Heart failure management: caregiver versus care plan

The Emerging Role of Metabolomics in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Cardiovascular Disease

Perturbations in cardiac energy metabolism are major contributors to a number of cardiovascular pathologies. In addition, comorbidities associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) can alter systemic and myocardial metabolism, often contributing to the worsening of cardiac function and health outcomes. State-of-the-art metabolomic technologies give us the ability to measure thousands of metabolites in biological fluids or biopsies, providing us with a metabolic fingerprint of individual patients. These metabolic profiles may serve as diagnostic and/or prognostic tools that have the potential to significantly alter the management of CVD. Herein, the authors review how metabolomics can assist in the interpretation of perturbed metabolic processes, and how this has improved our ability to understand the pathology of ischemic heart disease, atherosclerosis, and heart failure. Taken together, the integration of metabolomics with other "omics" platforms will allow us to gain insight into pathophysiological interactions of metabolites, proteins, genes, and disease states, while advancing personalized medicine.

End-of-life care in heart failure

The clinical syndrome of heart failure is increasing in prevalence, as is the number of elderly persons with heart failure. Increasing frailty and progression of heart failure in large numbers of patients means clinicians are increasingly challenged to provide end-of-life care for heart failure patients. End-of-life care has been little studied, but management can be understood from early clinical trials of advanced heart failure. Evidence-based heart failure medications, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta blockers, improve symptoms in patients with advanced heart failure and depressed ejection fraction and should usually be continued in end-stage disease. Patients also should have ongoing meticulous management of fluid status to maximize quality of life. End-of-life care should be planned with the patient and family and should incorporate comprehensive symptom management, bereavement support, and spiritual support. Ongoing communication with patients and families about prognosis can ease the planning of care when the end of life nears.

[New antiarrhythmic drugs for therapy of atrial fibrillation: II. Non-ion channel blockers]

The therapeutic approach to atrial fibrillation is difficult and challenging. The effect of "classical" antiarrhythmic agents is based on their inhibitory effects on various ion channels. However, therapeutic benefit of these agents is often limited. The primary goal of this article is to discuss new therapeutic approaches using non-ion channel blocking drugs in the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Some of the substances discussed in this article have been used already in the clinical practice. Others, for example gentherapeutic approaches, are still in the experimental state. In contrast to ion channel blocking agents their efficacy is based on the suppression of structural remodeling. Hence, it can be assumed that due to these effects they may also be beneficial in the primary prevention of atrial fibrillation.

Surgical Ventricular Restoration: The RESTORE Group Experience

Congestive heart failure may be caused by late left ventricular (LV) dilation following anterior infarction. Early reperfusion prevents transmural necrosis, and makes the infarcted segment akinetic rather than dyskinetic. Surgical ventricular restoration (SVR) reduces LV volume and creates a more elliptical chamber by excluding scar in either akinetic or dyskinetic segments. The international RESTORE group applied SVR in a registry of 1198 post-infarction patients between 1998 and 2003. Early and late outcomes were examined and risk factors identified.Concomitant procedures included coronary artery bypass grafting in 95%, mitral valve repair in 22%, and mitral valve replacement in 1%. Overall 30-day mortality after SVR was 5.3% (8.7% with mitral repair vs. 4.0% without repair, p < .001) Perioperative mechanical support was uncommon (< 9%). Global systolic function improved postoperatively, as ejection fraction increased from 29.6 +/- 11.0% to 39.5 +/- 12.3% (p < .001) and left ventricular end systolic volume index decreased from 80.4 +/- 51.4 ml/m(2) to 56.6 +/- 34.3 ml/m(2) (p < .001). Overall 5-year survival was 68.6 +/- 2.8%, Logistic regression analysis identified EF < or = 30%, LVESVI > o = 80 ml/m(2), advanced NYHA functional class, and age > or =75 years as risk factors for death. Five-year freedom from hospital readmission for CHF was 78%. Preoperatively, 67% of patients were class III or IV, and postoperatively 85% were class I or II.SVR improves ventricular function and is highly effective therapy in the treatment of ischemic cardiomyopathy with excellent 5-year outcome.

Physician specialty and mortality among elderly patients hospitalized with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Whether specialty care improves survival among patients with heart failure remains controversial.

METHODS

We evaluated specialty care and outcomes in 25869 Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with heart failure in the United States from 1998 through 1999. Patients were classified based on the specialty of their attending physician: cardiologist, internist, general physician, or family physician. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality within 30 days of admission.

RESULTS

Cardiologists were attending physicians for 26%, internists for 50%, and general and family physicians cared for the remainder. Mortality at 30 days was lowest for patients cared for by cardiologists (8.8%), higher for patients cared for by internists (10.0%, relative risk [RR] = 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.97 to 1.19; P = 0.059) and general physicians (11.1%, RR = 1.26; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.58; P = 0.086), and highest for patients cared for by family physicians (12.0%, RR = 1.31; 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.49; P <0.001). Patients cared for by family physicians remained at higher 30-day mortality rates whether with (RR = 1.30; 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.52) or without consultation with cardiologists (RR = 1.31; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.52).

CONCLUSION

Hospitalized patients with heart failure had lower 30-day mortality when treated by cardiologists than when they were treated by other physicians. Although these differences were modest (RR = 1.07) for internists, they were substantial for general physicians (RR = 1.26) and family physicians (RR = 1.31); of note was that inpatient cardiology consultation did not appear to change this relation.