Search

Background: Previous evidence suggests that cardiologists and family doctors have limited accuracy in predicting patient prognosis. Predictive models with satisfactory accuracy for estimating mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) exist; physicians, however, seldom use these models. We evaluated the relative accuracy of physician vs model prediction to estimate 1-year survival in ambulatory patients with HF., Methods: We conducted a single-centre cross-sectional study involving 150 consecutive ambulatory patients with HF >18 years of age with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%. Each patient's cardiologist and family doctor provided their predicted 1-year survival, and predicted survival scores were calculated using 3 models: HF Meta-Score, Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM), and Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF (MAGGIC) score. We compared accuracy between physician and model predictions using intraclass correlation (ICC)., Results: Median predicted survival by HF cardiologists was lower (median 80%, interquartile range [IQR]: 61%-90%) than that predicted by family physicians (median 90%, IQR 70%-99%, P = 0.08). One-year median survival calculated by the HF Meta-Score (94.6%), SHFM (95.4%), and MAGGIC (88.9%,) proved as high or higher than physician estimates. Agreement among HF cardiologists (ICC 0.28-0.41) and family physicians (ICC 0.43-0.47) when compared with 1-year model-predicted survival scores proved limited, whereas the 3 models agreed well (ICC > 0.65)., Conclusions: HF cardiologists underestimated survival in comparison with family physicians, whereas both physician estimates were lower than calculated model estimates. Our results provide additional evidence of potential inaccuracy of physician survival predictions in ambulatory patients with HF. These results should be validated in longitudinal studies collecting actual survival., (Copyright © 2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: While it is well known that heart failure patients presenting to the emergency room (ER) have high short-term mortality after discharge, the outcomes of patients with heart failure with repeated ER visits within a short time are not known. In this study, we aimed to determine whether clustering is associated with an increased risk of death., Methods and Results: This is a retrospective, population-based cohort study with an accrual window between 2003 and 2014 and maximal follow-up up to and including March 31, 2015. Data were obtained from administrative databases from Ontario, Canada. Clustering was defined a priori as 3 or more ER visits within a 6-month period. The main outcome of interest was time to death conditional on 6-month survival. A total of 72 810 patients with an index hospitalization for acute heart failure were evaluated. ER clustering was observed in 15.1% of the population. Increased burden of comorbidities, primary rural residence, and lack of primary care provider were identified as factors associated with ER clustering. Age- and sex-adjusted mortality for clustered patients was higher than for nonclustered (hazard ratio [HR] 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.55, P <0.0001). Adjusted mortality risk was also higher for patients with clustered ER visits (HR 1.42; 95% confidence interval 1.38-1.46; P <0.0001)., Conclusions: Clustering, as defined by 3 or more ER visits for any reason within 6 months of index heart failure hospitalization reflects a novel risk factor associated with increased mortality. Future research into the strategies to better manage complex patients with heart failure with recurrent ER visits are warranted., (© 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

Objective: To assess the humoral immune response to low-dose AS03-adjuvanted and standard-dose nonadjuvanted 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza A vaccine in HIV-infected aviremic individuals receiving antiretroviral therapy and in uninfected individuals., Design: A three-arm study., Setting: Two clinics: one at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, USA; and the other at the Maple Leaf Medical Clinic in Toronto, Ontario, Canada., Participants: HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected adults., Intervention: Single intramuscular 15 μg dose of the monovalent inactivated 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza A vaccine without adjuvant or 3.75 μg dose of the same strain with adjuvant AS03., Main Outcomes: Immunogenicity, as measured by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibody titers and vaccine-specific memory B-cell responses., Results: A total of 74 participants were enrolled. Twenty-one HIV-infected individuals received the low-dose adjuvanted 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza A vaccine. Twenty-nine HIV-infected and 24 HIV-uninfected individuals received the standard-dose nonadjuvanted vaccine. There were no significant differences in antibody responses at 9 weeks postvaccination among the three groups studied. However, the IgG memory B-cell response against the vaccine was significantly higher in the HIV-infected group that received the low-dose adjuvanted vaccine when compared to the HIV-infected and uninfected groups that received the standard-dose nonadjuvanted vaccine. Conclusions remained unchanged after regression adjustment for age, gender, CD4 T-cell count, and baseline HAI titer., Conclusion: These data suggest that adjuvants could be used to expand coverage through dose sparing and improve humoral immune responses in immunocompromised individuals.