Analysis of How Emergency Physicians’ Decisions to Hospitalize or Discharge Patients With Acute Heart Failure Match the Clinical Risk Categories of the MEESSI-AHF Scale

The HEARTRISK6 Scale: Predicting Short-Term Serious Outcomes in Emergency Department Acute Heart Failure Patients

Background

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a common emergency department (ED) presentation that may have poor outcomes but often does not require hospital admission. There is little evidence to guide dispositional decisions.

Objectives

The authors sought to create a risk score for predicting short-term serious outcomes (SSO) in patients with AHF.

Methods

We pooled data from 3 prospective cohorts: 2 published studies and 1 new cohort. The 3 cohorts prospectively enrolled patients who required treatment for AHF at 10 tertiary care hospital EDs. The primary outcome was SSO, defined as death <30 days, intubation or noninvasive ventilation (NIV), myocardial infarction, or relapse to ED <14 days. The logistic regression model evaluated 13 predictors, used an AIC-based step-down procedure, and bootstrapped internal validation.

Results

Of the 2,246 patients in the 3 cohorts (N = 559; 1,100; 587), the mean age was 77.4 years, 54.5% were male, 3.1% received intravenous nitroglycerin, 5.2% received ED NIV, and 48.6% were admitted to the hospital. There were 281 (12.5%) SSOs including 70 deaths (3.1%) with many in discharged patients. The final HEARTRISK6 Scale included 6 variables: valvular heart disease, tachycardia, need for NIV, creatinine, troponin, and failed reassessment (walk test). Choosing HEARTRISK6 total-point admission thresholds of ≥1 or ≥2 would yield, respectively, sensitivities of 88.3% (95% CI: 83.9%-91.8%) and 71.5% (95% CI: 65.9%-76.7%) and specificities of 24.7% (95% CI: 22.8%-26.7%) and 50.1% (95% CI: 47.9%-52.4%) for SSO.

Conclusions

Using 3 large prospectively collected datasets, we created a concise and sensitive risk scale for patients with AHF in the ED. Implementation of the HEARTRISK6 scale could lead to safer and more efficient disposition decisions.

Impact of the MEESSI-AHF tool to guide disposition decision-making in patients with acute heart failure in the emergency department: a before-and-after study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of risk stratification using the MEESSI-AHF (Multiple Estimation of risk based on the Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with acute heart failure) scale to guide disposition decision-making on the outcomes of ED patients with acute heart failure (AHF), and assess the adherence of emergency physicians to risk stratification recommendations.

METHODS

This was a prospective quasi-experimental study (before/after design) conducted in eight Spanish EDs which consecutively enrolled adult patients with AHF. In the pre-implementation stage, the admit/discharge decision was performed entirely based on emergency physician judgement. During the post-implementation phase, emergency physicians were advised to 'discharge' patients classified by the MEESSI-AHF scale as low risk and 'admit' patients classified as increased risk. Nonetheless, the final decision was left to treating emergency physicians. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were days alive and out of hospital, in-hospital mortality and 30-day post-discharge combined adverse event (ED revisit, hospitalisation or death).

RESULTS

The pre-implementation and post-implementation cohorts included 1589 and 1575 patients, respectively (median age 85 years, 56% females) with similar characteristics, and 30-day all-cause mortality was 9.4% and 9.7%, respectively (post-implementation HR=1.03, 95% CI=0.82 to 1.29). There were no differences in secondary outcomes or in the percentage of patients entirely managed in the ED without hospitalisation (direct discharge from the ED, 23.5% vs 24.4%, OR=1.05, 95% CI=0.89 to 1.24). Adjusted models did not change these results. Emergency physicians followed the MEESSI-AHF-based recommendation on patient disposition in 70.9% of cases (recommendation over-ruling: 29.1%). Physicians were more likely to over-rule the recommendation when 'discharge' was recommended (56.4%; main reason: need for hospitalisation for a second diagnosis) than when 'admit' was recommended (12.8%; main reason: no appreciation of severity of AHF decompensation by emergency physician), with an OR for over-ruling the 'discharge' compared with the 'admit' recommendation of 8.78 (95% CI=6.84 to 11.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing the MEESSI-AHF risk stratification tool in the ED to guide disposition decision-making did not improve patient outcomes.

