Search

We investigated the association between anemia status and the risk of heart failure (HF) in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) based on a multi-center, large-sample and retrospective cross-sectional study including 89,207 patients. Heart failure was categorized as HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF). In multi-adjusted models, compared with patients without anemia, mild anemia (odds ratio [OR] 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53–1.91; P <.001), moderate anemia (OR 3.68; 95% CI, 3.25–4.17; P <.001), and severe anemia (OR 8.02; 95% CI, 6.50–9.88; P <.001) were associated with the risk of HF among CHD patients. Men aged <65 years were more likely to develop HF. In subgroup analyses, the multi-adjusted ORs and 95% CI of HFpEF, HFrEF, and HFmrEF related to anemia were 3.24 (95% CI 1.43–7.33), 2.22 (95% CI 1.28–3.84), and 2.55 (95% CI 2.24–2.89), respectively. These findings suggest that anemia might be associated with increased risk of different types of HF, especially HFpEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several guidelines have recommended the use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) as replacement for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the management of heart failure. Till date, there are no reviews done that comprehensively cover different aspects of efficacy and safety parameters. Hence, we have performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on role of ARNIs for the management of heart failure patients. Searches were done in Embase, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed Central, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect and Clinicaltrials.gov until June 2022. Risk of bias assessment was done with Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects model. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD)/mean difference (MD) and/or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was reported. In total, we analysed 34 studies, with almost all of them had a high risk of bias. Pooled RR was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82–0.95) for all-cause mortality, 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77–0.92) for cardiovascular mortality and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.70–0.87) for hospitalization. Pooled MD was 3.74 (95% CI: 1.93–5.55) for left ventricular ejection fraction, −2.16 (95% CI: −3.58 to −0.74) for left atrial volume index, −3.80 (95% CI: −6.60 to −1.00) for left ventricular end-diastolic dimension and −1.16 (95% CI: −1.98 to −0.35) for E/E′ ratio. Regarding adverse events, pooled RR was 1.55 (95% CI: 1.31–1.85) for symptomatic hypotension, 0.93 (95% CI: 0.78–1.11) for worsening renal function, 1.09 (95% CI: 0.94–1.26) for hyperkalaemia and 1.29 (95% CI: 0.67–2.50) for angioedema. ARNIs had beneficial efficacy and safety profile on the management of heart failure especially patients with reduced ejection fraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to clarify the relevant risk factors of septic cardiomyopathy (SCM) in perioperative sepsis patients. Methods: This retrospective study evaluated patients who were diagnosed with sepsis during the perioperative period and postoperatively admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, and the Suzhou Municipal Hospital between January 2017 and November 2020. They were divided into two groups as the septic cardiomyopathy group (SCM group) and the non-SCM group (NSCM group). Factors with P < 0.1 were compared between groups and were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression to screen the risk factors of sepsis cardiomyopathy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to verify the discriminative ability of multivariate logistic regression results. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test was used to verify the calibration ability of multiple logistic regression results. Result: Among the 269 patients, 49 patients had SCM. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.535, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.186-1.821, P = 0.000]) and endoscopic surgery (AOR = 3.154, 95% CI: 1.173-8.477, P = 0.023]) were identified to be independent risk factors for SCM. Patients with a SOFA score ≥ 7 had a 46.831-fold higher risk of SCM (AOR =46.831, 95% CI: 10.511-208.662, P < 0.05). The multivariate logistic regression results had good discriminative (area under the curve: 0.902 [95% CI: 0.852-0.953]) and calibration (c2 = 4.401, P = 0.819) capabilities. The predictive accuracy was 86.2%. The rates of mechanical ventilation and tracheotomy were significantly higher in the SCM group than in the NSCM group (both P < 0.05). The SCM group also had a significantly longer duration of mechanical ventilation (P < 0.05) and significantly higher rates of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) and CRRT-related mortality (P < 0.05). Further, the total length of stay and hospitalization cost were significantly higher in the SCM group than in the NSCM group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Endoscopic surgery and SOFA score ≥ 7 during postoperative ICU admission were independent risk factors for SCM within 48 hours postoperatively in patients with perioperative sepsis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presence of heart failure is associated with a poor prognosis in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of the present study was to examine whether first-phase ejection fraction (EF1), the ejection fraction measured in early systole up to the time of peak aortic velocity, a sensitive measure of preclinical heart failure, is associated with survival in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. A retrospective outcome study was performed in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who underwent echocardiography (n=380) at the West Branch of the Union Hospital, Wuhan, China and in patients admitted to King's Health Partners in South London, United Kingdom. Association of EF1 with survival was performed using Cox proportional hazards regression. EF1 was compared in patients with COVID-19 and in historical controls with similar comorbidities (n=266) who had undergone echocardiography before the COVID-19 pandemic. In patients with COVID-19, EF1 was a strong predictor of survival in each patient group (Wuhan and London). In the combined group, EF1 was a stronger predictor of survival than other clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic characteristics including age, comorbidities, and biochemical markers. A cutoff value of 25% for EF1 gave a hazard ratio of 5.23 ([95% CI, 2.85-9.60]; P <0.001) unadjusted and 4.83 ([95% CI, 2.35-9.95], P <0.001) when adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, hs-cTnI (high-sensitive cardiac troponin), and CRP (C-reactive protein). EF1 was similar in patients with and without COVID-19 (23.2±7.3 versus 22.0±7.6%, P =0.092, adjusted for prevalence of risk factors and comorbidities). Impaired EF1 is strongly associated with mortality in COVID-19 and probably reflects preexisting, preclinical heart failure.

Background: The important role of atrial fibrillation (AF) in different types of heart failure (HF) according to ejection fraction (EF) is much less explored. In this study, we compared AF in HF with preserved (HFpEF), mid-range (HFmrEF) and reduced (HFrEF) EF with regard to prevalence, association, and prognostic role. Methods and results: A total of 405 inpatients with HF between February 2014 and June 2016 were prospectively analysed in this study. Patients were divided into three groups: HFrEF group ( n  = 109, 26.9%), HFmrEF group ( n  = 94, 23.2%), and HFpEF group ( n  = 202, 49.8%). There was a higher prevalence of AF in patients in the HFpEF and HFmrEF groups than in patients in the HFrEF. Several baseline variables were found to be independently associated with AF, including age, coronary heart disease, heart rate, left atrial diameter, and left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic diameter, regardless of EF category after multivariable adjustment. In addition, AF was found to be a more powerful predictor of all-cause mortality, HF rehospitalisation, and the composite event of all-cause mortality or rehospitalisation in HFpEF and HFmrEF patients, but not in HFrEF patients. Conclusions: HFmrEF resembled HFpEF rather than HFrEF with regard to both a higher prevalence of AF and a greater risk of all-cause mortality, HF rehospitalisation, and the composite event of all-cause mortality or rehospitalisation.