Phillip D. Levy

Acute Heart Failure Syndromes: Emergency Department Presentation, Treatment, and Disposition: Current Approaches and Future Aims A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

With a prevalence of 5 800 000 (≈2% of the entire populace) in 2009 and an estimated yearly incidence of 550 000, the burden of heart failure (HF) in the United States is tremendous.1 Although HF is largely a condition defined by chronic debility, virtually all patients experience, at some point, acute symptoms that trigger a visit to the emergency department (ED). These symptoms may vary in severity but, for the most part, they necessitate early intervention, often with intravenous medication and, less frequently, respiratory support. As shown by combined data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), this is a common occurrence; there are nearly 658 000 annual ED encounters primarily for acute HF in the United States—a figure that represents almost 20% of the total HF-specific ambulatory care delivered each year.2 It is noteworthy that few settings other than the ED can offer open access to treatment or provide the level and intensity of care required to effectively manage the acute phase of decompensation, also referred to as episodes of acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS). Nearly 80% of those treated for AHFS in the ED are ultimately admitted to the hospital and, accordingly, the ED serves as the principal portal of entry for hospitalized AHFS patients.34 The ED therefore plays a unique role in the continuum of AHFS treatment, functioning for most patients as the initial point of definitive healthcare contact, the location where primary stabilization is achieved, and the site where disposition decisions are generally made.4 Whereas the ED is a pivotal place for the vast majority of hospitalized patients with acute HF, the evidence base on which this foundation of acute care is built is astonishingly thin. The purpose of this …

Recommendations on pre-hospital & early hospital management of acute heart failure: a consensus paper from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the European Society of Emergency Medicine and the Society of Academic Emergenc: Recommendations on pre-hospital & early hospital management of acute heart failure

Acute heart failure is a fatal syndrome. Emergency physicians, cardiologists, intensivists, nurses and other health care providers have to cooperate to provide optimal benefit. However, many treatment decisions are opinion‐based and few are evidenced‐based. This consensus paper provides guidance to practicing physicians and nurses to manage acute heart failure in the pre‐hospital and hospital setting. Criteria of hospitalization and of discharge are described. Gaps in knowledge and perspectives in the management of acute heart failure are also detailed. This consensus paper on acute heart failure might help enable contiguous practice.

Recommendations on pre-hospital and early hospital management of acute heart failure : a consensus paper from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the European Society of Emergency Medicine and the Society of Academic Emergency Medicine - short version

Despite several critical steps forward in the management of chronic heart failure (CHF), the area of acute heart failure (AHF) has remained relatively stagnant. As stated in the updated ESC HF guidelines, clinicians responsible for managing patients with AHF must frequently make treatment decisions without adequate evidence, usually on the basis of expert opinion consensus.2 Specifically, the treatment of acute HF remains largely opinion-based with little good evidence to guide therapy. Acute heart failure is a syndrome in which emergency physicians, cardiologists, intensivists, nurses, and other healthcare providers have to cooperate to provide ‘rapid’ benefit to the patients. We hereby would like to underscore the wider experience grown in different settings of the area of intensive care on acute heart failure, actually larger and more composite than that got in specialized Care Units. The distillate of such different experiences is discussed and integrated in the present document. Hence, the authors of this consensus paper believe a common working definition of AHF covering all dimensions and modes of presentations has to be made, with the understanding that most AHF presentations are either acute decompensations of chronic underlying HF or the abrupt onset of dyspnoea associated with significantly elevated blood pressure. Secondly, recent data show that, much like acute coronary syndrome, AHF might have a ‘time to therapy’ concept. Accordingly, ‘pre-hospital’ management is considered a critical component of care. Thirdly, most patients with AHF have normal or high blood pressure at presentation, and are admitted with symptoms and/or signs of congestion. This is in contradiction to the presentation where low cardiac output leads to symptomatic hypotension and signs/symptoms of hypoperfusion, a circumstance that is relatively rare, present in coronary care unit/intensive care unit (CCU/ICU) but associated with a particularly poor outcome. Hence, it is important to note that appropriate therapy requires appropriate identification of the specific AHF phenotype.3 The aim of the current paper is not to replace guidelines, but, to provide contemporary perspective for early hospital management within the context of the most recent data and to provide guidance, based on expert opinions, to practicing physicians and other healthcare professionals (Figure 1). We believe that the experience accrued in the different settings from the emergency department through to the ICU/CCU is collectivel valuable in determining how best to manage the patients with AHF. Herein, a shortened version mainly including group recommendations is provided. Full version of the consensus paper is provided as Supplementary material online.