QT interval and short-term outcome in acute heart failure

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of corrected QT (QTc) interval duration and short-term outcomes in patients with acute heart failure (AHF).

METHODS

We analyzed AHF patients enrolled in 11 Spanish emergency departments (ED) for whom an ECG with QTc measurement was available. Patients with pace-maker rhythm were excluded. Primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes were need of hospitalization, in-hospital mortality and prolonged hospitalization (> 7 days). Association between QTc and outcomes was explored by restricted cubic spline (RCS) curves. Results were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95%CI adjusted by patients baseline and decompensation characteristics, using a QTc = 450 ms as reference.

RESULTS

Of 1800 patients meeting entry criteria (median age 84 years (IQR = 77-89), 56% female), their median QTc was 453 ms (IQR = 422-483). The 30-day mortality was 9.7%, while need of hospitalization, in-hospital mortality and prolonged hospitalization were 77.8%, 9.0% and 50.0%, respectively. RCS curves found longer QTc was associated with 30-day mortality if > 561 ms, OR = 1.86 (1.00-3.45), and increased up to OR = 10.5 (2.25-49.1), for QTc = 674 ms. A similar pattern was observed for in-hospital mortality; OR = 2.64 (1.04-6.69), for QTc = 588 ms, and increasing up to OR = 8.02 (1.30-49.3), for QTc = 674 ms. Conversely, the need of hospitalization had a U-shaped relationship: being increased in patients with shorter QTc [OR = 1.45 (1.00-2.09) for QTc = 381 ms, OR = 5.88 (1.25-27.6) for the shortest QTc of 200 ms], and also increasing for prolonged QTc [OR = 1.06 (1.00-1.13), for QTc = 459 ms, and reaching OR = 2.15 (1.00-4.62) for QTc = 588 ms]. QTc was not associated with prolonged hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

In ED AHF patients, initial QTc provides independent short-term prognostic information, with increasing QTc associated with increasing mortality, while both, shortened and prolonged QTc are associated with need of hospitalization.

Outcomes of acute heart failure patients managed in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Acute heart failure is a serious condition commonly seen in the emergency department (ED). The HEARTRISK6 Scale has been recently developed to identify the risk of poor outcomes but has not been tested. We sought to describe the management and outcomes of ED patients with acute heart failure and to evaluate the potential impact of the HEARTRISK6 Scale.

METHODS

We conducted a health records review of 300 consecutive acute heart failure patients presenting to two tertiary care EDs. Two evaluators abstracted clinical variables, ED management and treatment details, and patient outcomes using the electronic health records platform (EPIC) and attending physicians verified the data. The primary outcome measure was a short-term serious outcome, as shown in Results. In addition, the HEARTRISK6 score was calculated retrospectively.

RESULTS

We included 300 patients with mean age of 78.5 years, 51.0% male, 56.3% arrival by ambulance, and 67.0% admitted to hospital. 25.3% experienced a short-term serious outcome 1) after admission (N = 201): non-invasive ventilation 14.9%, intubation 1.5%, major cardiac procedure 5.0%, myocardial infarction 2.0%, death 8.5%; 2) after ED discharge (N = 99): return to ED 21.2%, death 4.0%. Those initially admitted experienced a much higher proportion of serious outcomes compared to those discharged (29.9% vs. 16.2%). A HEARTRISK6 Scale cut-point score of ≥ 1 would have had a sensitivity of 91.0%, specificity 24.5%, and negative likelihood ratio 0.37 for short-term serious outcomes and suggested hospital admission for 80.7% of cases.

CONCLUSION

There was a large range of severity of illness of acute heart failure patients and a wide variety of treatments were administered in the ED. Both admitted and discharged patients experienced a high proportion of poor outcomes. The HEARTRISK6 Scale showed a high sensitivity for short-term serious outcomes but with the potential to increase hospital admissions. Further validation of the HEARTRISK6 Scale is required before routine clinical use.

