Tunnelled central venous catheters for incident haemodialysis patients: a Victorian survey exploring reasons for use.

BACKGROUND: Tunnelled central venous catheters (T-CVCs) are used globally as vascular access for patients on haemodialysis (HD) but are associated with increased sepsis, mortality, cost and length of hospitalisation compared with more permanent HD vascular access. The reasons for using T-CVC are varied and poorly understood. A significant and increasing proportion of incident HD patients in Victoria, Australia, have required T-CVC over the last decade. AIM: To explore reasons for a significant and increasing proportion of incident HD patients in Victoria, Australia, having required T-CVC over the last decade. METHODS: With rates of starting HD with definitive vascular access consistently below a Victorian quality indicator target of 70%, an online survey was developed to explore reasons why the rate remained lower than desired and to help inform future decisions about this quality indicator. The survey was completed by dialysis access coordinators over an 8-month period and involved all public nephrology services in Victoria. RESULTS: Of the 125 surveys completed, 101 incident HD patients had no attempt at permanent vascular access prior to T-CVC insertion. For almost half of these (48 patients), there was no active medical decision not to create permanent vascular access prior to commencing dialysis. Reasons for insertion of the T-CVC included deterioration of kidney function faster than anticipated, surgical referral being overlooked, complications related to peritoneal dialysis requiring a change in dialysis modality and changes to initial decisions regarding dialysis modality for kidney failure. CONCLUSIONS: These survey results provide an opportunity for quality improvement initiatives with respect to dialysis access planning and care.

National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian clinical guidelines for the management of heart failure 2018.

INTRODUCTION: Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome that is secondary to an abnormality of cardiac structure or function. These clinical practice guidelines focus on the diagnosis and management of HF with recommendations that have been graded on the strength of evidence and the likely absolute benefit versus harm. Additional considerations are presented as practice points. Main recommendations: Blood pressure and lipid lowering decrease the risk of developing HF. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors decrease the risk of HF hospitalisation in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. An echocardiogram is recommended if HF is suspected or newly diagnosed. If an echocardiogram cannot be arranged in a timely fashion, measurement of plasma B-type natriuretic peptides improves diagnostic accuracy. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, ß-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists improve outcomes in patients with HF associated with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Additional treatment options in selected patients with persistent HF associated with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction include switching the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor to an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor; ivabradine; implantable cardioverter defibrillators; cardiac resynchronisation therapy; and atrial fibrillation ablation. Multidisciplinary HF disease management facilitates the implementation of evidence-based HF therapies. Clinicians should also consider models of care that optimise medication titration (eg, nurse-led titration). Changes in management as a result of the guideline: These guidelines have been designed to facilitate the systematic integration of recommendations into HF care. This should include ongoing audit and feedback systems integrated into work practices in order to improve the quality of care and outcomes of patients with HF.

Corrigendum to 'National Heart Foundation of Australia & Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes 2016' Heart Lung and Circulation volume 25, (2016) 898 - 952.

Please note that on p.929 in 5.2.2.7, paragraph 3, the dose of dabigatran should read as BD rather than daily. We regret any inconvenience that this may have caused.

National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian clinical guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes 2016.

INTRODUCTION: The modern care of suspected and confirmed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is informed by an extensive and evolving evidence base. This clinical practice guideline focuses on key components of management associated with improved clinical outcomes for patients with chest pain or ACS. These are presented as recommendations that have been graded on both the strength of evidence and the likely absolute benefit versus harm. Additional considerations influencing the delivery of specific therapies and management strategies are presented as practice points. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: This guideline provides advice on the standardised assessment and management of patients with suspected ACS, including the implementation of clinical assessment pathways and subsequent functional and anatomical testing. It provides guidance on the: diagnosis and risk stratification of ACS; provision of acute reperfusion therapy and immediate post-fibrinolysis care for patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction; risk stratification informing the use of routine versus selective invasive management for patients with non-ST segment elevation ACS; administration of antithrombotic therapies in the acute setting and considerations affecting their long term use; and implementation of an individualised secondary prevention plan that includes both pharmacotherapies and cardiac rehabilitation. Changes in management as a result of the guideline: This guideline has been designed to facilitate the systematic integration of the recommendations into a standardised approach to ACS care, while also allowing for contextual adaptation of the recommendations in response to the individual's needs and preferences. The provision of ACS care should be subject to continuous monitoring, feedback and improvement of quality and patient outcomes.

Psychosocial risk factors for coronary heart disease.

