Prognostic effect of systematic geriatric assessment on patients with acute heart failure.

AIMS: Frailty and dependence are frequent in patients admitted for acute heart failure (AHF), but their prognostic significance is unknown, especially in young adults. We aimed to study in adults admitted for AHF, regardless of age, the effect of frailty and dependence on the incidence of mortality and a combined event of mortality, readmissions for AHF, and visits to the emergency room (ER) for AHF at 1 and 6 months. METHODS AND RESULTS: We designed a prospective cohort study by including all the patients with AHF admitted in our Cardiology Department from July 2020 through May 2021. A multidimensional geriatric assessment was performed during the admission. We clinically followed up the patients 6 months after discharge. We enrolled 202 patients. The mean age was 73 ± 12.32 years, and 100 (49.5%) of the patients were elderly (>75 years). Just 78 patients (38.6%) were women, and 100 (49.5%) had previous HF. Frailty (FRAIL ≥ 3) was observed in 68 (33.7%) patients (mean FRAIL score: 1.88 ± 1.48). Dependence (Barthel < 100) was observed in 65 (32.2%) patients (mean Barthel index: 94.38 ± 11.21). Frailty and dependence showed a significant association with both prognostic events at 1 and 6 months. In the multivariable analysis, frailty was associated with higher mortality at 1 month [hazard ratio (HR) 12.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57-101.47, P = 0.017] but not at 6 months (HR 2.25, 95% CI 0.61-8.26, P = 0.224) or with the combined endpoint at neither 1 month (HR 1.64, 95% CI 0.54-5.03, P = 0.384) nor 6 months (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.75-2.46, P = 0.320). Dependence was related to higher mortality at 1 month (HR 13.04, 95% CI 1.62-104.75, P = 0.016) and 6 months (HR 7.18, 95% CI 1.99-25.86, P = 0.003) and to higher incidence of the combined event at 1 month (HR 5.93, 95% CI 1.63-21.50, P = 0.007) and 6 months (HR 2.62, 95% CI 1.49-4.61, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In AHF patients, frailty and dependence implied a worse prognosis, rising mortality, readmissions, and ER visits for AHF.

Fast systematic geriatric assessment in acute heart failure patients admitted in Cardiology.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure prevalence is increasing in elder adults. These patients usually present geriatric syndromes, especially frailty. The effect of frailty on heart failure is under discussion but there are few data about the clinical characterization of frail patients who are admitted for acute heart failure decompensation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to study the differences in clinical baseline variables and geriatric scales between frail and non-frail patients admitted to the Cardiology unit via the Emergency Department for acute heart failure. METHODS: We enrolled all patients with acute heart failure who were admitted to the Cardiology unit from the Emergency Department of our hospital from July 2020 through May 2021. A multidimensional and comprehensive geriatric assessment was performed at the moment of admission. We studied differences in baseline variables and geriatric scales according to the frailty status determined by the FRAIL scale. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients were included. In the whole population, 68 (33.7%) patients presented frailty defined by a FRAIL score ≥ 3. The frail patients were older (80±9 vs. 69±12 years; p<0.001), and had a worse quality of life (58.31±12.18 vs.39.26±13.71 points; p<0.001) according to the Minnesota scale, presented high comorbidity (47 (69.1%) vs. 67 (50.4%) patients; p = 0.011) defined as ≥3 points according to the Charlson scale and were more dependent (40 (58.8%) vs. 25 (18.8%) patients; p<0.001) according to the Barthel scale. The frail patients presented higher MAGGIC risk scores (24.09±4.99 vs. 18.89±6.26; p<0.001). Despite this adverse profile, the treatments prescribed during the admission and at the hospital discharge were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of geriatric syndromes, especially frailty, is very high in patients admitted for acute heart failure. Frail patients with acute heart failure had an adverse clinical profile with more prevalence of concomitant geriatric syndromes. Therefore, we consider that a geriatric assessment should be performed during the admission of acute heart failure patients to improve care and attention.

