Disposition of emergency department patients diagnosed with acute heart failure: an international emergency medicine perspective

Early identification of acute heart failure at the time of presentation: do natriuretic peptides make the difference?

Background

The early identification of patients with acute heart failure (AHF) is challenging as many other diseases lead to a clinical presentation with dyspnea.

Aim

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of natriuretic peptides at common HF study cut‐offs on the diagnosis of patients with dyspnea at admission.

Methods and results

For this post hoc analysis, we analysed n = 726 European Union (EU) patients from the prospective BACH (Biomarkers in Acute Heart Failure) study. Cut‐offs were 350 ng/L (BNP), 300 pmol/L [pro‐atrial natriuretic peptide (proANP)], and 1800 ng/L (NT‐proBNP). These cut‐offs had equivalent 90 days' mortality in the EU cohort of BACH. We analysed the effect of selection using these cut‐offs on the prevalence of the gold standard diagnoses made in the BACH study and the respective mortality. The prevalence of AHF is increased from 47.5 to 75.6% (NT‐proBNP criteria) up to 79.7% (BNP criteria). With the use of the proANP criteria, 90 days' mortality of patients with AHF rose from 14 to 17% (P = 0.029). In the group with no‐AHF diagnoses, mortality rose from 10 to 25% (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The prevalence of patients with the gold standard diagnoses of AHF among those presenting with dyspnea to the emergency department is significantly increased by the use of natriuretic peptides with common cut‐offs used in prospective HF studies. Nevertheless, in the selected groups, patients with no AHF diagnosis have the highest mortality, and therefore, the addition of a natriuretic peptide alone is insufficient to start specific therapies.

Short-term outcomes of heart failure patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction after acute decompensation according to the final destination after emergency department care

AIMS

To compare short-term outcomes after an episode of acute heart failure (AHF) in patients with reduced and preserved ejection fractions (HFrEF, < 40%; and HFpEF, > 49%; respectively) according to their destinations after emergency department (ED) care.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This secondary analysis of the EAHFE Registry (consecutive AHF patients diagnosed in 41 Spanish EDs) investigated 30-day all-cause mortality, in-hospital all-cause mortality, prolonged hospitalisation (> 7 days), and 30-day post-discharge ED revisit due to AHF, all-cause death, and combined endpoint (ED revisit/death) in 5829 patients with echocardiographically documented HFrEF and HfpEF (HFrEF/HFpEF: 1,442/4,387). Adjusted ratios were calculated for patients admitted to internal medicine (IM), short stay unit (SSU), and discharged from the ED without hospitalisation (DEDWH) and compared with those admitted to cardiology. For HFrEF, the only significant differences were lower in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.08-0.81; p = 0.021) and prolonged hospitalisation (OR = 0.07; 95% CI 0.04-0.13; p < 0.001) related to SSU admission. For HFpEF, IM admission had a higher post-discharge 30-day mortality (HR = 1.85; 95% CI 1.05-3.25; p = 0.033) and combined endpoint (HR = 1.24; 95% CI 1.01-1.64; p = 0.044); SSU admission had a lower in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.23-0.80; p = 0.008) and prolonged hospitalisation (OR = 0.17; 95% CI 0.13-0.23; p < 0.001) but a higher post-discharge 30-day combined endpoint (HR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.01-1.64; p = 0.041); and DEDDWH had a lower 30-day mortality (HR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.28-0.75; p = 0.002) but higher post-discharge ED revisit (HR = 1.62; 95% CI 1.31-2.00; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

While HFrEF patients have similar short-term outcomes irrespective of the destination after ED care for an AHF episode, HFpEF patients present worse short-term outcomes when managed by non-cardiology departments, despite adjustment for different clinical patient profiles. Reasons for this heterogeneous specialty-related performance should be investigated.

