ABSTRACT
Background: The potential harm and clinical benefits of inotropic therapy in patients with decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or advanced heart failure were debated for three decades. Nonetheless, confronted with a dismal quality of life in the last months to years of life, continuous home inotropic therapy has recently gained traction for palliative therapy in patients who are not candidates for left ventricular mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation. Methods: As continuous inotropic therapy is only considered for patients who experience symptomatic relief and display objective evidence of improvement, clinical equipoise is no longer present, and randomized controlled trials are hard to conduct. Results: We first outline the transient use of inotropic therapy in patients with decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and emphasize the hemodynamic requisite for inotropic therapy, which is a demonstration of a low cardiac output through a low mixed venous oxygen saturation. Lastly, we review the current experience with the use of home inotropic therapy in patients who are not candidates or are awaiting mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation. Conclusions: Evidence-based clinical data are needed to guide inotropic therapy for refractory decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in patients who are ineligible or awaiting mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: An accurate diagnostic assessment of coronary artery disease is crucial for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) to guide complete revascularization have not been adequately studied in patients prior to CABG. We compared an anatomic to a physiologic assessment of moderate coronary lesions (40-70% stenosis) in patients referred for CABG. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 109 medical records of patients who underwent CABG at Tulane Medical Center from 2014 to 2016. Patients were divided into an FFR/iFR-guided and an angiography-guided group. Clinical characteristics, procedural outcomes, and clinical outcomes for the two groups were compared over an 18-month follow-up period. RESULTS: There were significantly higher rates of three-vessel anastomoses (85.7% vs. 74.7%, P<0.05) and venous grafting (85.7% vs. 76.8%, P<0.05) in the FFR/iFR group. The FFR/iFR group had a lower rate of grafts placed to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) distribution than the angiography group (7.1% vs. 29.5%, P<0.05). The FFR/iFR group had a higher rate of grafts placed to the left circumflex (LCx) artery distribution than the angiography group (28.6% vs. 9.5%, P<0.05). We observed a trend toward reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (7.1% vs. 11.6%, P=0.369) and angina (0.0% vs. 6.3%, P=0.429) in the FFR/iFR group compared to the angiography group over 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Physiologic assessment of coronary lesions can effectively guide complete revascularization in patients undergoing CABG. Moreover, FFR/iFR-guided CABG was associated with significantly higher rates of three-vessel anastomoses, venous grafting, and graft distribution to the circumflex system.