Advanced (stage D) heart failure: A statement from the heart failure society of america guidelines committee

We propose that stage D advanced heart failure be defined as the presence of progressive and/or persistent severe signs and symptoms of heart failure despite optimized medical, surgical, and device therapy. Importantly, the progressive decline should be primarily driven by the heart failure syndrome. Formally defining advanced heart failure and specifying when medical and device therapies have failed is challenging, but signs and symptoms, hemodynamics, exercise testing, biomarkers, and risk prediction models are useful in this process. Identification of patients in stage D is a clinically important task because treatments are inherently limited, morbidity is typically progressive, and survival is often short. Age, frailty, and psychosocial issues affect both outcomes and selection of therapy for stage D patients. Heart transplant and mechanical circulatory support devices are potential treatment options in select patients. In addition to considering indications, contraindications, clinical status, and comorbidities, treatment selection for stage D patients involves incorporating the patients wishes for survival versus quality of life, and palliative and hospice care should be integrated into care plans. More research is needed to determine optimal strategies for patient selection and medical decision making, with the ultimate goal of improving clinical and patient centered outcomes in patients with stage D heart failure.

Cinaciguat, a soluble guanylate cyclase activator: results from the randomized, controlled, phase IIb COMPOSE programme in acute heart failure syndromes.

Cinaciguat (BAY 58‐2667) is a soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) activator that, in a previous study among patients with acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS), improved pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) at the expense of significant hypotension at doses ≥200 µg/h. The aim of the COMPOSE programme was to investigate the safety and efficacy of fixed, low doses of intravenous cinaciguat (<200 µg/h for 24–48 h) as add‐on to standard therapy in adults hospitalized with AHFS.

Society of Chest Pain Centers recommendations for the evaluation and management of the observation stay acute heart failure patient-parts 1-6.

Making the definitive diagnosis of heart failure in the acute care setting can be difficult. In the emergency department this needs to be done rapidly, frequently, and accurately, without access to a patient’s health records and while simultaneously initiating the appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. This section reviews the diagnostic strategies available to the physician confronted with a patient in whom the differential diagnosis includes acute heart failure. (Crit Pathways in Cardiol 2008;7: 91–95) Making the Diagnosis of Heart Failure When Patients Present With Symptoms Possibly Related to Acute Heart Failure Making the definitive diagnosis of heart failure (HF) in the acute care setting can be difficult. In the emergency department (ED) this needs to be done rapidly, frequently without access to a patient’s health records while simultaneously initiating the appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. The physician must determine the etiology of symptoms in patients with suspected HF based on the initial history, physical examination, diagnostic studies (laboratory data, electrocardiogram, and radiography), as well as response to empiric therapy. PubMed was searched in a systematic manner using a combination of search terms relevant to each topic specific to early diagnosis available in the emergency department setting. References from articles and guidelines so identified were also evaluated for additional pertinent literature. The Initial History and Physical Examination The most common symptom of HF is dyspnea. However, dyspnea is also common in the general population. Even in well persons, a lack of physical fitness may result in exertional dyspnea. Multiple other medical conditions also produce dyspnea, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, pneumonia, and myocardial ischemia (Table 1). In several studies and registries of presumed HF, up to 40% of patients had a history of COPD. Therefore, in the acute care setting, a chief complaint of dyspnea is very nonspecific. Other components of a complete history include assessment of abdominal distention, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, orthopnea, fatigue, weakness, nausea, and vomiting. The presence of paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, orthopnea, or dyspnea on exertion increases the likelihood of HF, whereas their absence decreases its likelihood. One of the more reliable indicators that dyspnea is due to an acute exacerbation of HF is a previous history of HF. However, approximately 20% of patients admitted with acute heart failure have a history of COPD. A history is most beneficial when combined with other information but by itself will make the accurate diagnosis of HF challenging. Auscultation for an S3 gallop, assessment for jugular venous distension (JVD), auscultation for pulmonary rales, and assessment for leg edema should be part of the initial evaluation of a patient with suspected HF, and the presence of these signs increases the likelihood of HF. The absence of rales, edema, or JVD lowers the probability of HF. An S3 is difficult to detect in the emergency department. Electronic identification of an S3 should improve detection and diagnosis of HF, although studies have yet to show an effect on patient outcome.

Soluble guanylate cyclase: a potential therapeutic target for heart failure.

