1
|
Ezekowitz JA, O'Meara E, McDonald MA, Abrams H, Chan M, Ducharme A, Giannetti N, Grzeslo A, Hamilton PG, Heckman GA, Howlett JG, Koshman SL, Lepage S, McKelvie RS, Moe GW, Rajda M, Swiggum E, Virani SA, Zieroth S, Al-Hesayen A, Cohen-Solal A, D'Astous M, De S, Estrella-Holder E, Fremes S, Green L, Haddad H, Harkness K, Hernandez AF, Kouz S, LeBlanc MH, Masoudi FA, Ross HJ, Roussin A, Sussex B. 2017 Comprehensive Update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Heart Failure. Can J Cardiol 2017; 33:1342-1433. [PMID: 29111106 DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2017.08.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 435] [Impact Index Per Article: 62.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2017] [Revised: 08/28/2017] [Accepted: 08/28/2017] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Since the inception of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society heart failure (HF) guidelines in 2006, much has changed in the care for patients with HF. Over the past decade, the HF Guidelines Committee has published regular updates. However, because of the major changes that have occurred, the Guidelines Committee believes that a comprehensive reassessment of the HF management recommendations is presently needed, with a view to producing a full and complete set of updated guidelines. The primary and secondary Canadian Cardiovascular Society HF panel members as well as external experts have reviewed clinically relevant literature to provide guidance for the practicing clinician. The 2017 HF guidelines provide updated guidance on the diagnosis and management (self-care, pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, device, and referral) that should aid in day-to-day decisions for caring for patients with HF. Among specific issues covered are risk scores, the differences in management for HF with preserved vs reduced ejection fraction, exercise and rehabilitation, implantable devices, revascularization, right ventricular dysfunction, anemia, and iron deficiency, cardiorenal syndrome, sleep apnea, cardiomyopathies, HF in pregnancy, cardio-oncology, and myocarditis. We devoted attention to strategies and treatments to prevent HF, to the organization of HF care, comorbidity management, as well as practical issues around the timing of referral and follow-up care. Recognition and treatment of advanced HF is another important aspect of this update, including how to select advanced therapies as well as end of life considerations. Finally, we acknowledge the remaining gaps in evidence that need to be filled by future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Eileen O'Meara
- Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | | | | | - Michael Chan
- Edmonton Cardiology Consultants, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Anique Ducharme
- Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | | | - Adam Grzeslo
- Hamilton Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | - Serge Lepage
- Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
| | | | | | - Miroslaw Rajda
- QEII Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | | | - Sean A Virani
- University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | - Sabe De
- London Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Stephen Fremes
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lee Green
- University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Haissam Haddad
- University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
| | - Karen Harkness
- Hamilton Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Simon Kouz
- Centre Hospitalier Régional de Lanaudière, Joliette, Québec, Canada
| | | | | | | | - Andre Roussin
- Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Bruce Sussex
- Memorial University, St John's, Newfoundland, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Cecconi M, Hofer C, Teboul JL, Pettila V, Wilkman E, Molnar Z, Della Rocca G, Aldecoa C, Artigas A, Jog S, Sander M, Spies C, Lefrant JY, De Backer D. Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study. Intensive Care Med 2015; 41:1529-37. [PMID: 26162676 PMCID: PMC4550653 DOI: 10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 360] [Impact Index Per Article: 40.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2015] [Accepted: 04/27/2015] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Abstract
Background Fluid challenges (FCs) are one of the most commonly used therapies in critically ill patients and represent the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in intensive care units. There are clear benefits and harms from fluid therapy. Limited data on the indication, type, amount and rate of an FC in critically ill patients exist in the literature. The primary aim was to evaluate how physicians conduct FCs in terms of type, volume, and rate of given fluid; the secondary aim was to evaluate variables used to trigger an FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC. Methods This was an observational study conducted in ICUs around the world. Each participating unit entered a maximum of 20 patients with one FC. Results 2213 patients were enrolled and analyzed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during an FC was 500 ml (500–1000). The median time was 24 min (40–60 min), and the median rate of FC was 1000 [500–1333] ml/h. The main indication for FC was hypotension in 1211 (59 %, CI 57–61 %). In 43 % (CI 41–45 %) of the cases no hemodynamic variable was used. Static markers of preload were used in 785 of 2213 cases (36 %, CI 34–37 %). Dynamic indices of preload responsiveness were used in 483 of 2213 cases (22 %, CI 20–24 %). No safety variable for the FC was used in 72 % (CI 70–74 %) of the cases. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who received further fluids after the FC between those with a positive, with an uncertain or with a negatively judged response. Conclusions The current practice and evaluation of FC in critically ill patients are highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not used routinely, safety limits are rarely used, and information from previous failed FCs is not always taken into account. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maurizio Cecconi
- Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, St George's Hospital and Medical School, London, SW17 0QT, UK,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|