Does a brief functional assessment in the emergency department predict outcomes of patients admitted with heart failure? The FASTER-HF study.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of patients with acute decompensated heart failure includes symptom review, biomarker measurement and comorbidity assessment. Early objective evaluation of functional status is generally not performed. AIM: To investigate whether a simple low-impact functional assessment and measurement of sarcopenia would be safe, feasible and predictive of hospital length of stay and all-cause 30-day hospital readmission. METHODS: We administered 3-minute bicycle ergometry and hand grip strength tests at admission and discharge to patients for whom a decision to admit for heart failure management was made in the emergency department. Associations were examined between test results and length of stay and 30-day readmission. Exclusion criteria included acute coronary syndrome, hypoxia, end-stage renal disease, dementia/delirium and inability to sit at bedside. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and the visual analogue scale for dyspnoea were administered at admission, the visual analogue scale at discharge and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 at 30 days. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled: 58% were female; the mean age was 66.2±12.5 years; 24% had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Bicycle ergometry variables did not correlate with outcomes. Change in handgrip strength correlated with readmission, but not after adjustment (rpartial=0.14; P=0.35). Total diuretic dose correlated with length of stay; only discharge visual analogue scale and baseline lung disease had significant adjusted correlations with readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Functional assessment in the emergency department of patients admitted for heart failure did not predict outcomes. However, the prognostic value of these assessments for decision-making about disposition (admission or discharge) may still be warranted.

Beyond warfarin: a patient-centered approach to selecting novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin reduces stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, its narrow therapeutic index and need for chronic monitoring are barriers to its optimal utilization in many patients. The recent introduction of 3 novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs), as alternatives to warfarin, may change the eligibility and management of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who require systemic anticoagulation. PURPOSE: To summarize contemporary indications for anticoagulation in NVAF, and to help provide patient-centered clinical decision making for selecting warfarin or 1 of the NOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) based on randomized trials and mechanistic data for each drug. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: The primary clinical outcome trials of warfarin and the NOACs, pharmacologic studies, and briefing documents from the US Food and Drug Administration were reviewed. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: In randomized trials, NOACs were consistently noninferior to warfarin for reducing stroke or systemic embolism in patients with NVAF, with reductions in intracranial bleeding as well. However, NOACs have several important drug-drug interactions, exclusion criteria for specific patient subgroups (eg, severe renal disease), and each medication may have a different impact on other clinical outcomes such as myocardial infarction or gastrointestinal bleeding. Benefits of the new drugs are particularly pronounced when international normalized ratio levels on warfarin are labile. CONCLUSIONS: Warfarin continues to play an important role in the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in NVAF. Among selected patients, the use of NOACs provides equal or superior benefit, without the need for chronic anticoagulation monitoring or ongoing dose titration.