The number of annual hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) and the mortality rates among patients hospitalized for HF remains unacceptably high. The search continues for safe and effective agents that improve outcomes when added to standard therapy. The nitric oxide (NO)—soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC)—cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) pathway serves an important physiologic role in both vascular and non-vascular tissues, including regulation of myocardial and renal function, and is disrupted in the setting of HF, leading to decreased protection against myocardial injury, ventricular remodeling, and the cardio-renal syndrome. The impaired NO–sGC–cGMP pathway signaling in HF is secondary to reduced NO bioavailability and an alteration in the redox state of sGC, making it unresponsive to NO. Accordingly, increasing directly the activity of sGC is an attractive pharmacologic strategy. With the development of two novel classes of drugs, sGC stimulators and sGC activators, the hypothesis that restoration of NO–sGC–cGMP signaling is beneficial in HF patients can now be tested. Characterization of these agents in pre-clinical and clinical studies has begun with investigations suggesting both hemodynamic effects and organ-protective properties independent of hemodynamic changes. The latter could prove valuable in long-term low-dose therapy in HF patients. This review will explain the role of the NO–sGC–cGMP pathway in HF pathophysiology and outcomes, data obtained with sGC stimulators and sGC activators in pre-clinical and clinical studies, and a plan for the further clinical development to study these agents as HF therapy.

Early management of patients with acute heart failure: State of the art and future directions. A consensus document from the society for academic emergency medicine/heart failure society of america acute heart failure working group

Heart failure (HF) afflicts nearly 6 million Americans, resulting in one million emergency department (ED) visits and over one million annual hospital discharges. An aging population and improved survival from cardiovascular diseases is expected to further increase HF prevalence. Emergency providers play a significant role in the management of patients with acute heart failure (AHF). It is crucial that emergency physicians and other providers involved in early management understand the latest developments in diagnostic testing, therapeutics and alternatives to hospitalization. Further, clinical trials must be conducted in the ED in order to improve the evidence base and drive optimal initial therapy for AHF. Should ongoing and future studies suggest early phenotype-driven therapy improves in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes, ED treatment decisions will need to evolve accordingly. The potential impact of future studies which incorporate risk-stratification into ED disposition decisions cannot be underestimated. Predictive instruments that identify a cohort of patients safe for ED discharge, while simultaneously addressing barriers to successful outpatient management, have the potential to significantly impact quality of life and resource expenditures.

Rapid Emergency Department Heart Failure Outpatients Trial (REDHOT II) A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effect of Serial B-Type Natriuretic Peptide Testing on Patient Management

Background— B-type natriuretic peptide is useful to diagnose heart failure. We determined whether the use of serial B-type natriuretic peptide measurements to guide treatment improves the outcome in patients with acute heart failure. Methods and Results— We conducted a randomized controlled trial of patients with acute heart failure in 10 academic and community emergency departments. The experimental group received serial B-type natriuretic peptide testing (at 3, 6, 9, and 12 hours then daily). The control group received usual care. Our outcomes were hospital length of stay, 30-day readmission rate, and all-cause mortality. There were 219 controls and 228 experimental patients. Mean age was 64 years, 49% were women, 58% were blacks, and 34% were whites. Groups were similar in baseline characteristics. Comparing the serial testing with the control group, there was no difference in length of stay (6.5 days [95% CI, 5.2 to 7.9] versus 6.5 days [95% CI, 5.6 to 7.3]; difference, 0.1 [95% CI, −1.7 to 1.5]), in-hospital mortality (2.2% [95% CI, 0.9 to 5.0] versus controls, 3.2% [95% CI, 1.6 to 6.5]; difference, 1.0% [95% CI, −2.3 to 4.5]), 30-day mortality (3.7% [95% CI, 1.8 to 7.5] versus 5.5% [95% CI, 3.0 to 9.8]; difference, 1.8% [95% CI, −2.8 to 6.5]), or hospital revisit rate (20.2% [95% CI, 15.0 to 26.6] versus 23.7% [95% CI, 18.0 to 30.6]; difference, 3.5% [95% CI, −5.1 to 12.1]). Conclusions— In this study of 447 patients hospitalized for suspected heart failure, we were unable to demonstrate a benefit of serial testing with B-type natriuretic peptide in terms of hospital length of stay, mortality, or readmission rate. Received October 7, 2008; accepted April 2, 2009.Background—B-type natriuretic peptide is useful to diagnose heart failure. We determined whether the use of serial B-type natriuretic peptide measurements to guide treatment improves the outcome in patients with acute heart failure. Methods and Results—We conducted a randomized controlled trial of patients with acute heart failure in 10 academic and community emergency departments. The experimental group received serial B-type natriuretic peptide testing (at 3, 6, 9, and 12 hours then daily). The control group received usual care. Our outcomes were hospital length of stay, 30-day readmission rate, and all-cause mortality.There were 219 controls and 228 experimental patients. Mean age was 64 years, 49% were women, 58% were blacks, and 34% were whites. Groups were similar in baseline characteristics. Comparing the serial testing with the control group, there was no difference in length of stay (6.5 days [95% CI, 5.2 to 7.9] versus 6.5 days [95% CI, 5.6 to 7.3]; difference, 0.1 [95% CI, −1.7 to 1.5]), in-hospital mortality (2.2% [95% CI, 0.9 to 5.0] versus controls, 3.2% [95% CI, 1.6 to 6.5]; difference, 1.0% [95% CI, −2.3 to 4.5]), 30-day mortality (3.7% [95% CI, 1.8 to 7.5] versus 5.5% [95% CI, 3.0 to 9.8]; difference, 1.8% [95% CI, −2.8 to 6.5]), or hospital revisit rate (20.2% [95% CI, 15.0 to 26.6] versus 23.7% [95% CI, 18.0 to 30.6]; difference, 3.5% [95% CI, −5.1 to 12.1]). Conclusions—In this study of 447 patients hospitalized for suspected heart failure, we were unable to demonstrate a benefit of serial testing with B-type natriuretic peptide in terms of hospital length of stay, mortality, or readmission rate.