A Differential Profile of Biomarkers between Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Healthy Controls.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is explained by anatomical and electrophysiological changes in the atria determined by high pressure, dilatation, infiltration and inflammation in the myocardium. There are some biomarkers implicated in these processes, namely, NT-proBNP, high sensitivity troponin (Hs-Tn), urate, galectin-3, ST2, C reactive protein and fibrinogen. The aim of this study was to assess differences in these biomarkers between patients with AF and healthy controls. We designed a cross-sectional study consecutively including all patients undergoing electrical cardioversion in our hospital for persistent AF and matched healthy controls. We included 115 patients with persistent non-valvular AF and 33 healthy subjects. The biomarkers NT-proBNP, ST2 and Hs-Tn T were significantly related to the presence of AF (1054 ± 833.30 vs. 58.31 ± 59.40, p < 0.001; 35.43 ± 15.89 vs. 27.43 ± 10.95, p < 0.001 and 10.25 ± 6.11 vs. 8.42 ± 6.85, p < 0.001, respectively). NT-proBNP was the best biomarker differentiating AF patients (area under the curve 0.995). The best NT-proBNP cut-off point to differentiate AF was 102 pg/mL; for Hs-Tn T it was 11.5 ng/L and for ST2 it was 37.7 ng/mL. It is possible that these biomarkers intervene at the onset of AF and have no role in AF maintenance.

Differences According to Age in the Diagnostic Performance of Cardiac Biomarkers to Predict Frailty in Patients with Acute Heart Failure.

Frailty has traditionally been studied in the elderly population but scarcely in younger individuals. The objective of the present study is to analyze differences according to age in the diagnostic performance of cardiac biomarkers to predict frailty in patients admitted to the hospital for acute heart failure (AHF). A frailty assessment was performed with the SPPB and FRAIL scales (score > 3). We included 201 patients who were divided according to age: those older and younger than 75 years. In the younger group, no biomarker was related to the presence of frailty. This was mainly determined by age and comorbidities. In the elderly group, NT-proBNP was significantly related to the presence of frailty, but none of the baseline characteristics were. The best cut-off point in the elderly group for NT-proBNP was 4000 pg/mL. The area under the curve (AUC) for proBNP for frailty detection was 0.62 in the elderly. Another similar frailty scale, the SPPB, also showed a similar AUC in this group; however, adding the NT-proBNP (one point if NT-proBNP < 4000 pg/mL), it showed a slightly higher yield (AUC 0.65). The addition of biomarkers could improve frailty detection in members of the elderly population who are admitted to the hospital for AHF.

The Role of Galectin-3 and ST2 in Cardiology: A Short Review.

Galectin-3 is a lectin that binds beta-galactosides. It is involved in cardiac remodeling and fibrosis through the activation of macrophages and fibroblasts. ST2 is secreted by myocardial cells due to cardiac overload. These two biomarkers have been traditionally studied in the field of heart failure to guide medical therapy and detect the progression of the disease. Nevertheless, there are novel evidences that connect galectin-3 and ST2 with coronary heart disease and, specifically, with atrial fibrillation. The aim of this article is to concisely review the diagnostic and prognostic role of galectin-3 and ST2 in different cardiac diseases.

sST2 and Galectin-3 genotyping in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.

Genotyping of ST2 and galectin-3 in atrial fibrillation (AF) is not well analyzed. The aim of our study was to analyze the possible relationship between levels of sST2 and galectin-3 and three polymorphisms in patients with AF. We included 125 patients with persistent AF undergoing electric cardioversion. We analyzed sST2 and galectin-3 levels and three polymorphisms in peripheral blood samples. Rs2274273 was significantly related with levels of galectin-3. Rs1558648 was associated with levels of sST2 but rs13019803 were not. None of the polymorphisms were connected to the variation of biomarkers levels during the follow up. We found a relationship between rs2274273 and galectin-3 levels and rs1558648 and sST2 levels in patients with AF.

Biomarkers in atrial fibrillation and heart failure with non-reduced ejection fraction: Diagnostic application and new cut-off points.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with non-reduced left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) present a diagnostic overlap. In this paper, we analyze differences in biomarkers between patients with and without HF, in a cohort of patients presenting with symptomatic AF. Differences in biomarkers between patients with medium range ejection fraction HF (HFmrEF) and those with preserved ejection fraction HF (HFpEF) are also analyzed. METHODS: A total of 115 patients with symptomatic persistent AF were included. Seven biomarkers were measured: NT-proBNP, high sensitivity T troponin (hsTNT), galectin-3, ST2, fibrinogen, urate and C-reactive protein. RESULTS: Patients with non-reduced LVEF HF had significantly higher NT-proBNP levels than those without HF. This biomarker was the only variable independently related with the presence of non-reduced LVEF HF. Troponin was the only factor independently related with the presence of HFmrEF. CONCLUSIONS: NT-proBNP showed the best diagnostic accuracy for detecting the presence of non-reduced LVEF HF. We found higher diagnostic NT-proBNP cut-off values than those previously reported. Troponin was the most accurate biomarker differentiating HFmrEF from HFpEF.