Could Impedance Cardiography be a Non-Invasive Alternative Method of Measuring Cardiac Output in Patients with Pulmonary Hypertension?

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension guidelines recommend invasive right heart catheterization for diagnosis and clinical follow-up. Our aim was to compare non-invasive impedance cardiography with invasive techniques for cardiac index measurements and mortality prediction in patients with pulmonary hypertension. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2018, 284 right heart catheterizations were performed for the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension in 215 patients with mean pulmonary artery pressure >25 mm Hg, and at least 2 methods used for cardiac output measurement were included in the study retrospectively. Patients were evaluated with Pearson's correlation in 3 groups: estimated Fick (eFick) method and thermodilution (group 1), eFick method and impedance cardiography (group 2), and thermodilution and impedance cardiography (group 3). We also compared the predictive power of cardiac index measured by different methods for 1-year overall mortality and hospitalizations. RESULTS: There were strong and moderate positive correlations in groups 1 and 3, respectively (r = 0.634, P <.001, r = 0.534, P =.001), and the weakest correlation was in group 2 (r = 0.390, P =.001). The mean difference (bias) between eFick method versus impedance cardiography, impedance cardiography vs. thermodilution, and eFick method vs. thermodilution was 0.6 mL/min, 0.47 mL/min, and -0.2 mL/min respectively, but limits of agreement were wide. In both groups, cardiac index <2.5 L/min/m2 as measured by thermodilution significantly predicted 1-year mortality. Also, impedance cardiography was better than eFick method in predicting mortality (P =.02). CONCLUSIONS: Our single-center real-life data showed that for cardiac output and cardiac index measurements, impedance cardiography provides a moderate correlation with thermodilution and is fair with eFick method methods. Moreover, thermodilution appeared superior to both eFick method and impedance cardiography, while impedance cardiography was even better than eFick method in predicting 1-year adverse events, including total mortality and hospitalization, in patients with pulmonary hypertension.

Myocardial performance index and cardiovascular diseases.

The Myocardial Performance Index (MPI), also known as the Tei Index, is a measure of the overall performance of the heart that takes into account both systolic and diastolic function. It is a non-invasive echocardiographic index that provides information about the efficiency of the heart's pumping action. The MPI is a useful tool for evaluating cardiac function in various clinical conditions, such as heart failure, myocardial infarction, and cardiomyopathy. A higher MPI value indicates poorer cardiac function, while a lower MPI value indicates better cardiac function. This review will give a summary of the relevant MPI literature, provide a methodology and technical aspects, and make research recommendations.

PrevAleNce and Associated factors of inappropriaTe dosing of direct Oral anticoaguLants In pAtients with Atrial Fibrillation: the ANATOLIA-AF Study.

PURPOSE: Inappropriate dosing of direct oral anticoagulants is associated with an increased risk of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, cardiovascular hospitalization, and death in patients with atrial fibrillation. The main goal of the study was to determine the prevalence and associated factors of inappropriate dosing of direct oral anticoagulants in real-life settings. METHODS: This study was a multicenter, cross-sectional, observational study that included 2004 patients with atrial fibrillation. The study population was recruited from 41 cardiology outpatient clinics between January and May 2021. The main criteria for inappropriate direct oral anticoagulant dosing were defined according to the recommendations of the European Heart Rhythm Association. RESULTS: The median age of the study population was 72 years and 58% were women. Nine-hundred and eighty-seven patients were prescribed rivaroxaban, 658 apixaban, 239 edoxaban, and 120 dabigatran. A total of 498 patients (24.9%) did not receive the appropriate dose of direct oral anticoagulants. In a logistic regression model, advanced age, presence of chronic kidney disease and permanent atrial fibrillation, prescription of reduced doses of direct oral anticoagulants or edoxaban treatment, concomitant use of amiodarone treatment, and non-use of statin treatment were significantly associated with potentially inappropriate dosing of direct oral anticoagulants. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that the prevalence of inappropriate direct oral anticoagulant dosing according to the European Heart Rhythm Association recommendations was 24.9% in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several demographic and clinical factors were associated with the inappropriate prescription of direct oral anticoagulants.

The Safety and Tolerability of Nebivolol in Hypertensive Patients with Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ≥ 40%: A Population-Based Cohort Study (Nebivolol-TR Study).

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the safety and tolerability of nebivolol in hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 40% in a Turkish cohort. METHODS: A total of 1015 hypertensive patients and coronary artery disease with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 40% were analyzed from 29 different centers in Turkey. Primary outcomes were the mean change in blood pressure and heart rate. Secondary outcomes were to assess the rate of reaching targeted blood pressure (<130/80 mmHg) and heart rate (<60 bpm) and the changes in the clinical symptoms (angina and dyspnea). Adverse clinical events and clinical outcomes including cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular hospital admissions, or acute cardiac event were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 60.3 ± 11.5 years (male: 54.2%). During a mean follow-up of 6 months, the mean change in blood pressure was -11.2 ± 23.5/-5.1 ± 13.5 mmHg, and the resting heart rate was -12.1 ± 3.5 bpm. Target blood pressure and heart rate were achieved in 76.5% and 37.7% of patients. Angina and functional classifications were improved by at least 1 or more categories in 31% and 23.2% of patients. No serious adverse events related to nebivolol were reported. The most common cardiovascular side effect was symptomatic hypotension (4.2%). The discontinuation rate was 1.7%. Cardiovascular hospital admission rate was 5% and hospitalization due to heart failure was 1.9% during 6 months' follow-up. Cardiovascular mortality rate was 0.1%. CONCLUSION: Nebivolol was well tolerated and safe for achieving blood pressure and heart rate control in hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction.

