had been measured in 57% of men and 41% of women, usually by echocardiography (84%) and was <40% in 51% of men but only in 28% of women. Forty-five percent of women and 22% of men were reported to have normal left ventricular systolic function by qualitative echocardiographic assessment. A substantial proportion of patients had alternative explanations for heart failure other than left ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction, including valve disease. Within 12 weeks of discharge, 24% of patients had been readmitted. A total of 1408 of 10434 (13.5%) patients died between admission and 12 weeks follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Known or suspected heart failure comprises a large proportion of admissions to medical wards and such patients are at high risk of early readmission and death. Many of the basic investigations recommended by the ESC were usually carried out, although it is not clear whether this was by design or part of a general routine for all patients being admitted regardless of diagnosis. The investigation most specific for patients with suspected heart failure (echocardiography) was performed less frequently, suggesting that the diagnosis of heart failure is still relatively neglected. Most men but a minority of women who underwent investigation of cardiac function had evidence of moderate or severe left ventricular dysfunction, the main target of current advances in the treatment of heart failure. Considerable diagnostic uncertainty remains for many patients with suspected heart failure, even after echocardiography, which must be resolved in order to target existing and new therapies and services effectively.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous levosimendan compared with dobutamine in severe low-output heart failure (the LIDO study): a randomised double-blind trial

BACKGROUND Levosimendan, a novel calcium sensitiser, improves myocardial contractility without causing an increase in myocardial oxygen demand. We compared the effects of levosimendan and dobutamine on haemodynamic performance and clinical outcome in patients with low-output heart failure. METHODS Patients were recruited into a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial. Under continuous haemodynamic monitoring, an initial loading dose of levosimendan of 24 microg/kg was infused over 10 min, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.1 microg kg(-1) min(-1) for 24 h. Dobutamine was infused for 24 h at an initial dose of 5 microg kg(-1) min(-1) without a loading dose. The infusion rate was doubled if the response was inadequate at 2h. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with haemodynamic improvement (defined as an increase of 30% or more in cardiac output and a decrease of 25% or more in pulmonary-capillary wedge pressure) at 24 h. Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS 103 patients were assigned levosimendan and 100 dobutamine. The primary haemodynamic endpoint was achieved in 29 (28%) levosimendan-group patients and 15 (15%) in the dobutamine group (hazard ratio 1.9 [95% CI 1.1-3.3]; p=0.022). At 180 days, 27 (26%) levosimendan-group patients had died, compared with 38 (38%) in the dobutamine group (0.57 [0.34-0.95]; p=0.029). INTERPRETATION In patients with severe, low-output heart failure, levosimendan improved haemodynamic performance more effectively than dobutamine. This benefit was accompanied by lower mortality in the levosimendan group than in the dobutamine group for up to 180 days.

Effect of antiarrhythmic therapy on mortality in survivors of myocardial infarction with asymptomatic complex ventricular arrhythmias: Basel antiarrhythmic study of infarct survival (BASIS)

In view of the high risk of sudden cardiac death and the prognostic importance of complex ventricular ectopic activity, the effects of prophylactic antiarrhythmic treatment were investigated prospectively in patients with persisting asymptomatic complex arrhythmias after myocardial infarction. End points were total mortality and arrhythmic events (sudden death, sustained ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation). Of 1,220 consecutively screened survivors of myocardial infarction, 312 had Lown class 3 or 4b arrhythmia on 24 h electrocardiographic recordings before hospital discharge and consented to the study. They were randomized to individualized antiarrhythmic treatment (Group 1, n = 100), treatment with low dose amiodarone, 200 mg/day (Group 2, n = 98) or no antiarrhythmic therapy (Group 3 [control group], n = 114). During the 1 year follow-up period, 10 patients in Group 1 died, as did 5 in Group 2 and 15 in Group 3. On the basis of an intention to treat analysis, the probability of survival of patients given amiodarone was significantly greater than that of control patients (p less than 0.05). In addition, arrhythmic events were significantly reduced by amiodarone (p less than 0.01). These effects were less marked and not significant for individually treated patients (Group 1). These findings suggest that low dose amiodarone decreases mortality in the 1st year after myocardial infarction in patients at high risk of sudden death.