Comment on: Effect of Flu Vaccination on Severity and Outcome of Heart Failure Decompensations

We evaluated the study "[Effect of Flu Vaccination on Severity and Outcome of Heart Failure Decompensations" by Miró et al. [1]. This insightful paper explores the potential influence of flu vaccination on the severity and outcomes of heart failure decompensations, illuminating a crucial connection between cardiovascular health and preventing infectious diseases. We want to start by praising the author for selecting such an important and timely subject for discussion. Millions worldwide suffer from heart failure, a severe public health issue. This unique gives essential insights into cardiology and presents a viable route for enhancing patient outcomes by examining the potential connection between flu vaccine and heart failure decompensations.

Hyperkalemia in acute heart failure: Short term outcomes from the EAHFE registry

OBJECTIVE

Both hyperkalemia (HK) and Acute Heart Failure (AHF) are associated with increased short-term mortality, and the management of either may exacerbate the other. As the relationship between HK and AHF is poorly described, our purpose was to determine the relationship between HK and short-term outcomes in Emergency Department (ED) AHF.

METHODS

The EAHFE Registry enrolls all ED AHF patients from 45 Spanish ED and records in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes. Our primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital death, with secondary outcomes of prolonged hospitalization (>7 days) and 7-day post-discharge adverse events (ED revisit, hospitalization, or death). Associations between serum potassium (sK) and outcomes were explored using logistic regression by restricted cubic spline (RCS) curves, with sK =4.0 mEq/L as the reference, adjusting by age, sex, comorbidities, patient baseline status and chronic treatments. Interaction analyses were performed for the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Of 13,606 ED AHF patients, the median (IQR) age was 83 (76-88) years, 54% were women, and the median (IQR) sK was 4.5 mEq/L (4.3-4.9) with a range of 4.0-9.9 mEq/L. In-hospital mortality was 7.7%, with prolonged hospitalization in 35.9%, and a 7-day post-discharge adverse event rate of 8.7%. Adjusted in-hospital mortality increased steadily from sK ≥4.8 (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.01-1.80) to sK = 9.9 (8.41, 3.60-19.6). Non-diabetics with elevated sK had higher odds of death, while chronic treatment with mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists exhibited a mixed effect. Neither prolonged hospitalization nor post-discharge adverse events was associated with sK.

CONCLUSION

In ED AHF, initial sK >4.8 mEq/L was independently associated with in-hospital mortality, suggesting that this cohort may benefit from aggressive HK treatment.

Barriers and Opportunities Regarding Implementation of a Machine Learning-Based Acute Heart Failure Risk Stratification Tool in the Emergency Department

Hospital admissions for patients with acute heart failure (AHF) remain high. There is an opportunity to improve alignment between patient risk and admission decision. We recently developed a machine learning (ML)-based model that stratifies emergency department (ED) patients with AHF based on predicted risk of a 30-day severe adverse event. Prior to deploying the algorithm and paired clinical decision support, we sought to understand barriers and opportunities regarding successful implementation. We conducted semi-structured interviews with eight front-line ED providers and surveyed 67 ED providers. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis, and we had a 65% response rate to the survey. Providers wanted decision support to be streamlined into workflows with minimal disruptions. Most providers wanted assistance primarily with ED disposition decisions, and secondarily with medical management and post-discharge follow-up care. Receiving feedback on patient outcomes after risk tool use was seen as an opportunity to increase acceptance, and few providers (<10%) had significant hesitations with using an ML-based tool after education on its use. Engagement with key front-line users on optimal design of the algorithm and decision support may contribute to broader uptake, acceptance, and adoption of recommendations for clinical decisions.

Ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure at discharge as precipitating factors in immediate adverse events in patients treated for decompensated heart failure

To investigate the relationship of ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure (AP) at patient discharge after an episode of acute heart failure (AHF) with very early post-discharge adverse outcomes. We analyzed 14,656 patients discharged after an AHF episode from 26 hospitals in 16 Spanish cities. The primary outcome was the 7-day post-discharge combined adverse event (emergency department -ED- revisit or hospitalization due to AHF, or all-cause death), and secondary outcomes were these three adverse events considered individually. Associations (adjusted for patient and demographic conditions, and length of stay -LOS- during the AHF index episode) of temperature and AP with the primary and secondary outcomes were investigated. We used restricted cubic splines to model the continuous non-linear association of temperature and AP with each endpoint. Some sensitivity analyses were performed. Patients were discharged after a median LOS of 5 days (IQR = 1-10). The highest temperature at discharge ranged from - 2 to 41.6 °C, and AP was from 892 to 1037 hPa. The 7-day post-discharge combined event occurred in 1242 patients (8.4%), with percentages of 7-day ED-revisit, hospitalization and death of 7.8%, 5.1% and 0.9%, respectively. We found no association between the maximal temperature and AP on the day of discharge and the primary or secondary outcomes. Similarly, there were no significant associations when the analyses were restricted to hospitalized patients (median LOS = 7 days, IQR = 4-11) during the index event, or when lag-1, lag-2 or the mean of the 3 post-discharge days (instead of point estimation) of ambient temperature and AP were considered. Temperature and AP on the day of patient discharge are not independently associated with the risk of very early adverse events during the vulnerable post-discharge period in patients discharged after an AHF episode.

