RESUMEN
Acute heart failure (AHF) is the most frequent cause of unplanned hospital admission in patients of >65 years of age and it is associated with significantly increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Different AHF classification criteria have been proposed, mainly reflecting the clinical heterogeneity of the syndrome. Regardless of the underlying mechanism, peripheral and/or pulmonary congestion is present in the vast majority of cases. Furthermore, a marked reduction in cardiac output with peripheral hypoperfusion may occur in most severe cases. Diagnosis is made on the basis of signs and symptoms, laboratory, and non-invasive tests. After exclusion of reversible causes, AHF therapeutic interventions mainly consist of intravenous (IV) diuretics and/or vasodilators, tailored according to the initial hemodynamic status with the addition of inotropes/vasopressors and mechanical circulatory support if needed. The aim of this review is to discuss current concepts on the diagnosis and management of AHF in order to guide daily clinical practice and to underline the unmet needs. Preventive strategies are also discussed.
RESUMEN
Major adverse cardiac events, defined as death or myocardial infarction, are common causes of perioperative mortality and major morbidity in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Reduction of perioperative cardiovascular risk in relation to non-cardiac surgery requires a stepwise patient evaluation that integrates clinical risk factors, functional status and the estimated stress of the planned surgical procedure. Major guidelines on preoperative cardiovascular risk assessment recommend to establish, firstly, the risk of surgery per se (low, moderate, high) and the related timing (elective vs. urgent/emergent), evaluate the presence of unstable cardiac conditions or a recent coronary revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting), assess the functional capacity of the patient (usually expressed in metabolic equivalents), determine the value of non-invasive and/or invasive cardiovascular testing and then combine these data in estimating perioperative risk for major cardiac adverse events using validated scores (Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) or National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP)). This stepwise approach has the potential to guide clinicians in determining which patients could benefit from cardiovascular therapy and/or coronary artery revascularization before non-cardiac surgery towards decreasing the incidence of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Finally, it should be highlighted that there is a need to implement specific strategies in the 2019 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic to minimize the risk of transmission of COVID-19 infection during the preoperative risk assessment process.
RESUMEN
Ultrasound is the most disruptive innovation in intensive care life, above all in this time, with a high diagnostic value when applied appropriately. In recent years, point-of-care lung ultrasound has gained significant popularity as a diagnostic tool in the acutely dyspnoeic patients. In the era of Sars-CoV-2 outbreak, lung ultrasound seems to be strongly adapting to the follow-up for lung involvement of patients with ascertaining infections, till to be used, in our opinion emblematically, as a screening test in suspected patients at the emergency triage or at home medical visit. In this brief review, we discuss the lung ultrasound dichotomy, certainties and uncertainties, describing its potential role in validated clinical contexts, as a clinical-dependent exam, its limits and pitfalls in a generic and off-label clinical context, as a virtual anatomical-dependent exam, and its effects on the clinical management of patients with COVID-19.