Assessing and grading congestion in acute heart failure: a scientific statement from the Acute Heart Failure Committee of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

Patients with acute heart failure (AHF) require urgent in‐hospital treatment for relief of symptoms. The main reason for hospitalization is congestion, rather than low cardiac output. Although congestion is associated with a poor prognosis, many patients are discharged with persistent signs and symptoms of congestion and/or a high left ventricular filling pressure. Available data suggest that a pre‐discharge clinical assessment of congestion is often not performed, and even when it is performed, it is not done systematically because no method to assess congestion prior to discharge has been validated. Grading congestion would be helpful for initiating and following response to therapy. We have reviewed a variety of strategies to assess congestion which should be considered in the care of patients admitted with HF. We propose a combination of available measurements of congestion. Key elements in the measurement of congestion include bedside assessment, laboratory analysis, and dynamic manoeuvres. These strategies expand by suggesting a routine assessment of congestion and a pre‐discharge scoring system. A point system is used to quantify the degree of congestion. This score offers a new instrument to direct both current and investigational therapies designed to optimize volume status during and after hospitalization. In conclusion, this document reviews the available methods of evaluating congestion, provides suggestions on how to properly perform these measurements, and proposes a method to quantify the amount of congestion present.

Randomised study of effect of ibopamine on survival in patients with advanced severe heart failure

BACKGROUND Drugs that improve symptoms in patients with heart failure must also be assessed for their effects on survival. Ibopamine stimulates DA-1 and DA-2 receptors and causes peripheral and renal vasodilatation; the drug improves symptoms of heart failure. We assessed the effect of ibopamine on survival in patients with advanced heart failure in a multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled study. METHODS Patients with advanced severe heart failure (New York Heart Association classes III and IV) and evidence of severe left-ventricular disease, who were already receiving optimum treatment for heart failure, were randomly allocated oral ibopamine 100 mg three times daily or placebo. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The study was designed to recruit 2200 patients, and the minimum duration of treatment would be 6 months. We did intention-to-treat and on-treatment analyses; a post-hoc subgroup analysis was also done. FINDINGS After we had recruited 1906 patients the trial was stopped early, because of an excess of deaths among patients in the ibopamine group. 232 (25%) of 953 patients in the ibopamine group died, compared with 193 (20%) of 953 patients in the placebo group (relative risk 1.26 [95% CI 1.04-1.53], p = 0.017). The average length of follow-up was 347 days in the ibopamine group and 363 days in the placebo group. In multivariate analysis, only the use of antiarrhythmic drugs at baseline was a significant independent predictor of increased fatality in ibopamine-treated patients. INTERPRETATION Ibopamine seems to increase the risk of death among patients with advanced heart failure who are already receiving optimum therapy, but the reasons for this increase are not clear. Our finding that antiarrhythmic treatment was a significant predictor of increased mortality in ibopamine-treated patients may be important, but exploratory analyses must be interpreted with caution.

Effect on Survival and Hospitalization of Initiating Treatment for Chronic Heart Failure With Bisoprolol Followed by Enalapril, as Compared With the Opposite Sequence. Results of the Randomized Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS) III.