Evaluation of the HEFESTOS scale to predict outcomes in emergency department acute heart failure patients

The HEFESTOS scale was developed in 14 Spanish primary care centres and validated in 9 primary care centres of other European countries. It showed good performance to predict death/hospitalisation during the first 30 days after an episode of acute heart failure (AHF), with c-statistics of 0.807/0.730 in the derivation/validation cohorts. We evaluated this scale in the emergency department (ED) setting, comparing it to the EHMRG and MEESSI scales in the ED and the EFFECT and GWTG scales in hospitalised patients, to predict 30-day outcomes, including death and hospitalisation. Consecutive AHF patients were enrolled in 34 Spanish EDs in January-February 2016, 2018, and 2019 with variables needed to calculate outcome scores. Thirty-day hospitalisation/death (together and separately) and post-discharge combined adverse event (ED revisit or hospitalisation for AHF or all-cause death) were determined for patients discharged home after ED care. Predictive capacity was assessed by c-statistic with 95% confidence intervals. Of 10,869 patients, 4,044 were included (median age: 83 years, 54% women). The performance of HEFESTOS was modest for 30-day hospitalisation/death, c-statistic=0.656 (0.637-0.675), hospitalisation, 0.650 (0.631-0.669), and death, 0.610 (0.576-0.644). Of 1,034 patients with scores for the 5 scales, HEFESTOS had the numerically highest c-statistic for hospitalisation/death at 30 days, 0.666 (0.627-0.704), vs. MEESSI= 0.650 (0.612-0.687, p=0.51), EFFECT=0.633 (0.595-0.672, p=0.21), GWTG=0.618 (0.578-0.657, p=0.06) and EHMRG=0.617 (0.577-0.704, p=0.07). Similar modest performances were observed for predicting hospitalisation [ranging from HEFESTOS=0.656 (0.618-0.695) to GWTG=0.603 (0.564-0.643)]. Conversely, prediction of 30-day death was good with the MEESSI=0.787 (0.728-845), EFFECT=0.754 (0.691-0.818) and GWTG=0.749 (0.689-0.809) scales, and modest with EHMRG=0.649 (0.581-0.717) and HEFESTOS=0.610 (0.538-0.683). Although the HEFESTOS scale was numerically better for predicting 30-day hospitalisation/death in ED AHF patients, its modest performance precludes routine use. Only 30-day mortality was adequately predicted by some scales, with the MEESSI achieving the best results.

Emergency department risk assessment and disposition of acute heart failure patients: existing evidence and ongoing challenges

Heart failure (HF) is a global public health burden, characterized by frequent emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. Identifying successful strategies to avoid admissions is crucial for the management of acutely decompensated HF, let alone resource utilization. The primary challenge for ED management of patients with acute heart failure (AHF) lies in the identification of those who can be safely discharged home instead of being admitted. This is an elaborate decision, based on limited objective evidence. Thus far, current biomarkers and risk stratification tools have had little impact on ED disposition decision-making. A reliable definition of a low-risk patient profile is warranted in order to accurately identify patients who could be appropriate for early discharge. A brief period of observation can facilitate risk stratification and allow for close monitoring, aggressive treatment, continuous assessment of response to initial therapy and patient education. Lung ultrasound may represent a valid bedside tool to monitor cardiogenic pulmonary oedema and determine the extent of achieved cardiac unloading after treatment in the observation unit setting. Safe discharge mandates multidisciplinary collaboration and thoughtful assessment of socioeconomic and behavioural factors, along with a clear post-discharge plan put forward and a close follow-up in an outpatient setting. Ongoing research to improve ED risk stratification and disposition of AHF patients may mitigate the tremendous public health challenge imposed by the HF epidemic.