Gender-related clinical and management differences in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

AIM: Gender-related differences have been described in the clinical characteristics and management of patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, published data are conflictive in this regard. METHODS: We investigated differences in clinical and management variables between male and female patients from the ATA study, a prospective, multicentre, observational study that included 1462 outpatients with chronic HFrEF between January and June 2019. RESULTS: Study population was predominantly male (70.1%). In comparison to men, women with chronic HFrEF were older (66 ± 11 years vs 69 ± 12 years, P < .001), suffered more hospitalisations and presented more frequently with NYHA class III or IV symptoms. Ischaemic heart disease was more frequent in men, whereas anaemia, thyroid disease and depression were more frequent in women. No difference was seen between genders in the use rate of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, or ivabradine, or in the proportion of patients achieving target doses of these drugs. Regarding device therapies, men were more often treated with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and women received more cardiac resynchronisation therapy. CONCLUSION: In summary, although management seemed to be equivalent between genders, women tended to present with more symptoms, require hospitalisation more frequently and have different comorbidities than men. These results highlight the importance of gender-related differences in HFrEF and call for further research to clarify the causes of these disparities. Gender-specific recommendations should be included in future guidelines in HFrEF.

Adherence to guideline-directed medical and device Therapy in outpAtients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The ATA study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite recommendations from heart failure guidelines on the use of pharmacologic and device therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), important inconsistencies in guideline adherence persist in practice. The aim of this study was to assess adherence to guideline-directed medical and device therapy for the treatment of patients with chronic HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%). METHODS: The Adherence to guideline-directed medical and device Therapy in outpAtients with HFrEF (ATA) study is a prospective, multicenter, observational study conducted in 24 centers from January 2019 to June 2019. RESULTS: The study included 1462 outpatients (male: 70.1%, mean age: 67±11 years, mean LVEF: 30%±6%) with chronic HFrEF. Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and ivabradin were used in 78.2%, 90.2%, 55.4%, and 12.1% of patients, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving target doses of medical treatments was 24.6% for RAS inhibitors, 9.9% for beta-blockers, and 10.5% for MRAs. Among patients who met the criteria for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), only 16.9% of patients received an ICD (167 of 983) and 34% (95 of 279) of patients underwent CRT (95 of 279). CONCLUSION: The ATA study shows that most HFrEF outpatients receive RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers but not MRAs or ivabradin when the medical reasons for nonuse, such as drug intolerance or contraindications, are taken into account. In addition, most eligible patients with HFrEF do not receive target doses of pharmacological treatments or guideline-recommended device therapy.

Comparison of Warfarin use in terms of efficacy and safety in two different polyclinics.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and safety of warfarin in specialized international normalized ratio (INR) outpatient clinic (INR-C) and in general cardiology outpatient clinic (General-C). METHODS: Herein, 381 consecutive patients with a regular follow-up at INR-C (n=233) or General-C (n=148) for at least 1 year were retrospectively included. While INR-C patients were followed by a single experienced trained nurse, General-C patients were followed by a different cardiologist who worked in a rotational principle every month. During controls, demographic characteristics, INR levels, bleeding events, ischemic stroke, and transient ischemic attacks in the last 1 year were recorded. Primary endpoint was defined as the evaluation of the combined major bleeding and ischemic event, and secondary endpoint was defined as the evaluation of them separately. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 62±12.86 and 43.8% were male. Mean time in therapeutic range (TTR) level was statistically higher in INR-C than that in General-C (68.8%±15.88 and 51.6%±23.04, respectively; p<0.001). Primary outcomes were significantly higher in General-C than that in INR-C [13.5% (20) and 6.4% (15); respectively, p=0.020]. Overall, major bleeding was observed in 25 patients (6.5%) and (2.6%) ischemic event was observed in 10 patients. In General-C patients, both major bleeding (8.8% vs. 5.2%; p=0.163) and the ischemic event (4.7% vs. 1.3%; p=0.051) were more, and no statistically significant differences were detected between the two clinics. CONCLUSION: The findings of our study demonstrate that patients followed in INR-C had higher TTR levels and lower bleeding and ischemic events rates that those followed in General-C.

The role of specialized prevention clinics for the short term follow-up of acute coronary syndromes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effect of specialized prevention clinics and standard clinics follow-ups on secondary protection after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: A total of 118 patients who received thrombolytic therapy after being diagnosed with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were followed up for 6 months. After ACS, patients in a specialized prevention clinic (Group 1) (n=67) and those in a standard clinic (Group 2) (n=51) were compared in terms of the change in their lifestyle, management of risk factors, and drug compliance. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between groups in terms of baseline clinical and laboratory findings except for triglyceride level (Group 1: median 174 mg/dL; Group 2: median 136 mg/dL; p=0.039). Six months after indexing, smoking cessation (72.4% vs. 50%, p=0.037), diet compliance (43% vs.19.6%, p=0.012), and exercise rates (31% vs. 13.7%, p=0.044) were significantly higher in Group 1. Although the weight control rate was higher in Group 1, no significant difference was noted between the groups (27% vs. 15.6%, p=0.219). The rate of systolic and diastolic blood pressures >140/90 mmHg was significantly higher in Group 2 (23.5% vs. 9%, p=0.029) at 6 months. The median low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) value was significantly lower in Group 1 patients (Group 1: 91 mg/dL; Group 2: 102 mg/dL; p=0.042). Moreover, the rate of LDL-C ≤70 mg/dL or ≥50% reduction compared with baseline was significantly higher in Group 1 (32.8% vs. 13.7%, p=0.016). Although the recommended treatments were similar in both groups, the statin use rate was significantly higher in Group 1 (95.5% vs. 80.3%, p=0.021) at 6 months. CONCLUSION: The results of the study showed that specialized prevention clinics were more effective during the management of cardiovascular risk factors after ACS.