Dataset Information

Respiratory support in acute heart failure with preserved vs reduced ejection fraction.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is little evidence addressing the use and differential impact of respiratory support in acute heart failure (AHF) patients with preserved (HFPEF) vs reduced (HFREF) ejection fraction. Therefore, our objective was to determine the usage and clinical outcomes of critical care respiratory support in AHF across the two populations.

Hypothesis

Respiratory support would be associated with adverse outcome in both HFPEF and HFREF.

Methods

We identified HFPEF, HFREF, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) using International Classification of Disease-Ninth Edition codes in the National Inpatient Sample between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014. We determined rates of IMV and NIV use. We identified predictors of need for IMV and NIV and the association between ventilation strategies and in-hospital mortality in HFPEF vs HFREF.

Results

1.3 million AHF-HFPEF and 1.7 million AHF-HFREF hospitalizations were included; 5.98% of AHF HFPEF hospitalizations included NIV and 0.57% included IMV. Among HFREF hospitalizations, fewer (4.1%) included NIV and more (0.93%) included IMV. In HFPEF hospitalization, NIV use was associated with 2.24-fold increased risk for death compared to no respiratory support in an adjusted model (HR 2.24 95% CI 2.05-2.44) and IMV use was associated with 2.85-fold increased risk for death (HR 2.85 95% CI 2.30-3.53). This increased risk of in-hospital mortality was similar among HFREF patients.

Conclusions

Use of respiratory support is increasing among patients with both HFPEF and HFREF and associated with substantially increased mortality in both heart failure subtypes.

SUBMITTER: Metkus TS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7144479 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Respiratory support in acute heart failure with preserved vs reduced ejection fraction.

Metkus Thomas S TS Stephens Robert Scott RS Schulman Steven S Hsu Steven S Morrow David A DA Eid Shaker M SM

Clinical cardiology 20191211 4

<h4>Background</h4>There is little evidence addressing the use and differential impact of respiratory support in acute heart failure (AHF) patients with preserved (HFPEF) vs reduced (HFREF) ejection fraction. Therefore, our objective was to determine the usage and clinical outcomes of critical care respiratory support in AHF across the two populations.<h4>Hypothesis</h4>Respiratory support would be associated with adverse outcome in both HFPEF and HFREF.<h4>Methods</h4>We identified HFPEF, HFREF ...[more]

PMID: 31825125

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to assess short-term outcomes among emergency department (ED) patients with acute heart failure (AHF) by preserved (≥50%) vs. reduced (<50%) ejection fraction (EF).Methods and resultsWe conducted a retrospective, multicentre study of adult ED patients with AHF from 2017 to 2018 in an integrated healthcare system with 21 hospitals. Among patients with known EF, our primary outcome was 30 day all-cause mortality, comparing patients with heart failure with preserved EF (HFpEF) and heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF), adjusted for known risk factors. We ran separate multivariate regression models to compare 30 day mortality between HFpEF and HFrEF patients stratified by ED disposition (admit, observe, and discharge). Our secondary outcomes were adjusted 30 day all-cause return hospital admission and rates of non-fatal serious adverse events, including new intra-aorta balloon pump, endotracheal intubation, renal failure requiring dialysis, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. We conducted a sensitivity analysis among patients with EF ≤ 40% and compared our primary and secondary outcomes among patients with EF ≤ 40% with those with EF ≥ 50%. Among the 26 050 total ED encounters for AHF, 15 275 (58.6%) had known EF and 62.4% had HFpEF. The mean age was 76, 49.6% were women, and 60.5% were white. We found that 62.4% of patients were admitted, 18.3% were observed, and 19.3% were discharged from the ED. The 30 day all-cause mortality rate was lowest among discharged patients (3.9%), intermediate among observed patients (5.9%), and highest among admitted patients (13.9%). Overall, the adjusted 30 day mortality rate was significantly higher among HFpEF patients compared with HFrEF patients (10.2% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.0004). HFpEF patients had higher mortality regardless of ED disposition, although the difference was only significant among admitted patients. The adjusted 30 day return hospital admission rates were not significantly different between HFpEF and HFrEF patients (17.9% vs. 17.8%, P = 0.89). The adjusted 30 day non-fatal serious adverse event rates were significantly higher among HFrEF patients compared with HFpEF patients (13.7% vs. 11.1%, P < 0.0001), driven by myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization. We found that 3692 patients had EF ≤ 40%. Patients with EF ≥ 50% had significantly higher adjusted 30 day mortality rates compared with those with EF ≤ 40% (10.2% vs. 8.4%, P < 0.05).ConclusionIn a contemporary population, almost three quarters of ED patients with AHF and known EF have HFpEF. These patients have higher 30 day adjusted mortality compared with those with HFrEF. Further studies might evaluate the underlying factors associated with this difference and target interventions to improve outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundMicrovascular dysfunction plays an important role in the pathogenesis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, no mechanistic link between systemic microvasculature and congestion, a central feature of the syndrome, has yet been investigated.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate capillary-interstitium fluid exchange in HFpEF, including lymphatic drainage and the potential osmotic forces exerted by any hypertonic tissue Na+ excess.MethodsPatients with HFpEF and healthy control subjects of similar age and sex distributions (n = 16 per group) underwent: 1) a skin biopsy for vascular immunohistochemistry, gene expression, and chemical (water, Na+, and K+) analyses; and 2) venous occlusion plethysmography to assess peripheral microvascular filtration coefficient (measuring capillary fluid extravasation) and isovolumetric pressure (above which lymphatic drainage cannot compensate for fluid extravasation).ResultsSkin biopsies in patients with HFpEF showed rarefaction of small blood and lymphatic vessels (p = 0.003 and p = 0.012, respectively); residual skin lymphatics showed a larger diameter (p = 0.007) and lower expression of lymphatic differentiation and function markers (LYVE-1 [lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronan receptor 1]: p < 0.05; PROX-1 [prospero homeobox protein 1]: p < 0.001) compared with control subjects. In patients with HFpEF, microvascular filtration coefficient was lower (calf: 3.30 [interquartile range (IQR): 2.33 to 3.88] l × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1 vs. 4.66 [IQR: 3.70 to 6.15] μl × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1; p < 0.01; forearm: 5.16 [IQR: 3.86 to 5.43] l × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1 vs. 5.66 [IQR: 4.69 to 8.38] μl × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1; p > 0.05), in keeping with blood vascular rarefaction and the lack of any observed hypertonic skin Na+ excess, but the lymphatic drainage was impaired (isovolumetric pressure in patients with HFpEF vs. control subjects: calf 16 ± 4 mm Hg vs. 22 ± 4 mm Hg; p < 0.005; forearm 17 ± 4 mm Hg vs. 25 ± 5 mm Hg; p < 0.001).ConclusionsPeripheral lymphatic vessels in patients with HFpEF exhibit structural and molecular alterations and cannot effectively compensate for fluid extravasation and interstitial accumulation by commensurate drainage. Reduced lymphatic reserve may represent a novel therapeutic target.

