Management protocols for chronic heart failure in India

Heart failure is a common clinical syndrome and a global health priority. The burden of heart failure is increasing at an alarming rate worldwide as well as in India. Heart failure not only increases the risk of mortality, morbidity and worsens the patient’s quality of life, but also puts a huge burden on the overall healthcare system. The management of heart failure has evolved over the years with the advent of new drugs and devices. This document has been developed with an objective to provide standard management guidance and simple heart failure algorithms to aid Indian clinicians in their daily practice. It would also inform the clinicians on the latest evidence in heart failure and provide guidance to recognize and diagnose chronic heart failure early and optimize management.

Percutaneous treatment of bifurcation coronary stenosis: a long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of bifurcation coronary stenosis involved several techniques in the last few years, with the use of one stent, two stents, kissing balloon, crush stenting. Basic objective was to reduce MACE rate and improve event-free survival. OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of some techniques of stent placement adopted in the last few years by evaluating MACE (major adverse cardiac events) and TLR (target lesion revascularization). METHODS: Between 1999 and 2003, 74 consecutive patients with bifurcation lesions were treated with either stenting two vessels (type A, n = 8) or single vessels (type B, n = 66) and were followed for 30 days, 6 months, with a mean follow-up of 23 months for clinically driven MACE and TLR. RESULTS, The mean reference diameters of the main and side branches were 2.97 +/- 0.27 mm and 2.28 +/- 0.49 mm, respectively. The side branch was stented in 11% cases. Less than 30% residual stenosis in the main branch was achieved in 100% cases, <50% in the side branch in 94.5% of the cases. In-hospital major adverse cardiac events were non-Q-wave MI in 5% patients. During follow-up, death was 1.35%, subacute stent thrombosis (SAT) was 4%, and TLR (CABG) was 10.8%. Multivariate analysis showed type 1 lesion, and STEMI was associated with more MACE than others. There was 4.35-fold greater odds of MACE, associated with stenting both vessels in bifurcation lesion. CONCLUSION, Stenting of the main branch along with kissing balloon dilatation or provisional stenting of the side branch is a safe and effective treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions with acceptable TLR rates.

How predictive is the Framingham's risk prediction algorithm in Indian perspective? A retrospective case-control study from Kolkata.

OBJECTIVE: In this retrospective case-control study, an attempt was made to assess the predictive efficacy of Framingham's risk prediction algorithm in Indian perspective. METHODS: A total of 350 patients and 293 age- and sex-matched controls were considered in the study. Those patients, who were presenting for the first time with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and who did not have any prior manifestation of coronary heart disease (CHD) formed the patient group. The risk prediction algorithm was applied to obtain the risk score and the corresponding 10-year risk in each patient and control. They were divided into two groups: diabetic and nondiabetic. Depending on the 10-year risk, they were further grouped into high risk (10-year risk > 20%), moderately high risk (10-year risk between 10% to 20%), and low risk (10-year risk < 10%). The results were compared and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: In the diabetic patients with ACS, 14.29% qualified as high risk, 32.79% as moderately high risk, and 52.94% as low risk. The corresponding figures for diabetic subjects without ACS were 3.26%, 54.35%, and 42.39%, respectively. In nondiabetic patients with ACS, 19.91% were in the high-risk group, 38.96% in moderately high risk, and 41.13% in the low-risk group; while among the controls, the corresponding figures were 9.95%, 21.89%, and 68.16%, respectively. In nondiabetic subjects, the mean risk was significantly higher for patients compared to controls (14.13 vs. 8.61, p < 0.01). However, in diabetic subjects, there was no significant difference in the mean projected risk between those with ACS and those without ACS (11.37 vs. 10.41, p = NS). CONCLUSION: In the Indian perspective, Framingham's risk prediction protocol has a fair amount of predictive efficacy since the difference of mean risk score between the patients and controls was statistically significant. However, it fails to identify a large proportion of high-risk nondiabetic patients. Hence, a better protocol for the Indian perspective is badly needed.

Predictive efficacy of Framingham's risk score in Indian scenario--a retrospective case-control study.

To assess the predictive ability of Framingham's risk score in primary prevention in our population, 252 cases and 212 age and sex matched controls were taken up for study. Those patients, who were presenting for the first time with acute coronarysyndrome (ACS) and who did not have any prior manifestations of coronary artery disease (CAD) and whose medical records were available formed the patient group. Framingham's risk score was calculated and the corresponding 10 years risk was assessed in each of them. The patients and controls were divided into two groups--diabetic and non-diabetic. Depending on the 10 years risk, they were further grouped into high risk (10 years risk > 20%), moderately high risk (10 years risk 10 to 20%) and low risk (10 years risk less than 10%). Results were compared and statistically analysed. In the diabetic patients with ACS 14% would have qualified as high risk, 33% as moderately high risk and 53% as low risk whereas in diabetic patients without any manifestation of CAD the distribution was 4% in the high risk, 54% in the moderately high risk and 42% in the low risk. In the non-diabetic subjects, amongst the patients of ACS, 20% would have been in high risk, 39% in moderately high risk and 41% in the low risk. The corresponding figures in the non-diabetic control subjects were 10% in high risk, 22% in the moderately high risk and 68% in the low risk. In the non-diabetic subjects, the mean risk was significantly more in patients than in controls (14.15% versus 8.61%, p <0.01). However, in the diabetic patients there was no significant difference in the mean projected risk between patients with ACS and patients without any manifestation of CAD (11.37% versus 10.41%, p>0.05).