Incidence of Timely Outpatient Follow-Up Care After Emergency Department Encounters for Acute Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Patients who are discharged from the emergency department (ED) after an encounter for acute heart failure are at high risk for return hospitalization. These patients may benefit from timely outpatient follow-up care to reassess volume status, adjust medications, and reinforce self-care strategies. This study examines the incidence of outpatient follow-up care after ED encounters for acute heart failure and describes patient characteristics associated with obtaining timely follow-up care.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using an administrative claims database for a large US commercial insurer, from January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2019. Participants included adult patients discharged from the ED with principal diagnosis of acute heart failure. The primary outcome was obtaining an in-person outpatient clinic visit for heart failure within 30 days. We also examined the competing risk of all-cause hospitalization within 30 days and without an intervening outpatient clinic visit. We estimated competing risk regression models to identify patient characteristics associated with obtaining outpatient follow-up and report cause-specific hazard ratios.

RESULTS

The cohort included 52 732 patients, with mean age of 73.9 years (95% CI, 73.8-74.0) and 27 395 (52.0% [95% CI, 51.5-52.4]) female patients. Within 30 days of the ED encounter, 12 279 (23.2%) patients attended an outpatient clinic visit for heart failure, with 8382 (15.9%) patients hospitalized before they could obtain an outpatient clinic visit. In the adjusted analysis, patients that were younger, women, reporting non-Hispanic Black race, and had fewer previous clinic visits were less likely to obtain outpatient follow-up care.

CONCLUSIONS

Few patients obtain timely outpatient follow-up after ED visits for heart failure, although nearly 20% require hospitalization within 30 days. Improved transitions following discharge from the ED may represent an opportunity to improve outcomes for patients with acute heart failure.

Acute Heart Failure in the 2021 ESC Heart Failure Guidelines: a scientific statement from the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care (ACVC) of the European Society of Cardiology

The current European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Heart Failure Guidelines are the most comprehensive ESC document covering heart failure to date; however, the section focused on acute heart failure remains relatively too concise. Although several topics are more extensively covered than in previous versions, including some specific therapies, monitoring and disposition in the hospital, and the management of cardiogenic shock, the lack of high-quality evidence in acute, emergency, and critical care scenarios, poses a challenge for providing evidence-based recommendations, in particular when by comparison the data for chronic heart failure is so extensive. The paucity of evidence and specific recommendations for the general approach and management of acute heart failure in the emergency department is particularly relevant, because this is the setting where most acute heart failure patients are initially diagnosed and stabilized. The clinical phenotypes proposed are comprehensive, clinically relevant and with minimal overlap, whilst providing additional opportunity for discussion around respiratory failure and hypoperfusion.

Prevalence, Related Factors and Association of Left Bundle Branch Block With Prognosis in Patients With Acute Heart Failure: a Simultaneous Analysis in 3 Independent Cohorts

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence, characteristics and association with prognosis of left bundle branch block (LBBB) in 3 different cohorts of patients with acute heart failure (AHF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively analyzed 12,950 patients with AHF who were included in the EAHFE (Epidemiology Acute Heart Failure Emergency), RICA (National Heart Failure Registry of the Spanish Internal Medicine Society), and BASEL-V (Basics in Acute Shortness of Breath Evaluation of Switzerland) registries. We independently analyzed the relationship between baseline and clinical characteristics and the presence of LBBB and the potential association of LBBB with 1-year all-cause mortality and a 90-day postdischarge combined endpoint (Emergency Department reconsultation, hospitalization or death). The prevalence of LBBB was 13.5% (95% confidence interval: 12.9%-14.0%). In all registries, patients with LBBB more commonly had coronary artery disease and previous episodes of AHF, were taking chronic spironolactone treatment, had lower left ventricular ejection fraction and systolic blood pressure values and higher NT-proBNP levels. There were no differences in risk for patients with LBBB in any cohort, with adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality in EAHFE/RICA/BASEL-V cohorts of 1.02 (0.89-1.17), 1.15 (0.95-1.38) and 1.32 (0.94-1.86), respectively, and for 90-day postdischarge combined endpoint of 1.00 (0.88-1.14), 1.14 (0.92-1.40) and 1.26 (0.84-1.89). These results were consistent in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than 20% of patients with AHF present LBBB, which is consistently associated with cardiovascular comorbidities, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and more severe decompensations. Nonetheless, after taking these factors into account, LBBB in patients with AHF is not associated with worse outcomes.

