Miguel Alberto Rizzi

Impact of Frailty and Disability on 30-Day Mortality in Older Patients With Acute Heart Failure

The objectives were to determine the impact of frailty and disability on 30-day mortality and whether the addition of these variables to HFRSS EFFECT risk score (FBI-EFFECT model) improves the short-term mortality predictive capacity of both HFRSS EFFECT and BI-EFFECT models in older patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) atended in the emergency department. We performed a retrospective analysis of OAK Registry including all consecutive patients ≥65 years old with ADHF attended in 3 Spanish emergency departments over 4 months. FBI-EFFECT model was developed by adjusting probabilities of HFRSS EFFECT risk categories according to the 6 groups (G1: non frail, no or mildly dependent; G2: frail, no or mildly dependent; G3: non frail, moderately dependent; G4: frail, moderately dependent; G5: severely dependent; G6: very severely dependent).We included 596 patients (mean age: 83 [SD7]; 61.2% females). The 30-day mortality was 11.6% with statistically significant differences in the 6 groups (p < 0.001). After adjusting for HFRSS EFFECT risk categories, we observed a progressive increase in hazard ratios from groups G2 to G6 compared with G1 (reference). FBI-EFFECT had a better prognostic accuracy than did HFRSS EFFECT (log-rank p < 0.001; Net Reclassification Improvement [NRI] = 0.355; p < 0.001; Integrated Discrimination Improvement [IDI] = 0.052; p ;< 0.001) and BI-EFFECT (log-rank p = 0.067; NRI = 0.210; p = 0.033; IDI = 0.017; p = 0.026). In conclusion, severe disability and frailty in patients with moderate disability are associated with 30-day mortality in ADHF, providing additional value to HFRSS EFFECT model in predicting short-term prognosis and establishing a care plan.

Morphine Use in the ED and Outcomes of Patients With Acute Heart Failure: A Propensity Score-Matching Analysis Based on the EAHFE Registry

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine the relationship between short‐term mortality and intravenous morphine use in ED patients who received a diagnosis of acute heart failure (AHF). METHODS: Consecutive patients with AHF presenting to 34 Spanish EDs from 2011 to 2014 were eligible for inclusion. The subjects were divided into those with (M) or without IV morphine treatment (WOM) groups during ED stay. The primary outcome was 30‐day all‐cause mortality, and secondary outcomes were mortality at different intermediate time points, in‐hospital mortality, and length of hospital stay. We generated a propensity score to match the M and WOM groups that were 1:1 according to 46 different epidemiological, baseline, clinical, and therapeutic factors. We investigated independent risk factors for 30‐day mortality in patients receiving morphine. RESULTS: We included 6,516 patients (mean age, 81 [SD, 10] years; 56% women): 416 (6.4%) in the M and 6,100 (93.6%) in the WOM group. Overall, 635 (9.7%; M, 26.7%; WOM, 8.6%) died by day 30. After propensity score matching, 275 paired patients constituted each group. Patients receiving morphine had a higher 30‐day mortality (55 [20.0%] vs 35 [12.7%] deaths; hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.09–2.54; P = .017). In patients receiving morphine, death was directly related to glycemia (P = .013) and inversely related to the baseline Barthel index and systolic BP (P = .021) at ED arrival (P = .021). Mortality was increased at every intermediate time point, although the greatest risk was at the shortest time (at 3 days: 22 [8.0%] vs 7 [2.5%] deaths; OR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.40–7.93; P = .014). In‐hospital mortality did not increase (39 [14.2%] vs 26 [9.1%] deaths; OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.97–2.82; P = .083) and LOS did not differ between groups (median [interquartile range] in M, 8 [7]; WOM, 8 [6]; P = .79). CONCLUSIONS: This propensity score‐matched analysis suggests that the use of IV morphine in AHF could be associated with increased 30‐day mortality.

Evaluación de los conocimientos y la percepción de soporte a la enfermedad en los pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca. Estudio SOPICA EN ESPAÑA

OBJECTIVE To understand the perceptions of patients with heart failure (HF) concerning their disease, treatment and support, as well as the specialists who provide care after a decompensation, and to determine whether there is a relationship between the type of specialist involved in the follow-up and the medium-term prognosis. METHODS A multicentre, prospective cohort study consecutively included patients with acute HF in the emergency department. The patients were interviewed by telephone 91-180days after their emergency department visit. We investigated the relationship between the type of specialist who performed the follow-up and the emergency department visits or hospitalisations using Cox regression models, with progressive adjustment by groups of potential confounders of these relationships. RESULTS We interviewed 785 patients. Thirty-three percent (95%CI: 30%-36%) considered their disease mild, 64% (60%-67%) required help from third parties for daily activities, 65% (61%-68%) had no recent therapeutic changes, and 69% (67%-72%) received the same treatment in the exacerbations. The perceived support varied significantly depending on the factor under consideration (from greater to lesser: family, hospital, emergency department, health centre, religion and patient associations; p<.05 in all comparisons). Thirty-nine percent (36%-43%) of the patients with decompensations consulted directly with the emergency department, with no prior changes in treatment. At discharge, general practitioners (74%, 71%-77%) and cardiologists (74%, 70%-77%) were the most involved in the follow-up, although the specialty was not related to the prognosis. CONCLUSION There are various aspects of the perception of patients with HF concerning their disease that are susceptible to future interventions. Patient follow-up involves various specialties, but all achieve similar results in the medium term.

CARDIOVASCULAR RISK IN PATIENTS WHO ARRIVE AT THE EMERGENCY ROOM WITH ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME: PP.2.70

Objectives: To study whether there are therapeutic or clinical differences between patients with a first acute coronary syndrome and those with a second coronary event, and to evaluate differences between the two groups at admission and discharge. Methods: An epidemiological, observational, cross-sectional and single-center study was carried out in the emergency medicine department of a university hospital. Over 6 consecutive months we assessed outpatients of both sexes and 18 yrs or older who came to the emergency room because of an acute vascular event as defined by the criteria of the American heart Association. Demographic, clinical (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, dyslipidemia, smoking, type of heart disease, peripheral vascular disease) and therapeutic variables were collected. Results: First acute coronary syndrome: We observed differences at admission and discharge, specifically in the percentage of patients receiving antiplatelet treatment (23.3% vs. 92.9%) and statins (35.7% vs 85.7%). This association was not statistically significant, probably due to the sample size. Second Acute Coronary Syndrome: 60% were on statin therapy and 88% on antiplatelets. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment with statins (60% vs 96%) or with antiplatelets (88% vs 92%) at admission and discharge. There were no deaths during hospitalization. The number of patients receiving statin therapy at admission for a second coronary event was higher than for patients with a first event(60% vs. 20%, p 0.05). The same trend was observed for antiplatelet treatment (88% vs. 23.3%, p 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences regarding treatment at discharge. Diabetes and peripheral vasculopathy were significantly related to a second acute coronary event (p < 0.01). Conclusions: We observed an active attitude in the treatment of cardiovascular risk factors at discharge with respect to admission in patients presenting a first acute coronary syndrome. Secondary prevention has been suboptimal in patients with a second event. Figure 1. No caption available.