pulmonary congestion

32
Acute Heart Failure Pulmonary Congestion Mihai Gheorghiade MD, FACC Professor of Medicine and Surgery Director of Experimental Therapeutics Center for Cardiovascular Innovation Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois

Upload: drucsamal

Post on 15-Apr-2017

297 views

Category:

Healthcare


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Acute Heart FailurePulmonary Congestion

Mihai Gheorghiade MD, FACCProfessor of Medicine and Surgery

Director of Experimental TherapeuticsCenter for Cardiovascular Innovation

Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois

Conflict of Interest Conflict of Interest

Abbott Laboratories, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Cardiorentis Ltd, CorThera, Cytokinetics, CytoPherx, Inc, DebioPharm S.A., Errekappa Terapeutici, GlaxoSmithKline, Ikaria, Intersection Medical, INC, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis Pharma AG, Ono Parmaceuticals USA, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Palatin Technologies, Pericor Therapeutics, Protein Design Laboratories, Sanofi-Aventis, Sigma Tau, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Sticares InterACT,Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc and Trevena Therapeutics; and has received signficant (> $10,000) support from Bayer Schering Pharma AG, DebioPharm S.A., Medtronic,Novartis Pharma AG, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Sigma Tau, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Sticares InterACT and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.

AHFSEpidemiology

• 1 million admissions per year with the primary diagnosis of HF in USA

• 3,000,000 admissions per year with primary or secondary diagnosis of HF

• Post discharge event rate (readmissions/ death): 35%* at 60 days

.*50% in pts. with BP<120mmHg at admission

Worsening Chronic Heart Failure: The Major Reason for HF

HospitalizationsWorsening chronic

heart failure (75%)

De novo heart

failure (23%)

Advanced/ end-stage

heart failure (2%)

Fonarow GC. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2003; 4 (Suppl. 7): 21Cleland JG et al. Eur Heart J. 2003; 24: 442

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of AHFS Patients

Median age (years) 75 Hx of Atrial Fibrillation 30%

Women >50% Renal abnormalities 30%

Hx of CAD 60% SBP >140 mm Hg 50%

Hx of Hypertension 70% SBP 90-140 mm Hg 45%

Hx of Diabetes 40% SBP <90 mm Hg 5%

Preserved EF 50%

Adams KF, et al. Am Heart J. 2005;149: 209.Cleland JGF et al. Eur Heart J. 2003; 24: 442;

Fonarow GC, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007

Data on approximately 200,000 patients

ADHERE EURO HF OPTIMIZE-HF(107,920 pts.) (11,327 pts.) (48,612 pts.)

Any dyspnea (%) 89 70 90?

Dyspnea at rest (%) 34 40 45Fatigue (%) 32 35 23Rales (%) 68 N/A 65Peripheral edema (%) 66 23 65Systolic BP (%)

< 90 mmHg 2 < 1 < 8 90 - 140 mmHg 48 70 44 > 140 mmHg 50 29 48

Adams KF et al. Am Heart J. 2005; 149: 209; Cleland JGF et al. Eur Heart J. 2003; 24: 442; Fonarow GC et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 45: 345A

Hospitalizations for HF: Patient Characteristics

Definition

• Hemodynamic congestion: high LV filling pressures.

• Clinical congestion: symptoms (dyspnea) and signs (JVD, rales, edema).

Congestion in Heart Failure* – Potential deleterious effects

• LV Remodeling:- increased afterload (wall stress)- worsening mitral regurgitation

• Increased PA/RA pressure with systemic congestion• Neurohormonal activation• Subendocardial ischemia/cell death by

necrosis/apoptosis1

• Changes in extra cellular matrix structure and function1 • Progression of LV dysfunction• Impaired cardiac drainage from coronary veins (diastolic

dysfunction)• Lower threshold for arrhythmias* The number of patients with congestion will probably increase due to a decrease in the rate of sudden death (beta blockers, ICD)1

Filippatos GS et al. Am J Physiol. 1999; 277: H445

Hemodynamic deterioration(e.g., fluid overload)

Myocardial injury (Tn release)