Impact of hospital and emergency department structural and organizational characteristics on outcomes of acute heart failure

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

To determine whether structural/organizational characteristics of hospitals and emergency departments (EDs) affect acute heart failure (AHF) outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of the EAHFE Registry. Six hospital/ED characteristics were collected and were related to 7 postindex events and postdischarge outcomes, adjusted by the period of patient inclusion, baseline patient characteristics, AHF episode features, and hospital and ED characteristics. The relationship between discharge directly from the ED (DDED) and outcomes was assessed, and interaction was analyzed according to the hospital/ED characteristics.

RESULTS

We analyzed 17 974 AHF episodes included by 40 Spanish EDs. Prolonged stays were less frequent in high-technology hospitals and those with hospitalization at home and with high-inflow EDs, and were more frequent in hospitals with a heart failure unit (HFU) and an ED observation unit. In-hospital mortality was lower in high-technology hospitals (OR, 0.78; 95%CI, 0.65-0.94). Analysis of 30-day postdischarge outcomes showed that hospitals with a short-stay unit (SSU) had higher hospitalization rates (OR, 1.19; 95%CI, 1.02-1.38), high-inflow EDs had lower mortality (OR, 0.73; 95%CI, 0.56-0.96) and fewer combined events (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.76-0.99), while hospitals with HFU had fewer ED reconsultations (OR, 0.83; 95%CI, 0.76-0.91), hospitalizations (OR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.75-0.97), and combined events (OR, 0.84; 95%CI, 0.77-0.92). The higher the percentage of DDED, the fewer the prolonged stays. Among other interactions, we found that more frequent DDED was associated with more 30-day postdischarge reconsultations, hospitalizations and combined events in hospitals without SSUs, but not in hospitals with an SSU.

CONCLUSIONS

AHF outcomes were significantly affected by the structural/organizational characteristics of hospitals and EDs and their aggressiveness in ED management.

Outcomes of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction discharged on treatment with neurohormonal antagonists after an episode of decompensation

AIMS

To analyze the frequency with which patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) discharged after an acute heart failure (AHF) episode are treated with antineurohormonal drugs (ANHD), the variables related to ANHD prescription and their relationship with outcomes.

METHODS

We included consecutive HFpEF patients (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%) discharged after an AHF episode from 45 Spanish hospitals whose chronic medications and treatment at discharge were available. Patients were classified according to whether they were discharged with or without ANHD, including beta-blockers (BB), renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitors (RAASi) and mineralcorticosteroid-receptor antagonists (MRA). Co-primary outcomes consisted of 1-year all-cause mortality and 90-day combined adverse event (revisit to emergency department -ED-, hospitalization due to AHF or all-cause death). Secondary outcomes were 90-day adverse events taken individually. Adjusted associations of ANHD treatment with outcomes were calculated.

RESULTS

We analyzed 3,305 patients with HFpEF (median age: 83, 60% women), 2,312 (70%) discharged with ANHD. The ANHD most frequently prescribed was BB (45.8%). The 1-year mortality was 26.9% (adjusted HR for ANHD patients:1.17, 95%CI=0.98-1.38) and the 90-day combined adverse event was 54.4% (HR=1.14, 95%CI=0.99-1.31). ED revisit was significantly increased by ANHD (HR=1.15, 95%CI=1.01-1.32). MRA and BB were associated with worse results in some co-primary or secondary endpoints, while RAASi (alone) reduced 90-day hospitalization (HR=0.73, 98%CI=0.56-0.96).

CONCLUSION

70% of HFpEF patients are discharged with ANHD after an AHF episode. ANHD do not seem to reduce mortality or adverse events in HFpEF patients, only RAASi could provide some benefits, reducing the risk of hospitalization for AHF.

