Guideline-based and restricted fluid resuscitation strategy in sepsis patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether a fluid resuscitation strategy based on guidelines (at least 30 mL/kg IV crystalloids) vs. a restrictive approach with <30 mL/kg within three hours affects in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis and a history of heart failure (HF). DATA SOURCES: On 03/07/2023, we searched Embase, PubMed, and Scopus for peer-reviewed papers and abstracts using the PRISMA guidelines. STUDY SELECTION: The language was limited to English. Studies published since 2016 included if they had sepsis patients with a history of HF, or a subgroup of patients with HF, and in-hospital mortality data on these patients that did or did not meet the 30 mL/kg by 3 h (30 × 3) goal. Duplicate studies, studies that focused on a broader period than 3 h from the diagnosis of sepsis or without mortality breakdown for HF patients or with unrelated title/abstract, or without an IRB approval were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: In-hospital mortality data was taken from the final studies for HF patients with sepsis who did or did not meet the 30 × 3 goal. DATA SYNTHESIS: The meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.4 program with ORs as the effect measure. The ProMeta program version 3.0 was used to evaluate the publication bias. Egger's linear regression and Berg and Mazumdar's rank correlation was used to evaluate the publication bias. The result was visually represented by a funnel plot. To estimate the proportion of variance attributable to heterogeneity, the I2 statistic was calculated. RESULTS: The search yielded 26,069 records, which were narrowed down to 4 studies. Compared to those who met the 30 × 3 goal, the <30 × 3 group had a significantly higher risk of in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.13-2.89, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Restrictive fluid resuscitation increased the risk of in-hospital mortality in HF patients with sepsis. More rigorous research is required to determine the optimal fluid resuscitation strategy for this population.

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in congestive heart failure (HF) and indicates a worse prognosis. AF increases HF symptoms and increases in prevalence with increasing New York Heart Association class. AF also interferes with the ideal management of HF. Across all HF etiologies, AF may be a marker of disease severity. Yet, controversies exist regarding whether strategies to restore and maintain sinus rhythm can improve outcomes in HF. It is also unclear what the optimal strategy is to suppress the ventricular response to AF in patients with HF. As HF incidence and prevalence continue to rise, the authors sought to reinvestigate current literature that relates AF to HF and examine the impact of therapy on HF and/or AF. The authors performed a literature review using a MEDLINE search from 1966 to the present and included existing literature based on their strength of evidence.

Clues to cardiovascular risk: an office-based approach.

Current tools for predicting coronary heart disease risk in the asymptomatic patient fall into 2 major categories: traditional population-based models and noninvasive imaging techniques. Population-based models that estimate cardiovascular risk are powerful clinical tools but do not utilize a large volume of patient-specific data that are readily available to the clinician and may help to identify at-risk patients. The use of high-technology noninvasive imaging has not been consistently validated and clinicians or patients often lack the resources for such testing. This paper reviews several commonly encountered historical, physical, radiologic, laboratory, and electrocardiographic markers of increased cardiovascular risk that may enhance clinicians' ability to identify individual patients at increased risk for coronary heart disease.