PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16548668

Chronic heart failure: developments and perspectives.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and contemporary treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF) while emphasizing the important role of the pharmacist. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles from MEDLINE pertinent to CHF. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All relevant publications addressing CHF management were considered, including prospective comparative trials, epidemiological studies, guideline statements, review articles, and editorials. Particular focus occurred on the primary literature published after the release of noted guidelines. The Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). DATA SYNTHESIS: Heart failure is a common disorder, especially in the elderly. To determine appropriate pharmacotherapy, one must establish the type of dysfunction (systolic versus diastolic) as well as characterize the patient's disease state according to the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification system and from the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA), stage of diseases. Although most patients have systolic dysfunction ([ejection fraction] less than 40%), the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction (a normal to elevated ejection fraction) is rising and it accounts for at least one-third of all cases. Six drugs/drug classes are contemporary treatments in systolic heart failure, depending on NYHA functional class: angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, diuretics, beta-blockers, aldosterone antagonists, angiotensin II receptor-blockers, and digoxin. Clinicians should be aware that studies demonstrate all these drugs/drug classes prolong survival in systolic heart failure, except diuretics and digoxin. Some patients with systolic dysfunction also may be candidates for the combination of hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate as well as nonpharmacological approaches with biventricular pacemakers and/or implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Treatment of diastolic heart failure is less evidence-based, and speculative treatments focus on control of blood pressure, tachycardia, volume overload, and myocardial ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: CHF treatment remains a therapeutic challenge. Pharmacists have an essential role in the care of these patients by avoiding drugs known to exacerbate the disease, promoting optimal pharmacotherapy, and ensuring compliance with prescribed drugs and dietary modifications.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michael A Crouch. 2005. Chronic heart failure: developments and perspectives.. https://doi.org/10.4140/tcp.n.2005.751

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