The CRAS-EAHFE study: Characteristics and prognosis of acute heart failure episodes with cardiorenal-anaemia syndrome at the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The coexistence of other comorbidities confers poor outcomes in patients with acute heart failure. Our aim was to determine the characteristics of patients with acute heart failure and cardiorenal anaemia syndrome and the relationship between renal dysfunction and anaemia, alone or combined as cardiorenal anaemia syndrome, on short-term outcomes. METHODS: We analysed the Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Emergency Departments registry (cohort of patients with acute heart failure in Spanish emergency departments). Renal dysfunction was defined by an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/m2, anaemia by haemoglobin values <12/<13 g/dl in women/men, and cardiorenal anaemia syndrome as the presence of both. Comparisons were made according to cardiorenal-anaemia syndrome positive (CRAS+) with respect to the rest of patients (CRAS-) and according the presence of renal dysfunction (RD+) and anaemia (A+), (alone, RD+/A-, RD-/A+) or in combination (RD+/A+; i.e. CRAS+) with respect to patients without renal dysfunction and anaemia (RD-/A-). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, and the secondary outcomes were need for admission, prolonged hospitalisation (>10 days), in-hospital mortality during the index event, and reconsultation and the combination of 30-day post-discharge reconsultation/death. These short-term outcomes were compared and adjusted for differences among groups. RESULTS: Of the 13,307 patients analysed, CRAS+ (36.4%) was associated with older age, multiple comorbidities, chronic use of loop diuretics, oedemas and hypotension. The 30-day mortality in CRAS+ was greater than in CRAS- (hazard ratio = 1.46, 95% confidence interval = 1.26-1.68) and RD-/A- (hazard ratio = 1.83, 95% confidence interval = 1.46-2.28) control groups. The mortality level was also higher in RD+/A- (hazard ratio = 1.40, 95% confidence interval = 1.10-1.78) and higher, but not statistically significant, in RD-/A+ (hazard ratio = 1.28, 95% confidence interval = 0.99-1.63) with respect to RD-/A-. All of the secondary outcomes, when related to CRAS- and RD-/A- control groups, were worse for CRAS+ and to a lesser extent, RD+/A-, being more rarely observed in RD-/A+. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiorenal anaemia syndrome in acute heart failure is related to greater mortality and worse short-term outcomes, and the impact of renal dysfunction and anaemia seems to be additive.

Analysis of How Emergency Physicians' Decisions to Hospitalize or Discharge Patients With Acute Heart Failure Match the Clinical Risk Categories of the MEESSI-AHF Scale.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The Multiple Estimation of Risk Based on the Emergency Department Spanish Score in Patients With Acute Heart Failure (MEESSI-AHF) is a validated clinical decision tool that characterizes risk of mortality in emergency department (ED) acute heart failure patients. The objective of this study is to compare the distribution of risk categories between hospitalized and discharged ED patients with acute heart failure. METHODS: We included consecutive acute heart failure patients from 34 Spanish EDs. Patients were retrospectively classified according to MEESSI-AHF risk categories. We calculated the odds of hospitalization (versus direct discharge from the ED) across MEESSI-AHF risk categories. Next, we assessed the following 30-day postdischarge outcomes: ED revisit, hospitalization, death, and their combination. We used Cox hazards models to determine the adjusted association between ED disposition decision and the outcomes among patients who were stratified into low- and increased-risk categories. RESULTS: We included 7,930 patients (80.5 years [SD 10.1 years]; women 54.7%; hospitalized 75.3%). Compared with that for low-risk MEESSI-AHF patients, odds ratios for hospitalization of patients in intermediate-, high-, and very-high-risk categories were 1.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.64 to 2.05), 3.05 (95% CI 2.48 to 3.76), and 3.98 (95% CI 3.13 to 5.05), respectively. However, almost half (47.6%) of all discharged patients were categorized as being at increased risk by MEESSI-AHF, and 19.0% of all the increased-risk patients were discharged from the ED. Among the low-risk MEESSI-AHF patients, the 30-day postdischarge mortality did not differ by ED disposition (hazard ratio [HR] for discharged patients with respect to hospitalized ones 0.65; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.11), nor did it differ in the increased-risk group (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.23). The discharged low-risk MEESSI-AHF patients had higher risks of 30-day ED revisit and hospitalization (HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.57 to 2.20; and HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.40, respectively) compared with the admitted patients, as did the discharged patients in the increased-risk group (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.39 to 1.89; and HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.68, respectively), with similar results for the combined endpoint. CONCLUSION: The disposition decisions made in current clinical practice for ED acute heart failure patients calibrate with MEESSI-AHF risk categories, but nearly half of the patients currently discharged from the ED fall into increased-risk MEESSI-AHF categories.