Background— In patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), a β-blocker is generally added to a regimen containing an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. It is unknown whether β-blockade as initial therapy may be as useful. Methods and Results— We randomized 1010 patients with mild to moderate CHF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, who were not receiving ACE inhibitor, β-blocker, or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy, to open-label monotherapy with either bisoprolol (target dose 10 mg QD; n=505) or enalapril (target dose 10 mg BID; n=505) for 6 months, followed by their combination for 6 to 24 months. The 2 strategies were blindly compared with regard to the combined primary end point of all-cause mortality or hospitalization and with regard to each of these end point components individually. Bisoprolol-first treatment was noninferior to enalapril-first treatment if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the absolute between-group difference was <5%, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.17. In the intention-to-treat sample, the primary end point occurred in 178 patients allocated to bisoprolol-first treatment versus 186 allocated to enalapril-first treatment (absolute difference −1.6%, 95% CI −7.6 to 4.4%, HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.16). In the per-protocol sample, 163 patients allocated to bisoprolol-first treatment had a primary end point, versus 165 allocated to enalapril-first treatment (absolute difference −0.7%, 95% CI −6.6 to 5.1%, HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.21). With bisoprolol-first treatment, 65 patients died, versus 73 with enalapril-first treatment (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.22), and 151 versus 157 patients were hospitalized (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.19). Conclusion— Although noninferiority of bisoprolol-first versus enalapril-first treatment was not proven in the per-protocol analysis, our results indicate that it may be as safe and efficacious to initiate treatment for CHF with bisoprolol as with enalapril.

Contemporary management of octogenarians hospitalized for heart failure in Europe: Euro Heart Failure Survey II

AIMS International guidelines are frequently not implemented in the elderly population with heart failure (HF). This study determined the management of octogenarians with HF enrolled in Euro Heart Failure Survey II (EHFS II) (2004-05). METHODS AND RESULTS We compared the clinical profile, 12 month outcomes, and management modalities between 741 octogenarians (median age 83.7 years) and 2836 younger patients (median age 68.4 years) hospitalized for acute/decompensated HF. Management modalities were also compared with those observed in EHFS I (2000-01). Female gender, new onset HF (de novo), hypertension, atrial fibrillation, co-morbidities, disabilities, and low quality of life were more common in the elderly (all P < 0.001). Mortality rates during hospital stay and during 12 months after discharge were increased in octogenarians (10.7 vs. 5.6% and 28.4 vs. 18.5%, P < 0.001). Underuse and underdosage of medications recommended for HF were observed in the elderly. However, a significant improvement was observed when compared with EHFS I both in the overall HF octogenarian population and in the subgroup with ejection fraction < or =45% for prescription rates of ACE-I/ARBs, beta-blockers, and aldosterone antagonists at discharge (82 vs. 71%; 56 vs. 29%; 54 vs. 18.5%, respectively, all P < 0.01), as well as for recommended combinations and dosage. Prescription rates remained stable for 12 months after discharge in survivors. CONCLUSION Our study confirms that the contemporary management of very elderly patients with HF remains suboptimal but that the situation is improving.

Characteristics, outcomes, and predictors of mortality at 3 months and 1 year in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure

Acute heart failure (AHF) has a poor prognosis. We evaluated 3‐ and 12‐month mortality in different clinical classes of AHF patients from 30 European countries who were included in the EuroHeart Failure Survey (EHFS) II.

Practical recommendations for prehospital and early in-hospital management of patients presenting with acute heart failure syndromes

Guideline recommendations for the prehospital and early in-hospital (first 6-12 hrs after presentation) management of acute heart failure syndromes are lacking. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines direct the management of these acute heart failure patients, but specific consensus on early management has not been published, primarily because few early management trials have been conducted. This article summarizes practical recommendations for the prehospital and early management of patients with acute heart failure syndromes; the recommendations were developed from a meeting of experts in cardiology, emergency medicine, and intensive care medicine from Europe and the United States. The recommendations are based on a unique clinical classification system considering the initial systolic blood pressure and other symptoms: 1) dyspnea and/or congestion with systolic blood pressure >140 mm Hg; 2) dyspnea and/or congestion with systolic blood pressure 100-140 mm Hg; 3) dyspnea and/or congestion with systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg; 4) dyspnea and/or congestion with signs of acute coronary syndrome; and 5) isolated right ventricular failure. These practical recommendations are not intended to replace existing guidelines. Rather, they are meant to serve as a tool to facilitate guideline implementation where data are available and to provide suggested treatment approaches where formal guidelines and definitive evidence are lacking.