Impact of Frailty and Disability on 30-Day Mortality in Older Patients With Acute Heart Failure

The objectives were to determine the impact of frailty and disability on 30-day mortality and whether the addition of these variables to HFRSS EFFECT risk score (FBI-EFFECT model) improves the short-term mortality predictive capacity of both HFRSS EFFECT and BI-EFFECT models in older patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) atended in the emergency department. We performed a retrospective analysis of OAK Registry including all consecutive patients ≥65 years old with ADHF attended in 3 Spanish emergency departments over 4 months. FBI-EFFECT model was developed by adjusting probabilities of HFRSS EFFECT risk categories according to the 6 groups (G1: non frail, no or mildly dependent; G2: frail, no or mildly dependent; G3: non frail, moderately dependent; G4: frail, moderately dependent; G5: severely dependent; G6: very severely dependent).We included 596 patients (mean age: 83 [SD7]; 61.2% females). The 30-day mortality was 11.6% with statistically significant differences in the 6 groups (p < 0.001). After adjusting for HFRSS EFFECT risk categories, we observed a progressive increase in hazard ratios from groups G2 to G6 compared with G1 (reference). FBI-EFFECT had a better prognostic accuracy than did HFRSS EFFECT (log-rank p < 0.001; Net Reclassification Improvement [NRI] = 0.355; p < 0.001; Integrated Discrimination Improvement [IDI] = 0.052; p ;< 0.001) and BI-EFFECT (log-rank p = 0.067; NRI = 0.210; p = 0.033; IDI = 0.017; p = 0.026). In conclusion, severe disability and frailty in patients with moderate disability are associated with 30-day mortality in ADHF, providing additional value to HFRSS EFFECT model in predicting short-term prognosis and establishing a care plan.

[Acute chest pain]

Patients presenting with acute chest pain are a challenge for attending physicians in private practice and specialists for emergency and acute medicine in hospitals because a wide spectrum of diagnoses may be the cause, ranging from acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to harmless muscular tension. The evaluation of patients with acute chest pain follows basic principles independent of the setting: A thorough clinical investigation by the responsible physician including medical history and physical examination, followed by a 12-channel electrocardiogram (ECG) and further focused diagnostics. The decision about hospital admission, monitoring and further diagnostic steps depends on the estimation of vital risk, the tentative diagnosis and the available diagnostic tools. Besides the ECG, laboratory tests (cardiac troponin, copeptin) and cardiac imaging (primarily the echocardiography) play a key role. Patients who did not necessarily require hospital admission (e. g. after exclusion of AMI) should be offered an inpatient or outpatient concept which enables the timely diagnosis and potential treatment of all relevant diseases in question. The diagnostic strategies need to take into account the pretest probability and for patients with confirmed diagnosis of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), continuous monitoring and transfer to an emergency department with integrated chest pain unit (CPU) is strongly recommended. In this context, close collaboration between the emergency department and the physicians in private practice should be established.

Acute decompensated heart failure in the emergency department: Identification of early predictors of outcome

Identification of clinical factors that can predict mortality and hospital early readmission in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) patients can help emergency department (ED) physician optimize the care-path and resource utilization.We conducted a retrospective observational study of 530 ADHF patients evaluated in the ED of an Italian academic hospital in 2013.Median age was 82 years, females were 55%; 31.1% of patients were discharged directly from the ED (12.5% after short staying in the observation unit), while 68.9% were admitted to a hospital ward (58.3% directly from the ED and 10.6% after a short observation). At 30 days, readmission rate was 17.7% while crude mortality rate was 9.4%; this latter was higher in patients admitted to a hospital ward in comparison to those who were discharged directly from the ED (12.6% vs. 2.4%, P < .001). Thirty-day mortality was significantly related to older age, higher triage priority, lower mean blood pressure (MBP), and lower pulse oxygen saturation (POS). At 180 days, crude mortality rate was 23.2%, higher in admitted patients compared with discharged ones (29.6% vs. 9.1%, P < .001) and was significantly related to older age, higher serum creatinine, and lower MBP and POS. At 12 and 22 months, crude mortality rates resulted 30.4% and 45.1%, respectively.Simple and objective parameters, such as age ≤82 years, MBP > 104 mm Hg, POS > 94%, may guide the ED physician to identify low-risk patients who can be safely discharged directly from the emergency room or after observation unit stay.

