A case report of acute heart failure caused by a patient delaying taking his diuretic medication

Acute heart failure is a life-threatening medical emergency, most commonly occurring as an immediate or delayed complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or resulting from severe hypertension or valvular defects (stenosis or incompetence). Occasionally it is caused by patients' non-compliance with medication orders. In this case the patient had a history of three previous AMIs, controlled hypertension, and controlled congestive heart failure (CHF) for which he took two 40mg frusemide tablets (a very potent oral diuretic) each morning. Because he had experienced bladder discomfort during the latter stages of previous appointments he decided to delay taking the diuretic until after his appointment an acute heart failure ensued.

Present and future pharacotherapy for heart failure

The pharmacotherapy currently recommended by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association for heart failure (HF) is a diuretic, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), a β-adrenoceptor antagonist and (usually) digitalis. This current treatment of HF may be improved by optimising the dose of ACEI used, as increasing the dose of lisinopril increases its benefits in HF. Selective angiotensin receptor-1 (AT1) antagonists are effective alternatives for those who cannot tolerate ACEIs. AT1 antagonists may also be used in combination with ACEIs, as some studies have shown cumulative benefits for the combination. In addition to being used in Stage IV HF patients, in whom it has a marked benefit, spironolactone should be studied in less severe HF and in the presence of β-blockers. The use of carvedilol, extended-release metoprolol and bisoprolol should be extended to severe HF patients as these agents have been shown to decrease mortality in this group. The ancillary properties of carvedilol, particularly antagonism at prejunctional β-adrenoceptors, may give it additional benefits to selective β1-adrenoceptor antagonists. Celiprolol and bucindolol are not the β-blockers of choice in HF, as they do not decrease mortality. Although digitalis does not reduce mortality, it remains the only option for a long-term positive inotropic effect, as the long-term use of the phosphodiesterase inhibitors is associated with increased mortality. The calcium sensitising drug levosimendan may be useful in the hospital treatment of decompensated HF to increase cardiac output and improve dyspnoea and fatigue. The antiarrhythmic drug amiodarone should probably be used in patients at high risk of arrhythmic or sudden death, although this treatment may soon be superseded by the more expensive implanted cardioverter defibrillators, which are probably more effective and have fewer side effects. The natriuretic peptide nesiritide has recently been introduced for the hospital treatment of decompensated HF. Novel drugs that may be beneficial in the treatment of HF include the vasopeptidase inhibitors and the selective endothelin-A receptor antagonists but these require much more investigation. However, disappointing results have been obtained in a large clinical trial of the tumour necrosis factor α antagonist etanercept, where no likelihood of a difference between placebo and etanercept was observed. Small clinical trials with recombinant growth hormone to thicken ventricles in dilated cardiomyopathy have given variable results.

Angiotensin AT-1 receptor antagonism: complementary or alternative to ACE inhibition in cardiovascular and renal disease

Both angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and AT-1 receptor antagonists reduce the effects of angiotensin II, however they may have different clinical effects. This is because the ACE inhibitors, but not the AT-1 receptor antagonists, increase the levels of substance P, bradykinin and tissue plasminogen activator. The AT-1 receptor antagonists, but not the ACE inhibitors, are capable of inhibiting the effects of angiotensin II produced by enzymes other than ACE. On the basis of the present clinical trial evidence, AT-1 receptor antagonists, rather than the ACE inhibitors, should be used to treat hypertension associated with left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. Both groups of drugs are useful when hypertension is not complicated by LV hypertrophy, and in diabetes. In the treatment of diabetes with or without hypertension, there is good clinical support for the use of either an ACE inhibitor or an AT-1 receptor antagonist. ACE inhibitors are recommended in the treatment of renal disease that is not associated with diabetes, after myocardial infarction when left ventricular dysfunction is present, and in heart failure. As the incidence of cough is much lower with the AT-1 receptor antagonists, these can be substituted for ACE inhibitors in patients with hypertension or heart failure who have persistent cough. Preliminary studies suggest that combining an AT-1 receptor antagonist with an ACE inhibitor may be more effective than an ACE inhibitor alone in the treatment of hypertension, diabetes with hypertension, renal disease without diabetes and heart failure. However, further trials are required before combination therapy can be recommended in these conditions.

Health related quality of life in patients with refractory chronic heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization: type of therapeutic response

The benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the health-related quality of life (HRQL) are largely demonstrated in selected patients with severe congestive heart failure (CHF). However, the differences between responders and non-responders, with regard to the effect of CRT in the various dimensions that constitute HRQL are still a matter of discussion. Objective: To evaluate the impact of CRT on the HRQL of patients with CHF refractory to optimal pharmacological therapy, within 6 months after CRT. Methods: 43 patients, submitted to successful implantation of CRT, were evaluated in hospital just before intervention and in the outpatient clinic within 6 months after CRT. HRQL was analyzed based on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Patients were classified as super-responders (ejection fraction of left ventricle - LVEF - ≥45% post-CRT), n=15, responders (sustained improvement in functional class and LVEF increased by 15%), n=19, and non-responders (no clinical or LVEF improvement), n=9. Results: In the group of super-responders, CRT was associated with an improvement in HRQL for the various fields and sums assessed (ρ<0.05); in responders, CRT has been associated with an improvement of HRQL in the various fields and sums, except in the self-efficacy dimension (ρ<0.05); in non-responders, CRT was not associated with improvement of HRQL. Conclusion: In a population with severe CHF undergoing CRT, the patients with clinical and echocardiographic positive response, obtained a favorable impact in all dimensions of HRQL, while the group without response to CRT showed no improvement. These data reinforces the importance of HRQL as a multidimensional tool for assessment of benefits in clinical practice.