The five-point Likert scale for dyspnea can properly assess the degree of pulmonary congestion and predict adverse events in heart failure outpatients

OBJECTIVES: Proper assessment of dyspnea is important in patients with heart failure. Our aim was to evaluate the use of the 5-point Likert scale for dyspnea to assess the degree of pulmonary congestion and to determine the prognostic value of this scale for predicting adverse events in heart failure outpatients. METHODS: We undertook a prospective study of outpatients with moderate to severe heart failure. The 5-point Likert scale was applied during regular outpatient visits, along with clinical assessments. Lung ultrasound with ≥15 B-lines and an amino-terminal portion of pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level >1000 pg/mL were used as a reference for pulmonary congestion. The patients were then assessed every 30 days during follow-up to identify adverse clinical outcomes. RESULTS: We included 58 patients (65.5% male, age 43.5±11 years) with a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 27±6%. In total, 29.3% of these patients had heart failure with ischemic etiology. Additionally, pulmonary congestion, as diagnosed by lung ultrasound, was present in 58% of patients. A higher degree of dyspnea (3 or 4 points on the 5-point Likert scale) was significantly correlated with a higher number of B-lines (p = 0.016). Patients stratified into Likert = 3-4 were at increased risk of admission compared with those in class 1-2 after adjusting for age, left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Association functional class and levels of NT-proBNP >1000 pg/mL (HR = 4.9, 95% CI 1.33-18.64, p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: In our series, higher baseline scores on the 5-point Likert scale were related to pulmonary congestion and were independently associated with adverse events during follow-up. This simple clinical tool can help to identify patients who are more likely to decompensate and whose treatment should be intensified. .

Intervenção coronária pelas vias radial ou femoral no infarto agudo do miocárdio com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST: um, a visão da prática clínica contemporânea / Coronary intevention by radial or femoral access in acute St-Segment elevation myocardial infarction: the real-world clinical practice

Introdução: A via radial é um acesso seguro para procedimentos percutâneos e reduz as complicações vasculares locais. Neste estudo comparou-se a evolução hospitalar de pacientes com infarto agudo do miocárdio com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST (IAMCSST) submetidos a intervenção coronária percutânea primária (ICPp) por via radial vs. via femoral. Métodos: Estudo de coorte prospectivo com pacientes consecutivamente atendidos entre dezembro de 2009 e maio de 2011. Resultados: Foram incluídos 794 pacientes, 82 (10,3%) tratados por via radial e 712 (89,7%), por via femoral. Pacientes do grupo radial eram mais jovens (56,2 ± 10,7 anos vs. 61,2 ± 11,9 anos; P < 0,01), mais frequentemente do sexo masculino (78% vs. 68%; P = 0,06), com menor prevalência de diabetes (9,8% vs. 20%; P = 0,02) e maior fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo (61,2 ± 11,8% vs. 55,5 ± 12,1%; P = 0,05). Não houve diferença em relação à maior parte das características angiográficas. Tromboaspiração (44% vs. 31%; P = 0,01) e administração de glicoproteína IIb/IIIa (41% vs. 26%; P = 0,004) foram mais utilizadas no grupo radial. O fluxo TIMI 3 final (93% vs. 88%; P = 0,47) e o blush miocárdico 3 (70% vs. 66%; P = 0,87) foram semelhantes entre os grupos. Não foram observadas diferenças em relação a óbito (7,5% vs. 8,4%; P = 0,78), reinfarto (4,9% vs. 4,4%; P = 0,77), revascularização de urgência (3,7% vs. 4,1%; P > 0,99), trombose do stent (2,4% vs. 3%; P > 0,99), sangramento maior (0 vs. 1,6%; P = 0,61) ou sangramento menor (5,3% vs. 7,3%; P = 0,81). Conclusões: A abordagem transradial mostrou-se segura e efetiva, com resultados semelhantes aos da abordagem transfemoral em pacientes com IAMCSST.

BACKGROUND: Radial access is a safe approach for percutaneous procedures and reduces local vascular complications. This study compared the hospital outcomes of patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) submitted to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) using the radial vs. femoral approaches. METHODS: Prospective cohort study with consecutive patients treated between December 2009 and May 2011. RESULTS: Seven hundred and ninety-four patients were included, 82 (10.3%) treated by radial access and 712 (89.7%) treated by femoral access. Radial access patients were younger (56.2 ± 10,7 years vs. 61,2 ± 11,9 years; P < 0.01), more often male (78% vs. 68%; P = 0.06), had a lower prevalence of diabetes (9.8% vs. 20%; P = 0.02) and higher left ventricle ejection fraction (61.2 ± 11.8% vs. 55.5 ± 12.1%; P = 0.05). There was no difference for most angiographic characteristics. Thromboaspiration (44% vs. 31%; P = 0.01) and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa administration (41% vs. 26%; P = 0.004) were used more often in the radial group. The final TIMI 3 flow (93% vs. 88%; P = 0.47) and myocardial blush grade 3 (70% vs. 66%; P = 0.87) were similar between groups. There were no differences for death (7.5% vs. 8.4%; P = 0.78), reinfarction (4.9% vs. 4.4%; P = 0.77), emergency revascularization (3.7% vs. 4.1%; P > 0.99), stent thrombosis (2.4% vs. 3%; P > 0.99), major bleeding (0 vs. 1.6%; P = 0.61) or minor bleeding (5.3% vs. 7.3%; P = 0.81) rates. CONCLUSIONS: The transradial approach has proven to be safe and effective with similar results to transfemoral approach in patients with STEMI.