Progression of heart failure

Congestion may Contribute to Myocardial Injury

Gheorghiade et al. Am Heart J. 2003; 145: S3

Adamson PB et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 41: 565

Congestion Precedes Hospitalization

Pressure Change Hospitalization

Days Relative to the Event

Baseline -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 Recovery

Cha

nge

(%)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

RV Systolic Pressure

Estimated PA Diastolic Pressure

Heart Rate

More than 50% of Patients Have Little or no Weight Loss During Hospitalization

Fonarow GC. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2003; 4 (Suppl. 7): 21

Change in Heart Failure Signs and Symptoms (Admission to Discharge)

Admission Discharge

Symptoms (%)Dyspnea on exertion 79 58

Dyspnea at rest 42 5

Orthopnea 50 12

PND 33 4

Fatigue 53 57

Signs (%)JVP > 6cm 33 6

Rales 57 13

S3 gallop 20 6

Edema > 2+ 50 13

Gattis WA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 43: 1534

Lucas C et al. Am Heart J. 2000; 140: 840

Post-discharge Freedom of Congestion is Associated with Better Prognosis

Criteria for congestion: Orthopnea, JVD, wt. gain ≥ 2 lb. in a week, need (0-5) to increase diuretic dose, leg edema

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 6 12 18 24

Months after reassess

Sur

viva

l (%

)

p < 0.001

No congestion (N=80)

1-2 congestion (N=40)

3-5 congestion (N=26)

Reassess at 4-6 weeks

• Sodium restriction• Fluid restriction• Loop diuretics• Thiazide diuretics• MR antagonists• Metolazone• Vasopressin Antagonists• Ultrafiltration/dialysis

Interventions to Relieve Congestion

Diuretics• Loop diuretics in pts. with CrCl < 30• Have to be given bid to avoid rebound Na

reabsorbtion• May use thiazides if CrCl > 30• Use combination (e.g. furosemide +

thiazide), iv bolus or iv drips• Metolazone in refractory HF or in pts. with

renal failure. Should not be used daily.• Add spironolactone if Cr < 2.5 and K < 5.5

*

Secondary Endpoints: Day 1Secondary Endpoints: Day 1

– 1.7 ± 1.8

– 1.0 ± 1.8

– 1.8 ± 2.0

– 0.9 ± 1.9

Both trialsP<0.001

Difference 0.7 kg 0.9 kg

Δ inDyspnea

(% of pts with baseline dyspnea)

Trial A Trial B

Δ in BW (kg)

Tolvaptan Placebo Tolvaptan Placebo

Both trialsP<0.001

37 35 33 31

24 24 2523

1611 14

11

–2 –3 –2 –3

–20

0

20

40

60

80

Tolvaptan Placebo Tolvaptan Placebo (n=894) (n=915) (n=941) (n=914)

Improved

worsened

Markedly better

Moderately better

Minimally better

Worse

Acute Hemodynamic Effects of Digoxin in Pts. with Systolic Dysfunction and Sinus

Rhythm

Gheorghiade M, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989;13:134.

PCWP Cardiac Index LVEF

N/AN/A

Baseline*: 32 mm Hg 40 mm Hg

Baseline*: 1.9 L/min/m2

2.6 L/min/m2

19%

Rest Peak Exercise LVEFN=16*Baseline values are for the combined group†

P<.05 as compared with baseline

† †

Patients Admitted for Heart FailureIV Digoxin, 0.5 mg x 2

Management of Congestion in Patients Hospitalized for HF

• Short term management of severe congestion should include: – Loop diuretics – MR antagonists– Tolvaptan (particularly in patients with low serum

sodium) – Digoxin

• Congestion is an important predictor of mortality and morbidity.

• Congestion is the primary cause of heart failure hospital admissions and predicts readmissions.

• Hemodynamic congestion is often difficult to recognize, delaying appropriate interventions.

• Clinical congestion often lags behind hemodynamic congestion.

• Hemodynamic congestion contributes to progression of heart failure.

• Improved methods to monitoring hemodynamic congestion may improve clinical management and outcomes.

Congestion in Heart Failure: Conclusions