Risk stratification in heart failure decompensation in the community: HEFESTOS score

Aims

Because evidence regarding risk stratification predicting prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF) decompensation attended in primary care is lacking, we developed and externally validated a model to forecast death/hospitalization during the first 30 days after an episode of decompensation. The predictive model is based on variables easily obtained in primary care settings.

Methods and results

HEFESTOS is a multinational study consisting of a derivation cohort of HF patients recruited in 14 primary healthcare centres in Barcelona and a validation cohort from primary healthcare in 9 other European countries. The derivation and validation cohorts included 561 and 250 patients, respectively. Percentages of women in the derivation and validation cohorts were 56.3% and 47.6% (P = 0.026), respectively. Mean age was 82.2 years (SD 8.03) in the derivation cohort, and 79.3 years (SD 10.3) in the validation one (P = 0.001). HF with preserved ejection fraction represented 72.1% in the derivation cohort and 58.8% in the validation one (P = 0.004). Mortality/hospitalization during the first 30 days after a decompensation episode was 30.5% and 26% (P = 0.225) for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression models were performed to develop a score of risk. The identified predictors were worsening of dyspnoea [odds ratio (OR): 2.5; P = 0.001], orthopnoea (OR: 2.16; P = 0.01), paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnoea (OR: 2.25; P = 0.01), crackles (OR: 2.35; P = 0.01), New York Heart Association functional class III/IV (OR: 2.11; P = 0.001), oxygen saturation ≤ 90% (OR: 4.98; P < 0.001), heart rate > 100 b.p.m. (OR: 2.72; P = 0.002), and previous hospitalization due to HF (OR: 2.45; P < 0.001). The model showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.807, 95% confidence interval (CI): [0.770; 0.845] in the derivation cohort and AUC 0.73, 95% CI: [0.660; 0.808] in the validation one. No significant differences between both cohorts were observed (P = 0.08). Regarding probability of hospitalization/death, three risk groups were defined: low <5%, medium 5–20%, and high >20%. Outcome incidence was 2.7% for the low‐risk group, 12.8% for medium risk, and 46.2% for high risk in the derivation cohort, and 9.1%, 12.9%, and 39.6% in the validation one.

Conclusions

The HEFESTOS score, based on variables easily accessible in a community setting and validated in an external European cohort, properly predicted the risk of death/hospitalization during the first 30 days after an HF decompensation episode.

Disposition of acute decompensated heart failure from the emergency department: An evidence-based review

INTRODUCTION

Acute heart failure (HF) exacerbation is a serious and common condition seen in the Emergency Department (ED) that has significant morbidity and mortality. There are multiple clinical decision tools that Emergency Physicians (EPs) can use to reach an appropriate evidence-based disposition for these patients.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review is an evidence-based discussion of clinical decision-making tools aimed to assist EPs risk stratify patients with AHF and determine disposition.

DISCUSSION

Risk stratification in patients with AHF exacerbation presenting to the ED is paramount in reaching an appropriate disposition decision. High risk features include hypotension, hypoxemia, elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and/or troponin, elevated creatinine, and hyponatremia. Patients who require continuous vasoactive infusions, respiratory support, or are initially treatment-resistant generally require intensive care unit admission. In most instances, new-onset AHF patients should be admitted for further evaluation. Other AHF patients in the ED can be risk stratified with the Ottawa HF Risk Score (OHFRS), the Multiple Estimation of Risk Based on Spanish Emergency Department Score (MEESSI), or the Emergency HF Mortality Risk Grade (EHFMRG). These tools take various factors into account such as mode of arrival to the ED, vital signs, laboratory values like troponin and pro-BNP, and clinical course. If used appropriately, these scores can predict patients at low risk for adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This article discusses evidence-based disposition of patients in acute decompensated HF presenting to the ED. Knowledge of these factors and risk tools can assist emergency clinicians in determining appropriate disposition of patients with HF.

