Fragilidad y pronóstico de los pacientes mayores con insuficiencia cardiaca / Frailty and prognosis of older patients with chronic heart failure

Introducción y objetivos: La insuficiencia cardiaca (IC) es prevalente en edades avanzadas. Nuestro objetivo es conocer el impacto de la fragilidad en la mortalidad a 1 año en pacientes mayores con IC ambulatorios. Métodos: El estudio «Impacto de la fragilidad y otros síndromes geriátricos en el manejo clínico y pronóstico del paciente anciano ambulatorio con insuficiencia cardiaca» (FRAGIC) es un registro prospectivo multicéntrico, realizado en 16 centros españoles, que incluyó pacientes con IC ambulatorios de edad ≥ 75 años seguidos por cardiología en España. Resultados: Se incluyó a 499 pacientes (media de edad, 81,4±4,3 años; 193 [38%] mujeres); 268 (54%) tenían una fracción de eyección del ventrículo izquierdo <40% y el 84,6% estaba en clase funcional II de la NYHA. La escala FRAIL identificó a 244 pacientes prefrágiles (49%) y 111 frágiles (22%). Los pacientes frágiles tenían una media de edad significativamente mayor, eran más frecuentemente mujeres (ambos, p <0,001) y presentaban mayores comorbilidad según el índice de Charlson (p=0,017) y prevalencia de síndromes geriátricos (p <0,001). Tras una mediana de seguimiento de 371 [361-387] días, fallecieron 58 pacientes (11,6%). En el análisis multivariado (modelo de regresión de Cox), la fragilidad mediante la escala FRAIL se asoció marginalmente con la mortalidad (HR=2,35; IC95%, 0,96-5,71; p=0,059); la identificada mediante la escala visual de movilidad (HR=2,26; IC95%, 1,16-4,38; p=0,015) fue predictor independiente de mortalidad, cuya asociación se mantuvo tras ajustar por variables confusoras (HR=2,13; IC95%, 1,08-4,20; p=0,02). Conclusiones: En pacientes mayores ambulatorios con IC, la fragilidad es predictor independiente de mortalidad a 1 año de seguimiento. Debe identificarse como parte del abordaje integral de estos pacientes.(AU)

Introduction and objectives: Heart failure (HF) is prevalent in advanced ages. Our objective was to assess the impact of frailty on 1-year mortality in older patients with ambulatory HF. Methods: Our data come from the FRAGIC study (Spanish acronym for “Study of the impact of frailty and other geriatric syndromes on the clinical management and prognosis of elderly outpatients with heart failure”), a multicenter prospective registry conducted in 16 Spanish hospitals including outpatients ≥ 75 years with HF followed up by cardiology services in Spain. Results: We included 499 patients with a mean age of 81.4±4.3 years, of whom 193 (38%) were women. A total of 268 (54%) had left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, and 84.6% was in NYHA II functional class. The FRAIL scale identified 244 (49%) pre-frail and 111 (22%) frail patients. Frail patients were significantly older, were more frequently female (both, P <.001), and had higher comorbidity according to the Charlson index (P=.017) and a higher prevalence of geriatric syndromes (P <.001). During a median follow-up of 371 [361-387] days, 58 patients (11.6%) died. On multivariate analysis (Cox regression model), frailty detected with the FRAIL scale was marginally associated with mortality (HR=2.35; 95%CI, 0.96-5.71; P=.059), while frailty identified by the visual mobility scale was an independent predictor of mortality (HR=2.26; 95%CI, 1.16-4.38; P=.015); this association was maintained after adjustment for confounding variables (HR=2.13; 95%CI, 1.08-4.20; P=.02). Conclusions: In elderly outpatients with HF, frailty is independently associated with mortality at 1 year of follow-up. It is essential to identify frailty as part of the comprehensive approach to elderly patients with HF.(AU)

Sex differences in the impact of frailty in elderly outpatients with heart failure.

Introduction: Frailty is common among patients with heart failure (HF). Our aim was to address the role of frailty in the management and prognosis of elderly men and women with HF. Methods and results: Prospective multicenter registry that included 499 HF outpatients ≥75 years old. Mean age was 81.4 ± 4.3 years, and 193 (38%) were women. Compared with men, women were older (81.9 ± 4.3 vs. 81.0 ± 4.2 years, p = 0.03) and had higher left ventricular ejection fraction (46 vs. 40%, p < 0.001) and less ischemic heart disease (30 vs. 57%, p < 0.001). Women had a higher prevalence of frailty (22 vs. 10% with Clinical Frailty Scale, 34 vs. 15% with FRAIL, and 67% vs. 46% with the mobility visual scale, all p-values < 0.001) and other geriatric conditions (Barthel index ≤90: 14.9 vs. 6.2%, p = 0.003; malnutrition according to Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Formulary ≤11: 55% vs. 42%, p = 0.007; Pfeiffer cognitive test's errors: 1.6 ± 1.7 vs. 1.0 ± 1.6, p < 0.001; depression according to Yesavage test; p < 0.001) and lower comorbidity (Charlson index ≥4: 14.1% vs. 22.1%, p = 0.038). Women also showed worse self-reported quality of life (6.5 ± 2.1 vs. 6.9 ± 1.9, on a scale from 0 to 10, p = 0.012). In the univariate analysis, frailty was an independent predictor of mortality in men [Hazard ratio (HR) 3.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29-7.83, p = 0.012; HR 4.53, 95% CI 2.08-9.89, p < 0.001; and HR 2.61, 95% CI 1.23-5.43, p = 0.010, according to FRAIL, Clinical Frailty Scale, and visual mobility scale, respectively], but not in women. In the multivariable analysis, frailty identified by the visual mobility scale was an independent predictor of mortality (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.04-3.67, p = 0.03) and mortality/readmission (HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.05-4.04, p = 0.03) in men. Conclusions: In elderly outpatients with HF frailty is more common in women than in men. However, frailty is only associated with mortality in men.

