http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/15324/ List of Publications en http://repub.eur.nl/static-eur/img/logo.png http://repub.eur.nl http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/26684/ 2011-07-01T00:00:00Z AimsAngiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and beta-blockers are associated with improved outcome in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). In this post hoc analysis of the CIBIS III trial, we examined the influence of the order of drug administration on clinical events and achieved dose. We also assessed the relations between dose levels and baseline variables or adverse events.Methods and resultsIn the CIBIS III trial, 1010 patients (mean age: 72.4 years; mean ejection fraction: 28.8; male: 68.2) with stable CHF were randomized to up-titration of monotherapy with either bisoprolol (target dose 10 mg o.d.) or enalapril (target dose 10 mg b.i.d.) for 6 months, followed by their combination for 624 months. Endpoints were mortality or all-cause hospitalization, mortality alone and mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization.The study drug (ACE-I or beta-blocker) was last prescribed at <50 of target dose to significantly more patients for the first initiated drug in both treatment groups (both P< 0.001). Sixty per cent of endpoints were reached during the monotherapy phase and randomized treatment during monotherapy was not a predictor of the three assessed outcomes. Monotherapy phase was the strongest independent predictor of outcome (P< 0.0001 for all endpoints). Older age, NYHA class III, impaired renal function, lower body weight and blood pressure at baseline, and hypotension, bradycardia and heart failure during treatment were associated with the inability to reach high dose of both study drugs.ConclusionThe order of drug administration plays an important role in whether CHF patients reach target doses of bisoprolol and enalapril. For both study drugs, the dose level reached was associated with baseline characteristics and adverse events. In CHF patients not treated with an ACE-I or a beta-blocker, the duration of monotherapy with either type of drug should be shorter than 6 months. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/28417/ 2010-04-28T00:00:00Z Acute cardiovascular dysfunction occurs perioperatively in more than 20% of cardiosurgical patients, yet current acute heart failure (HF) classification is not applicable to this period. Indicators of major perioperative risk include unstable coronary syndromes, decompensated HF, significant arrhythmias and valvular disease. Clinical risk factors include history of heart disease, compensated HF, cerebrovascular disease, presence of diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency and high-risk surgery. EuroSCORE reliably predicts perioperative cardiovascular alteration in patients aged less than 80 years. Preoperative B-type natriuretic peptide level is an additional risk stratification factor. Aggressively preserving heart function during cardiosurgery is a major goal. Volatile anaesthetics and levosimendan seem to be promising cardioprotective agents, but large trials are still needed to assess the best cardioprotective agent(s) and optimal protocol(s). The aim of monitoring is early detection and assessment of mechanisms of perioperative cardiovascular dysfunction. Ideally, volume status should be assessed by 'dynamic' measurement of haemodynamic parameters. Assess heart function first by echocardiography, then using a pulmonary artery catheter (especially in right heart dysfunction). If volaemia and heart function are in the normal range, cardiovascular dysfunction is very likely related to vascular dysfunction. In treating myocardial dysfunction, consider the following options, either alone or in combination: low-to-moderate doses of dobutamine and epinephrine, milrinone or levosimendan. In vasoplegia-induced hypotension, use norepinephrine to maintain adequate perfusion pressure. Exclude hypovolaemia in patients under vasopressors, through repeated volume assessments. Optimal perioperative use of inotropes/vasopressors in cardiosurgery remains controversial, and further large multinational studies are needed. Cardiosurgical perioperative classification of cardiac impairment should be based on time of occurrence (precardiotomy, failure to wean, postcardiotomy) and haemodynamic severity of the patient's condition (crash and burn, deteriorating fast, stable but inotrope dependent). In heart dysfunction with suspected coronary hypoperfusion, an intra-aortic balloon pump is highly recommended. A ventricular assist device should be considered before end organ dysfunction becomes evident. Extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation is an elegant solution as a bridge to recovery and/or decision making. This paper offers practical recommendations for management of perioperative HF in cardiosurgery based on European experts' opinion. It also emphasizes the need for large surveys and studies to assess the optimal way to manage perioperative HF in cardiac surgery. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/29292/ 2008-07-01T00:00:00Z Aims: The prognostic significance of atrial fibrillation (AF) in hospitalized patients with heart failure (HF) remains poorly understood. To evaluate in what way AF and its different modes of presentation affect the in-hospital mortality in patients admitted with HF. Methods and results: The EuroHeart Failure Survey was conducted to ascertain how hospitalized HF patients are managed in Europe. The survey enrolled patients over a 6-week period in 115 hospitals from 24 countries. For this analysis, patients were categorized into three groups according to the type of AF, previous AF (patients known to have had AF prior to admission), new-onset AF (no previous AF with AF diagnosed during hospitalization), and no AF (no previous AF and no AF during hospitalization). Clinical variables, duration of hospitalization, and in-hospital survival status were assessed and compared among groups. Of the 10 701 patients included in the survey; 6027 (57%) had no AF, 3673 (34%) had previous AF, and 1001 (9%) had new-onset AF. Patients with new-onset AF had a longer stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) when compared with previous AF and no AF patients (mean 2.6 ± 5.3, 1.2 ± 3.5, and 1.5 ± 4.1 days, respectively; P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher among patients with new-onset AF when compared with previous AF or no AF patients (12, 7, and 7% respectively; P < 0.001). After adjusting for multiple clinical variables, new-onset AF (not previous AF) was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.53, 95% CI 1.1-2.0). Conclusion: In hospitalized patients with HF, new-onset AF is an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality and a longer ICU and hospital stay. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/36761/ 2007-11-01T00:00:00Z Background: There are limited data on recall and implementation of lifestyle advice in patients with heart failure (HF). Aim: To investigate what advice patients with HF recall being given, and whether they report following the advice they remember. Methods and results: 3261 patients with suspected HF participating in the EuroHeart Failure Survey were interviewed by a health professional 12 weeks after hospital discharge. Patients recalled receiving 46% of pre-specified items of advice and 67% reported that they followed these completely. Both recall (53%) and implementation (71%) was best in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). In multivariate analysis, younger age, male sex, patient awareness of the condition and patients reporting that they received a clear explanation of the diagnosis by a health professional, all factors associated with having LVSD, were the strongest predictors of recall. Conclusions: Recall of and adherence to advice by patients with HF in this large European cross-sectional survey was disappointing. Responsibility for patient education lies with health professionals who should ensure that patients receive and understand advice, and are able to recall and follow it. A greater awareness of the issues surrounding lifestyle advice and more evidence supporting its value could improve patient care. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/35523/ 2007-03-26T00:00:00Z Advice on lifestyle, diet, vaccination, and therapy are part of the standard management of heart failure (HF). However, there is little information on whether patients with HF recall receiving such recommendations and, if so, whether they report following them. We obtained information on the recall of and adherence to nonpharmacologic advice from patients enrolled in the EuroHeart Failure Survey. This article focuses on 2,331 patients who had a clinical diagnosis of HF during the index admission and attended an interview 12 weeks after discharge. Their mean age was 67 ± 12 years and 38% were women. Patients recalled receiving 4.1 ± 2.7 items of advice with higher rates in Central Europe and the Mediterranean region. Recall of dietary advice (cholesterol or fat intake, 63%; dietary salt, 60%) was higher than for some other interventions (influenza vaccination, 36%; avoidance of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 17%). Among those who recalled the advice, a substantial proportion indicated that they did not follow advice completely (cholesterol and fat intake, 61%; dietary salt, 63%; influenza vaccination, 75%; avoidance of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 80%), although few patients indicated they ignored the advice completely. Patients who recalled >4 items versus ≤4 items of advice were younger and more often received angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (71% vs 62%), β-blockers (51% vs 38%), and spironolactone (25% vs 21%). In conclusion, after hospitalization for HF, many patients do not recall nonpharmacologic advice. In addition, a substantial proportion of those who recall the advice follow it incompletely. Younger age and prescription of appropriate pharmacologic treatment are associated with higher rates of recall and implementation. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/36815/ 2007-03-01T00:00:00Z Background: Treatment of heart failure (HF) due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) is effective, but many patients are not treated in accordance with guidelines. This may reflect a lack of adequate organisation of care or co-morbidity contra-indicating therapy. Aims: To evaluate the effect of co-morbidities on the prescription of neurohormonal antagonists for HF. Methods and results: The EuroHeart Failure Survey identified 10,701 patients with suspected or confirmed HF during 2000 and 2001, 64% of whom had an imaging test and 3658 had documented LVSD. This last group constitutes the focus of this report. Renal dysfunction was associated with lower prescription of ACE inhibitors at discharge (74% vs. 83%, p < 0.001). Beta-blockers were less often used in patients with respiratory disease (32% vs. 53%, p < 0.001). Co-morbidity did not appear to affect the use of spironolactone. There were few important international differences in uptake of key therapies amongst European countries with widely differing cultures and economic status. Conclusions: Guidelines appear successful in creating a relatively uniform approach to the treatment for HF due to LVSD in diverse medical cultures. Relevant co-morbidity seems to be responsible for a substantial reduction in the prescription of ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers. However, whilst co-morbidity indicates the need for greater caution, it is often not a valid contra-indication to life-saving therapy. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/13444/ 2004-07-01T00:00:00Z AIMS: Due to a lack of clinical trials, scientific evidence regarding the management of patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left ventricular function (PLVF) is scarce. The EuroHeart Failure Survey provided information on the characteristics, treatment and outcomes of patients with PLVF as compared to patients with a left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a secondary analysis using data from the EuroHeart Failure Survey, only including patients with a measurement of LV function (n = 6806). We selected two groups: patients with LVSD (54%) and patients with a PLVF (46%). Patients with a PLVF were, on average, 4 years older and more often women (55% vs. 29%, respectively, p < 0.001) as compared to LVSD patients, and were more likely to have hypertension (59% vs. 50%, p < 0.001) and atrial fibrillation (25% vs. 23%, p = 0.01). PLVF patients received less cardiovascular medication compared to PLVF patients, with the exception of calcium antagonists. Multivariate analysis revealed that LVSD was an independent predictor for mortality, while no differences in treatment effect on mortality between the two groups was observed. A sensitivity analysis, using different thresholds to separate patients with and without LVSD revealed comparable findings. CONCLUSIONS: In the EuroHeart Failure Survey, a high percentage of heart failure patients had PLVF. Although major clinical differences were seen between the groups, morbidity and mortality was high in both groups.