In 2003, the National Heart Foundation of Australia published a position statement on psychosocial risk factors and coronary heart disease (CHD). This consensus statement provides an updated review of the literature on psychosocial stressors, including chronic stressors (in particular, work stress), acute individual stressors and acute population stressors, to guide health professionals based on current evidence. It complements a separate updated statement on depression and CHD. Perceived chronic job strain and shift work are associated with a small absolute increased risk of developing CHD, but there is limited evidence regarding their effect on the prognosis of CHD. Evidence regarding a relationship between CHD and job (in)security, job satisfaction, working hours, effort-reward imbalance and job loss is inconclusive. Expert consensus is that workplace programs aimed at weight loss, exercise and other standard cardiovascular risk factors may have positive outcomes for these risk factors, but no evidence is available regarding the effect of such programs on the development of CHD. Social isolation after myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with an adverse prognosis. Expert consensus is that although measures to reduce social isolation are likely to produce positive psychosocial effects, it is unclear whether this would also improve CHD outcomes. Acute emotional stress may trigger MI or takotsubo ("stress") cardiomyopathy, but the absolute increase in transient risk from an individual stressor is low. Psychosocial stressors have an impact on CHD, but clinical significance and prevention require further study. Awareness of the potential for increased cardiovascular risk among populations exposed to natural disasters and other conditions of extreme stress may be useful for emergency services response planning. Wider public access to defibrillators should be available where large populations gather, such as sporting venues and airports, and as part of the response to natural and other disasters.

Screening, referral and treatment for depression in patients with coronary heart disease.

In 2003, the National Heart Foundation of Australia position statement on "stress" and heart disease found that depression was an important risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD). This 2013 statement updates the evidence on depression (mild, moderate and severe) in patients with CHD, and provides guidance for health professionals on screening and treatment for depression in patients with CHD. The prevalence of depression is high in patients with CHD and it has a significant impact on the patient's quality of life and adherence to therapy, and an independent effect on prognosis. Rates of major depressive disorder of around 15% have been reported in patients after myocardial infarction or coronary artery bypass grafting. To provide the best possible care, it is important to recognise depression in patients with CHD. Routine screening for depression in all patients with CHD is indicated at first presentation, and again at the next follow-up appointment. A follow-up screen should occur 2-3 months after a CHD event. Screening should then be considered on a yearly basis, as for any other major risk factor for CHD. A simple tool for initial screening, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) or the short-form Cardiac Depression Scale (CDS), can be incorporated into usual clinical practice with minimum interference, and may increase uptake of screening. Patients with positive screening results may need further evaluation. Appropriate treatment should be commenced, and the patient monitored. If screening is followed by comprehensive care, depression outcomes are likely to be improved. Patients with CHD and depression respond to cognitive behaviour therapy, collaborative care, exercise and some drug therapies in a similar way to the general population. However, tricyclic antidepressant drugs may worsen CHD outcomes and should be avoided. Coordination of care between health care providers is essential for optimal outcomes for patients. The benefits of treating depression include improved quality of life, improved adherence to other therapies and, potentially, improved CHD outcomes.

National Heart Foundation of Australia consensus statement on catheter ablation as a therapy for atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is estimated to affect 1%-2% of the population. It is increasing in prevalence and is associated with excess mortality, considerable morbidity and hospitalisations. AF is responsible for a significant and growing societal financial burden. Catheter ablation is an increasingly used therapeutic strategy for the management of AF; however, some confusion exists among those caring for patients with this condition about the role and optimal use of ablative treatments for AF. Our aim in this consensus statement is to provide recommendations on the use of primary catheter ablation for AF in Australia, on the basis of current evidence. Our consensus is that the primary indication for catheter ablation of AF is the presence of symptomatic AF that is refractory or intolerant to at least one Class 1 or Class 3 antiarrhythmic medication. In selecting patients for catheter ablation of AF, consideration should be given to the patient's age, duration of AF, left atrial size and the presence of significant structural heart disease. Best results are obtained in younger patients with paroxysmal AF, no structural heart disease and smaller atria. Ablation techniques for patients with persistent AF are still undergoing evaluation. Discontinuation of warfarin or equivalent therapies is not considered a sole indication for this procedure. After AF ablation, anticoagulation therapy is generally recommended for all patients for at least 1-3 months. Discontinuation of warfarin or equivalent therapies after ablation is generally not recommended in patients who have a CHADS 2 score (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75 years, diabetes, 1 point each; prior stroke or transient ischaemic attack, 2 points) of ≥ 2.