Project description:AimsThe Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) is a widely used patient-reported outcome measure in heart failure (HF). The KCCQ was validated in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), leaving knowledge gaps regarding its applicability in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This study addresses the psychometric properties of internal consistency and reliability, construct, and known-group validity of KCCQ in both HFrEF and HFpEF. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the KCCQ and their prognostic significance in HFpEF and HFrEF, within a large prospective multinational HF cohort.Methods and resultsWe examined the 23-item KCCQ in the prospective multinational ASIAN-HF study [4470 HFrEF (ejection fraction <40%); 921 HFpEF (ejection fraction ≥50%)]. Internal consistency (using Cronbach's alpha) showed high reliability in HFrEF and HFpeF: functional status score: 0.89 and 0.91 and clinical summary score: 0.89 and 0.90, respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis in HFrEF validated the five original domains of KCCQ (physical function, symptoms, self-efficacy, social limitation, and quality of life); in HFpEF, questions measuring physical function and social limitation had strong correlation (r = 0.66) and different domains emerged. We proposed an additional physical independence summary score, especially in HFpEF (comprising the original physical function and social limitation domains), which showed good internal consistency (α = 0.89) and has comparable receiver operating characteristic curve 0.766 ± 0.037 with the clinical summary score (receiver operating characteristic curve 0.774 ± 0.037), in predicting 1 year death and/or HF hospitalization.ConclusionsOur results confirmed the robustness of the KCCQ clinical summary score in HF regardless of ejection fraction group. In the assessment of physical capacity in HFpEF, our results suggest strong interaction with social limitation, and we propose a summary score comprising both components be used.

Project description:BackgroundLifetime risk of heart failure has been estimated to range from 20% to 46% in diverse sex and race groups. However, lifetime risk estimates for the 2 HF phenotypes, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), are not known.MethodsParticipant-level data from 2 large prospective cohort studies, the CHS (Cardiovascular Health Study) and MESA (Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), were pooled, excluding individuals with prevalent HF at baseline. Remaining lifetime risk estimates for HFpEF (EF ≥45%) and HFrEF (EF <45%) were determined at different index ages with the use of a modified Kaplan-Meier method with mortality and the other HF subtype as competing risks.ResultsWe included 12 417 participants >45 years of age (22.2% blacks, 44.8% men) who were followed up for median duration of 11.6 years with 2178 overall incident HF events with 561 HFrEF events and 726 HFpEF events. At the index age of 45 years, the lifetime risk for any HF through 90 years of age was higher in men than women (27.4% versus 23.8%). Among HF subtypes, the lifetime risk for HFrEF was higher in men than women (10.6% versus 5.8%). In contrast, the lifetime risk for HFpEF was similar in men and women. In race-stratified analyses, lifetime risk for overall HF was higher in nonblacks than blacks (25.9% versus 22.4%). Among HF subtypes, the lifetime risk for HFpEF was higher in nonblacks than blacks (11.2% versus 7.7%), whereas that for HFrEF was similar across the 2 groups. Among participants with antecedent myocardial infarction before HF diagnosis, the remaining lifetime risks for HFpEF and HFrEF were up to 2.5-fold and 4-fold higher, respectively, compared with those without antecedent myocardial infarction.ConclusionsLifetime risks for HFpEF and HFrEF vary by sex, race, and history of antecedent myocardial infarction. These insights into the distribution of HF risk and its subtypes could inform the development of targeted strategies to improve population-level HF prevention and control.

Dataset Information

Respiratory support in acute heart failure with preserved vs reduced ejection fraction.

Background

Hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Respiratory support in acute heart failure with preserved vs reduced ejection fraction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets