Assessment of quality of life in children with hemophilic arthropathy. An observational study

SIN FINANCIACIÓN

Perception of disease based on the level education and type of employment. Influence on adherence to treatment in young patients with hemophilia

SIN FINANCIACIÓN

Family adaptation and perception of stress in parents of children with hemophilia. Possible factor influencing adherence

SIN FINANCIACIÓN

Las órdenes de no reanimar. Historia y situación actual

SIN FINANCIACIÓN

Expectativas de supervivencia tras la reanimación cardiopulmonar. Predicciones y deseos de los cardiópatas

SIN FINANCIACIÓN

Comparison of 1-year outcome in patients with severe aorta stenosis treated conservatively or by aortic valve replacement or by percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (data from a multicenter Spanish registry)

The factors that influence decision making in severe aortic stenosis (AS) are unknown. Our aim was to assess, in patients with severe AS, the determinants of management and prognosis in a multicenter registry that enrolled all consecutive adults with severe AS during a 1-month period. One-year follow-up was obtained in all patients and included vital status and aortic valve intervention (aortic valve replacement [AVR] and transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]). A total of 726 patients were included, mean age was 77.3 ± 10.6 years, and 377 were women (51.8%). The most common management was conservative therapy in 468 (64.5%) followed by AVR in 199 (27.4%) and TAVI in 59 (8.1%). The strongest association with aortic valve intervention was patient management in a tertiary hospital with cardiac surgery (odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 4.1, p <0.001). The 2 main reasons to choose conservative management were the absence of significant symptoms (136% to 29.1%) and the presence of co-morbidity (128% to 27.4%). During 1-year follow-up, 132 patients died (18.2%). The main causes of death were heart failure (60% to 45.5%) and noncardiac diseases (46% to 34.9%). One-year survival for patients treated conservatively, with TAVI, and with AVR was 76.3%, 94.9%, and 92.5%, respectively, p <0.001. One-year survival of patients treated conservatively in the absence of significant symptoms was 97.1%. In conclusion, most patients with severe AS are treated conservatively. The outcome in asymptomatic patients managed conservatively was acceptable. Management in tertiary hospitals is associated with valve intervention. One-year survival was similar with both interventional strategies.

Outpatient follow-up during the first year after heart transplantation, is it feasible?

First year follow-up after heart transplantation requires invasive tests. Although patients used to be hospitalized for this purpose, ambulatory invasive procedures now offer the possibility of outpatient follow-up. The feasibility and security of this strategy is unknown. From 2007 we transitioned to outpatient follow-up. We have retrospectively reviewed the clinical course of the outpatient group (2007 to 2014) and an inpatient group (2000–2006). Basal characteristics, hospital stay, infections, rejection episodes and vascular complications were evaluated. 87 patients had Inpatient Follow-up (IF) and 98 Outpatient Follow-up (OF). Basal characteristics were similar, with significant differences in immunosuppression (tacrolimus IF 44.8% vs. OF 90.8%, and mycophenolate IF 86.2% vs OF 100%, both p values < 0.001) and age (IF 52 ± 11.5 years vs. OF 56.1 ± 11 years, p = 0.016). In the OF group more clinical visits were performed (IF 10 vs. OF 13, p < 0.001) while hospital stay was lower (IF 23 days vs. OF 3 days, p < 0.001). The rate of infection, rejection, and vascular complications was similar. No difference was found in 1-year mortality (IF 2.3% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.60). First year post-cardiac transplantation outpatient follow-up seems to be feasible and safe in terms of infection, rejection, vascular complications and mortality.

Una causa reversible de fracaso ventricular derecho agudo tras el trasplante cardiaco

SIN FINANCIACIÓN

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among cardiogenic shock patients. Prognostic and therapeutic implications

Cardiogenic shock (CS) has a poor prognosis. The heterogeneity in the mortality through different subgroups suggests that some factors can be useful to perform risk stratification and guide management. We aimed to find predictors of in-hospital mortality in these patients. We analyzed all cases of cardiogenic shock due to medical conditions admitted in our intensive acute cardiovascular care unity from November 2010 till November 2015. Clinical, biochemical and hemodynamic variables were registered, as was the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile at 24 h of CS diagnosis. From a total of 281 patients, 28 died within the first 24 h and were not included in the analysis. A total of 253 patients survived the first 24 h, mean age was 68.8 ± 14.4 years, and 174 (68.8%) were men. Etiologies: acute coronary syndrome 146 (57.7%), acute heart failure 60 (23.7%), arrhythmias 35 (13.8%), and others 12 (4.8%). A total of 91 patients (36.0%) died during hospitalization. We found the following independent predictors of in-hospital mortality: age (odds ratio [OR] 1.032, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.003–1.062), blood glucose (OR 1.004, 95% CI 1.001–1.008), heart rate (OR 1.014, 95% CI 1.001–1.028), and INTERMACS profile (OR 0.168, 95% CI 0.107–0.266). In patients with CS the INTERMACS profile at 24 h of diagnosis was associated with higher in-hospital mortality. This and other prognostic variables (age, blood glucose, and heart rate) may be useful for risk stratification and to select appropriate medical or invasive interventions.

End-of-life care in a cardiology department: have we improved?

nd-of-life care is not usually a priority in cardiology departments. We sought to evaluate the changes in end-of-life care after the introduction of a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order protocol. Retrospective analysis of all deaths in a cardiology department in two periods, before and after the introduction of the protocol. Comparison of demographic characteristics, use of DNR orders, and end-of-life care issues between both periods, according to the presence in the second period of the new DNR sheet (Group A), a conventional DNR order (Group B) or the absence of any DNR order (Group C). The number of deaths was similar in both periods (n = 198 vs. n = 197). The rate of patients dying with a DNR order increased significantly (57.1% vs. 68.5%; P = 0.02). Only 4% of patients in both periods were aware of the decision taken about cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Patients in Group A received the DNR order one day earlier, and 24.5% received it within the first 24 h of admission (vs. 2.6% in the first period; P < 0.001). All patients in Group A with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) had shock therapies deactivated (vs. 25.0% in the first period; P = 0.02). The introduction of a DNR order protocol may improve end-of-life care in cardiac patients by increasing the use and shortening the time of registration of DNR orders. It may also contribute to increase ICD deactivation in patients with these orders in place. However, the introduction of the sheet in late stages of the disease failed to improve patient participation.

Conservative management in very elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis: Time to change?

Despite current recommendations, a high percentage of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis are managed conservatively. The aim of this study was to study symptomatic patients undergoing conservative management from the IDEAS registry, describing their baseline clinical characteristics, mortality, and the causes according to the reason for conservative management. Consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis diagnosed at 48 centers during January 2014 were included. Baseline clinical characteristics, echocardiographic data, Charlson index, and EuroSCORE-II were registered, including vital status and performance of valve intervention during one-year follow-up. For the purpose of this substudy we assessed symptomatic patients undergoing conservative management, including them in 5 groups according to the reason for performing conservative management [I: comorbidity/frailty (128, 43.8%); II: dementia 18 (6.2%); III: advanced age 34 (11.6%); IV: patients’ refusal 62 (21.2%); and V: other reasons 50 (17.1%)]. We included 292 patients aged 81.5 ± 9 years. Patients from group I had higher Charlson index (4 ± 2.3), higher EuroSCORE-II (7.5 ± 6), and a higher overall (42.2%) and non-cardiac mortality (16.4%) than the other groups. In contrast, patients from group III had fewer comorbidities, lower EuroSCORE-II (4 ± 2.5), and low overall (20.6%) and non-cardiac mortality (5.9%). Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis managed conservatively have different baseline characteristics and clinical course according to the reason for performing conservative management. A prospective assessment of comorbidity and other geriatric syndromes might contribute to improve therapeutic strategy in this clinical setting.

Muscle strength in spanish children with mild and severe haemophilia A

SIN FINANCIACIÓN

Ankle dorsiflexion range of motion differences among children with mild and severehaemophilia

SIN FINANCIACIÓN

Initiating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in heart failure: results of TITRATION, a double-blind, randomized comparison of two uptitration regimens

The aim is tassess the tolerability of initiating/uptitrating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) from 50 to 200 mg twice daily (target dose) over 3 and 6 weeks in heart failure (HF) patients (ejection fraction ≤35%). A 5-day open-label run-in (sacubitril/valsartan 50 mg twice daily) preceded an 11-week, double-blind, randomization period [100 mg twice daily for 2 weeks followed by 200 mg twice daily (‘condensed’ regimen) vs. 50 mg twice daily for 2 weeks, 100 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, followed by 200 mg twice daily (‘conservative’ regimen)]. Patients were stratified by pre-study dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB; low-dose stratum included ACEI/ARB-naïve patients). Of 540 patients entering run-in, 498 (92%) were randomized and 429 (86.1% of randomized) completed the study. Pre-defined tolerability criteria were hypotension, renal dysfunction and hyperkalaemia; and adjudicated angioedema, which occurred in (‘condensed’ vs. ‘conservative’) 9.7% vs. 8.4% (P = 0.570), 7.3% vs. 7.6% (P = 0.990), 7.7% vs. 4.4% (P = 0.114), and 0.0% vs. 0.8% of patients, respectively. Corresponding proportions for pre-defined systolic blood pressure <95 mmHg, serum potassium >5.5 mmol/L, and serum creatinine >3.0 mg/dL were 8.9% vs. 5.2% (P = 0.102), 7.3% vs. 4.0% (P = 0.097), and 0.4% vs. 0%, respectively. In total, 378 (76%) patients achieved and maintained sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily without dose interruption/down-titration over 12 weeks (77.8% vs. 84.3% for ‘condensed’ vs. ‘conservative’; P = 0.078). Rates by ACEI/ARB pre-study dose stratification were 82.6% vs. 83.8% (P = 0.783) for high-dose/‘condensed’ vs. high-dose/‘conservative’ and 84.9% vs. 73.6% (P = 0.030) for low-dose/‘conservative’ vs. low-dose/‘condensed’. Initiation/uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan from 50 to 200 mg twice daily over 3 or 6 weeks had a tolerability profile in line with other HF treatments. More gradual initiation/uptitration maximized attainment of target dose in the low-dose ACEI/ARB group.

Bilateral force deficit in patients with haemophilic arthropathy of lower limbs: cross-sectional study

SIN FINANCIACIÓN