Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters

Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Heart International ; 16(1):1, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1938574
2.
Eur Heart J ; 43(5): 367-376, 2022 Feb 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1591605

ABSTRACT

In the year 2021, the universal definition and classification of heart failure (HF) was published that defines HF as a clinical syndrome with symptoms and/or signs caused by a cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels or objective evidence of cardiogenic congestion. This definition and the classification of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), mildly reduced, and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is consistent with the 2021 ESC Guidelines on HF. Among several other new recommendations, these guidelines give a Class I indication for the use of the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in HFrEF patients. As the first evidence-based treatment for HFpEF, in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, empagliflozin reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations. Several reports in 2021 have provided novel and detailed analyses of device and medical therapy in HF, especially regarding sacubitril/valsartan, SGLT2 inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, ferric carboxymaltose, soluble guanylate cyclase activators, and cardiac myosin activators. In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, acute HF and myocardial injury is quite frequent, whereas myocarditis and long-term damage to the heart are rather uncommon.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiomyopathies , Heart Failure , Aminobutyrates , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists , Biphenyl Compounds , Heart Failure/drug therapy , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Stroke Volume
3.
European Heart Journal ; 42(SUPPL 1):931, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1554157

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Hospital admissions of patients with cardiovascular disease were markedly reduced in the UK in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. In many institutions, including ours, patient care was redistributed from a specialty-based approach to a ward-based system, meaning some patients being admitted and managed under the care of non-specialist teams. Purpose: We wished to examine the impact of these changes on heart failure (HF) patients presenting during the pandemic and on appropriate delivery of complex device therapies. Methods: The study was undertaken in a large UK teaching hospital. The institution audit programme includes cardiac device therapy provision, aiming to ensure that implantable cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronisation therapy are offered to the target population in accordance with NICE guidance [Technology Appraisal 314]. In accordance with the guidance, patients admitted to hospital with serious ventricular arrhythmia, familial cardiac condition with high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD), surgical repair of congenital heart disease (CHD) and patients with HF and LVEF<36% were identified from hospital coding. Findings during the pandemic (March to August 2020) were compared with the same period in 2019. Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions. Results: Among non-HF patients, device therapy prescription was consistent in the two periods observed. Table 1 shows how many patients were eligible for device therapy and how many were offered it. Table 2 contains details of HF admissions, showing an 8% reduction in admissions during the pandemic. The proportion of patients eligible for device therapy did not change significantly. However, there was a significant reduction in the proportion of eligible patients who were offered device therapy (79% vs 94% p=0.03). In addition, during the pandemic there was a trend towards a greater chance of patients being considered too frail for device therapy (p=0.08). Among 12 patients overlooked for device therapy, 10 were not under the care of Cardiology. Among 31 patients considered too frail for device therapy, 26 were not under the care of Cardiology. Conclusion: During the Covid-19 pandemic, a modest reduction in HF hospital admission was observed with a marked fall in identification of patients eligible for device therapy. Possible explanations include intense pressure to discharge patients quickly, an increased perception of patient frailty during a crisis and the lack of recognition of indications for device therapy when patients are under the care of non-specialists. These findings suggest that cardiac services should actively look for HF patients who may have missed out on life-saving device therapies during the pandemic.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL