scholarly journals Inotropes Are Linked to Increased Mortality in Heart Failure

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Chadi Alraies ◽  
Bill Tran ◽  
Sirtaz Adatya
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Acute Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
Supplemental Oxygen ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Organ Perfusion ◽  
The Usa ◽  
End Stage

With the advancement of technology and availability of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for the treatment of acute decompensated systolic HF in the 21st century, the role of inotropes is becoming obsolete. Medical therapy for acute decompensated heart failure (HF) has not changed since 1960’s, we still use supplemental oxygen, diuretics, vasodilators and inotropes to improve congestion, cardiac output, end organ perfusion and symptoms related to elevate filling pressures1 . Despite demonstrated improvements in hemodynamics, the uses of inotropes have not demonstrated any improvements in mortality. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) use is growing rapidly in the USA, in patients with stage D HF both as destination therapy and as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. In both, transplant-eligible and non-transplant-eligible patients, improvement in end-organ perfusion, functional capacity, quality of life and most importantly mortality have been demonstrated. In this perspective paper we are going to discuss the current lack of evidence for inotropic therapy and the evolving benefit of MCS in end-stage systolic HF patients.

scholarly journals Implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team and Clinical Outcomes (INOVA-SHOCK Registry): Observational and Retrospective Study (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Behnam Tehrani ◽  
Alexander Truesdell ◽  
Ramesh Singh ◽  
Charles Murphy ◽  
Patricia Saulino
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Acute Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
Circulatory Support

BACKGROUND The development and implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock initiative focused on increased disease awareness, early multidisciplinary team activation, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support, and hemodynamic-guided management and improvement of outcomes in cardiogenic shock. OBJECTIVE The objectives of this study are (1) to collect retrospective clinical outcomes for acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock and acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock, and compare current versus historical survival rates and clinical outcomes; (2) to evaluate Inova Heart and Vascular Institute site specific outcomes before and after initiation of the Cardiogenic Shock team on January 1, 2017; (3) to compare outcomes related to early implementation of mechanical circulatory support and hemodynamic-guided management versus historical controls; (4) to assess survival to discharge rate in patients receiving intervention from the designated shock team and (5) create a clinical archive of Cardiogenic Shock patient characteristics for future analysis and the support of translational research studies. METHODS This is an observational, retrospective, single center study. Retrospective and prospective data will be collected in patients treated at the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute with documented cardiogenic shock as a result of acute decompensated heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. This registry will include data from patients prior to and after the initiation of the multidisciplinary Cardiogenic Shock team on January 1, 2017. Clinical outcomes associated with early multidisciplinary team intervention will be analyzed. In the study group, all patients evaluated for documented cardiogenic shock (acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock) treated at the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute by the Cardiogenic Shock team will be included. An additional historical Inova Heart and Vascular Institute control group will be analyzed as a comparator. Means with standard deviations will be reported for outcomes. For categorical variables, frequencies and percentages will be presented. For continuous variables, the number of subjects, mean, standard deviation, minimum, 25th percentile, median, 75th percentile and maximum will be reported. Reported differences will include standard errors and 95% CI. RESULTS Preliminary data analysis for the year 2017 has been completed. Compared to a baseline 2016 survival rate of 47.0%, from 2017 to 2018, CS survival rates were increased to 57.9% (58/110) and 81.3% (81/140), respectively (P=.01 for both). Study data will continue to be collected until December 31, 2018. CONCLUSIONS The preliminary results of this study demonstrate that the INOVA SHOCK team approach to the treatment of Cardiogenic Shock with early team activation, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support, hemodynamic-guided management, and strict protocol adherence is associated with superior clinical outcomes: survival to discharge and overall survival when compared to 2015 and 2016 outcomes prior to Shock team initiation. What may limit the generalization of these results of this study to other populations are site specific; expertise of the team, strict algorithm adherence based on the INOVA SHOCK protocol, and staff commitment to timely team activation. Retrospective clinical outcomes (acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock) demonstrated an increase in current survival rates when compared to pre-Cardiogenic Shock team initiation, rapid team activation and diagnosis and timely utilization of mechanical circulatory support. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03378739; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03378739 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/701vstDGd)

scholarly journals The role of long-term mechanical circulatory support in the treatment of end-stage heart failure

2019 ◽  
pp. 331-340
Author(s):  
Lech Paluszkiewicz ◽  
Tomasz Kukulski ◽  
Michał Zembala ◽  
Jan Gummert ◽  
Michiel Morshuis
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
End Stage Heart Failure ◽  
End Stage

scholarly journals Levosimendan Plus Dobutamine in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Refractory to Dobutamine

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 3605
Author(s):  
William Juguet ◽  
Damien Fard ◽  
Laureline Faivre ◽  
Athanasios Koutsoukis ◽  
Camille Deguillard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Acute Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
Superior Vena ◽  
Vena Cava ◽  
Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Low Cardiac Output ◽  
Major Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Single Center Study

Randomized studies showed that Dobutamine and Levosimendan have similar impact on outcome but their combination has never been assessed in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) with low cardiac output. This is a retrospective, single-center study that included 89 patients (61 ± 15 years) admitted for ADHF requiring inotropic support. The first group consisted of patients treated with dobutamine alone (n = 42). In the second group, levosimendan was administered on top of dobutamine, when the superior vena cava oxygen saturation (ScVO2) remained <60% after 3 days of dobutamine treatment (n = 47). The primary outcome was the occurrence of major cardiovascular events (MACE) at 6 months, defined as all cause death, heart transplantation or need for mechanical circulatory support. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in both groups. At day-3, the ScVO2 target (>60%) was reached in 36% and 32% of patients in the dobutamine and dobutamine-levosimendan group, respectively. After adding levosimendan, 72% of the dobutamine-levosimendan-group reached the ScVO2 target value at dobutamine weaning. At six months, 42 (47%) patients experienced MACE (n = 29 for death). MACE was less frequent in the dobutamine-levosimendan (32%) than in the dobutamine-group (64%, p = 0.003). Independent variables associated with outcome were admission systolic blood pressure and dobutamine-levosimendan strategy (OR = 0.44 (0.23–0.84), p = 0.01). In conclusion, levosimendan added to dobutamine may improve the outcome of ADHF refractory to dobutamine alone.

Chronic Mechanical Circulatory Support for Patients with End-stage Heart Failure as a Definitive Treatment Option

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 22
Author(s):  
Patrycja Ganslmeier ◽  
Christof Schmid ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Randomized Evaluation ◽  
Fda Approval ◽  
Cerebrovascular Events ◽  
Device Placement ◽  
End Stage Heart Failure ◽  
End Stage

Mechanical circulatory support for end-stage heart failure has become routine and is now increasingly used as definitive treatment. Several small devices qualify for this purpose, but only a few have gained US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval as yet. Several studies, including the Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure (REMATCH) study, the Investigation of Non-transplant-Eligible Patients Who Are Inotrope Dependent (INTrEPID) and the HeartMate (HM) II trial have confirmed a significantly improved quality of life and functional capacity after device placement. However, cerebrovascular events, infection and device malfunction still pose a considerable risk to patients and hinder widespread use.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document