Assessment of acute heart failure prognosis: the promising role of prognostic models and biomarkers

Numerous models and biomarkers have been proposed to estimate prognosis and improve decision-making in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). The present literature review provides a critical appraisal of externally validated prognostic models in AHF, combining clinical data and biomarkers. We perform a literature review of clinical studies, using the following terms: "acute heart failure," "acute decompensated heart failure," "prognostic models," "risk scores," "mortality," "death," "hospitalization," "admission," and "biomarkers." We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1990 to 2020 for studies documenting prognostic models in AHF. External validation of each prognostic model to another AHF cohort, containing at least one biomarker, was prerequisites for study selection. Among 358 initially screened studies, 9 of them fulfilled all searching criteria. The majority of prognostic models were simplified, including a narrow number of variables (up to 10), with good performance regarding calibration and discrimination (c-statistics > 0.65). Unfortunately, the derived and validated cohorts showed a wide variety in patients' characteristics (e.g., cause of AHF and therapy). Moreover, the prognostic models used various time-points and a plethora of combinations of variables determining different cut-off values. Although the application of valid prognostic models in AHF population is quite promising, a precise methodological approach should be set for the derivation and validation of prognostic models in AHF with unified characteristics to establish an effective performance in clinical practice.

Risk stratification scores for patients with acute heart failure in the Emergency Department: A systematic review

AIMS

This study aimed to systematically identify and summarise all risk scores evaluated in the emergency department setting to stratify acute heart failure patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic review of PubMed and Web of Science was conducted including all multicentre studies reporting the use of risk predictive models in emergency department acute heart failure patients. Exclusion criteria were: (a) non-original articles; (b) prognostic models without predictive purposes; and (c) risk models without consecutive patient inclusion or exclusively tested in patients admitted to a hospital ward. We identified 28 studies reporting findings on 19 scores: 13 were originally derived in the emergency department (eight exclusively using acute heart failure patients), and six in emergency department and hospitalised patients. The outcome most frequently predicted was 30-day mortality. The performance of the scores tended to be higher for outcomes occurring closer to the index acute heart failure event. The eight scores developed using acute heart failure patients only in the emergency department contained between 4-13 predictors (age, oxygen saturation and creatinine/urea included in six scores). Five scores (Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade, Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade 30 Day mortality ST depression, Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Emergency department 3 Day, Acute Heart Failure Risk Score, and Multiple Estimation of risk based on Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with Acute Heart Failure) have been externally validated in the same country, and two (Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade and Multiple Estimation of risk based on Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with Acute Heart Failure) further internationally validated. The c-statistic for Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade to predict seven-day mortality was between 0.74-0.81 and for Multiple Estimation of risk based on Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with Acute Heart Failure to predict 30-day mortality was 0.80-0.84.

CONCLUSIONS

There are several scales for risk stratification of emergency department acute heart failure patients. Two of them are accurate, have been adequately validated and may be useful in clinical decision-making in the emergency department i.e. about whether to admit or discharge.

MEESSI-AHF risk score performance to predict multiple post-index event and post-discharge short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The multiple estimation of risk based on the emergency department Spanish score in patients with acute heart failure (MEESSI-AHF) is a risk score designed to predict 30-day mortality in acute heart failure patients admitted to the emergency department. Using a derivation cohort, we evaluated the performance of the MEESSI-AHF risk score to predict 11 different short-term outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with acute heart failure from 41 Spanish emergency departments (n=7755) were recruited consecutively in two time periods (2014 and 2016). Logistic regression models based on the MEESSI-AHF risk score were used to obtain c-statistics for 11 outcomes: three with follow-up from emergency department admission (inhospital, 7-day and 30-day mortality) and eight with follow-up from discharge (7-day mortality, emergency department revisit and their combination; and 30-day mortality, hospital admission, emergency department revisit and their two combinations with mortality).

RESULTS

The MEESSI-AHF risk score strongly predicted mortality outcomes with follow-up starting at emergency department admission (c-statistic 0.83 for 30-day mortality; 0.82 for inhospital death, P=0.121; and 0.85 for 7-day mortality, P=0.001). Overall, mortality outcomes with follow-up starting at hospital discharge predicted slightly less well (c-statistic 0.80 for 7-day mortality, P=0.011; and 0.75 for 30-day mortality, P<0.001). In contrast, the MEESSI-AHF score predicted poorly outcomes involving emergency department revisit or hospital admission alone or combined with mortality (c-statistics 0.54 to 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

The MEESSI-AHF risk score strongly predicts mortality outcomes in acute heart failure patients admitted to the emergency department, but the model performs poorly for outcomes involving hospital admission or emergency department revisit. There is a need to optimise this risk score to predict non-fatal events more effectively.