Rapid Emergency Department Heart Failure Outpatients Trial (REDHOT II)CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE

Background— B-type natriuretic peptide is useful to diagnose heart failure. We determined whether the use of serial B-type natriuretic peptide measurements to guide treatment improves the outcome in patients with acute heart failure. Methods and Results— We conducted a randomized controlled trial of patients with acute heart failure in 10 academic and community emergency departments. The experimental group received serial B-type natriuretic peptide testing (at 3, 6, 9, and 12 hours then daily). The control group received usual care. Our outcomes were hospital length of stay, 30-day readmission rate, and all-cause mortality. There were 219 controls and 228 experimental patients. Mean age was 64 years, 49% were women, 58% were blacks, and 34% were whites. Groups were similar in baseline characteristics. Comparing the serial testing with the control group, there was no difference in length of stay (6.5 days [95% CI, 5.2 to 7.9] versus 6.5 days [95% CI, 5.6 to 7.3]; difference, 0.1 [95% CI, −1.7 to 1.5]), in-hospital mortality (2.2% [95% CI, 0.9 to 5.0] versus controls, 3.2% [95% CI, 1.6 to 6.5]; difference, 1.0% [95% CI, −2.3 to 4.5]), 30-day mortality (3.7% [95% CI, 1.8 to 7.5] versus 5.5% [95% CI, 3.0 to 9.8]; difference, 1.8% [95% CI, −2.8 to 6.5]), or hospital revisit rate (20.2% [95% CI, 15.0 to 26.6] versus 23.7% [95% CI, 18.0 to 30.6]; difference, 3.5% [95% CI, −5.1 to 12.1]). Conclusions— In this study of 447 patients hospitalized for suspected heart failure, we were unable to demonstrate a benefit of serial testing with B-type natriuretic peptide in terms of hospital length of stay, mortality, or readmission rate. Received October 7, 2008; accepted April 2, 2009.Background—B-type natriuretic peptide is useful to diagnose heart failure. We determined whether the use of serial B-type natriuretic peptide measurements to guide treatment improves the outcome in patients with acute heart failure. Methods and Results—We conducted a randomized controlled trial of patients with acute heart failure in 10 academic and community emergency departments. The experimental group received serial B-type natriuretic peptide testing (at 3, 6, 9, and 12 hours then daily). The control group received usual care. Our outcomes were hospital length of stay, 30-day readmission rate, and all-cause mortality.There were 219 controls and 228 experimental patients. Mean age was 64 years, 49% were women, 58% were blacks, and 34% were whites. Groups were similar in baseline characteristics. Comparing the serial testing with the control group, there was no difference in length of stay (6.5 days [95% CI, 5.2 to 7.9] versus 6.5 days [95% CI, 5.6 to 7.3]; difference, 0.1 [95% CI, −1.7 to 1.5]), in-hospital mortality (2.2% [95% CI, 0.9 to 5.0] versus controls, 3.2% [95% CI, 1.6 to 6.5]; difference, 1.0% [95% CI, −2.3 to 4.5]), 30-day mortality (3.7% [95% CI, 1.8 to 7.5] versus 5.5% [95% CI, 3.0 to 9.8]; difference, 1.8% [95% CI, −2.8 to 6.5]), or hospital revisit rate (20.2% [95% CI, 15.0 to 26.6] versus 23.7% [95% CI, 18.0 to 30.6]; difference, 3.5% [95% CI, −5.1 to 12.1]). Conclusions—In this study of 447 patients hospitalized for suspected heart failure, we were unable to demonstrate a benefit of serial testing with B-type natriuretic peptide in terms of hospital length of stay, mortality, or readmission rate.