Frailty and prognosis of older patients with chronic heart failure.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Heart failure (HF) is prevalent in advanced ages. Our objective was to assess the impact of frailty on 1-year mortality in older patients with ambulatory HF. METHODS: Our data come from the FRAGIC study (Spanish acronym for "Study of the impact of frailty and other geriatric syndromes on the clinical management and prognosis of elderly outpatients with heart failure"), a multicenter prospective registry conducted in 16 Spanish hospitals including outpatients ≥ 75 years with HF followed up by cardiology services in Spain. RESULTS: We included 499 patients with a mean age of 81.4±4.3 years, of whom 193 (38%) were women. A total of 268 (54%) had left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, and 84.6% was in NYHA II functional class. The FRAIL scale identified 244 (49%) pre-frail and 111 (22%) frail patients. Frail patients were significantly older, were more frequently female (both, P <.001), and had higher comorbidity according to the Charlson index (P=.017) and a higher prevalence of geriatric syndromes (P <.001). During a median follow-up of 371 [361-387] days, 58 patients (11.6%) died. On multivariate analysis (Cox regression model), frailty detected with the FRAIL scale was marginally associated with mortality (HR=2.35; 95%CI, 0.96-5.71; P=.059), while frailty identified by the visual mobility scale was an independent predictor of mortality (HR=2.26; 95%CI, 1.16-4.38; P=.015); this association was maintained after adjustment for confounding variables (HR=2.13; 95%CI, 1.08-4.20; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: In elderly outpatients with HF, frailty is independently associated with mortality at 1 year of follow-up. It is essential to identify frailty as part of the comprehensive approach to elderly patients with HF.

Significance of the learning curve in left atrial appendage occlusion with two different devices.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of learning on outcome with use of two different left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion devices. BACKGROUND: Two self-expanding devices, the Watchman and the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP), have been used for LAA occlusion in the last few years. It has been demonstrated that complications associated with implantation decrease in frequency with operator experience. However, the role of operator experience has not been compared across the two device types. METHODS: The study comprises 31 consecutive patients who underwent LAA occlusion. We compare the first 10 patients in whom an ACP was implanted with the subsequent eleven patients who underwent ACP implantation and with 10 cases where a Watcthman device was implanted. The composite safety end point comprised procedure-related events and excessive bleeding events. We also performed 3 months echocardiographic and clinical follow-up. RESULTS: There were not significant differences in the basal clinical and echocardiographical characteristics across the three groups. Cardiac complications only occurred in the ACP initial experience group (9% vs. 0% vs. 0% P = 0.04). Echocardiographic and clinical follow-up at 3 months was completed in all patients. No significant residual leak was detected. One patient in the ACP initial experience group developed a thrombus on the device. One patient in ACP late experience presented an ischemic stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Complications associated with LAA occlusion cluster early in the peri-procedural period and significantly decrease in frequency with operator experience. Initial experience gained with one of device may improve outcome with use of alternative LAA occlusion devices.

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of argatroban for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Limitations and contraindications of heparins and oral vitamin K antagonists have led to the development of new anticoagulant drugs over the last few years. Argatroban is an intravenous direct thrombin inhibitor currently indicated for the prophylaxis and treatment of thrombosis associated with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and for patients at risk of HIT undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The role of argatroban for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under evaluation. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews the potential use of argatroban for the treatment of ACS and presents the pharmacokinetic data currently available. The authors also present the pharmacodynamic literature of agratroban in addition to highlighting the safety and tolerability of the drug. EXPERT OPINION: Theoretically, argatroban's pharmacokinetics makes it an attractive alternative to heparin. Pharmacological advantages of argatroban over heparin include a more-predictable anticoagulant response and the absence of a risk of HIT. Furthermore, argatroban has a fast and predictable dose-dependent anticoagulant effect with low inter-individual variability. It is non-immugenic, not susceptible to degradation by proteases and it is cleared via the liver. These characteristics confer argotroban a different profile from other anticoagulants. Agatroban is an effective alternative for patients when heparin, lepirudin and bivalirudin cannot be used. Its utility in ACS and PCI in non-HIT patients has been evaluated but further studies are warranted to define its role in this context.