European Society of Cardiology - Acute Cardiovascular Care Association position paper on safe discharge of acute heart failure patients from the emergency department

Heart failure is a global public health challenge frequently presenting to the emergency department. After initial stabilization and management, one of the most important decisions is to determine which patients can be safely discharged and which require hospitalization. This is a complex decision that depends on numerous subjective factors, including both the severity of the patient's underlying condition and an estimate of the acuity of the presentation. An emergency department observation period may help select the correct option. Ideally, during an observation period, risk stratification should be carried out using parameters specifically designed for use in the emergency department. Unfortunately, there is little objective literature to guide this disposition decision. An objective and reliable definition of low-risk characteristics to identify early discharge candidates is needed. Benchmarking outcomes in patients discharged from the emergency department without hospitalization could aid this process. Biomarker determinations, although undoubtedly useful in establishing diagnosis and predicting longer-term prognosis, require prospective validation for emergency department disposition guidance. The challenge of identifying emergency department acute heart failure discharge candidates will only be overcome by future multidisciplinary research defining the current knowledge gaps and identifying potential solutions.

The GALA study: relationship between galectin-3 serum levels and short- and long-term outcomes of patients with acute heart failure

OBJECTIVE

We tested the hypothesis that early measurement of galectin-3 at the emergency department (ED) during an episode of acute heart failure (AHF) allows predicting short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We performed an exploratory study including 115 patients consecutively diagnosed with AHF in a single ED. Clinical and analytical variables were recorded. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality, and secondary endpoints were 30-day composite outcome (death, rehospitalization or ED reconsultation, whichever first) and 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

Seven patients (6.1%) died within 30 days and 43 (37.4%) within 1 year. The 30-day composite endpoint was observed in 21.1% of patients. Galectin-3 was correlated with NT-proBNP and the glomerular filtration rate but not with age and s-cTnI. Measured at time of ED arrival, galectin-3 showed good discriminatory capacity for 30-day mortality (AUC ROC: 0.732; 95% CI 0.512-0.953; p = 0.041) but not for 1-year mortality (0.521; 0.408-0.633; p = 0.722). Patients with galectin-3 concentrations >42 μg/L had an OR = 7.67(95%CI = 1.57-37.53; p = 0.012) for 30-day mortality. Conversely, NT-proBNP only showed predictive capacity for 1-year mortality (0.642; 0.537-0.748; p = 0.014). Patients with NT-proBNP concentrations >5400 ng/L had an OR = 4.34 (95%CI = 1.93-9.77; p < 0.001) for 1-year mortality. These increased short- (galectin-3) and long-term (NT-proBNP) risks remained significant after adjustment for age or renal function. s-cTnI failed in both short- and long term death prediction. No biomarker predicted the short-term composite endpoint.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that galectin-3 could help to monitor the risk of short-term mortality in unselected patients with AHF attended in the ED.

The effect of a short-stay unit on hospital admission and length of stay in acute heart failure: REDUCE-AHF study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the presence of a short-stay unit(SSU) in a hospital influences the percentage of admissions, length of hospital stay(LOS) and outcomes in emergency department(ED) patients with acute heart failure(AHF).

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of AHF patients presenting to one of 34 Spanish ED included in EAHFE registry. Baseline and ED data of patients were collected. Patients were classified into two groups in function of being attended at hospitals with or without a SSU. Main outcome variables were the percentage of admissions from ED, and LOS for admitted patients. Secondary variables were all-cause death and ED revisits for worsening heart failure within 30days following discharge.

RESULTS

Of 9078 patients presenting to the ED (SSU 5191; no SSU 3887), 6796 (74.8%) were admitted. Compared to hospitals without a SSU, the admission rate in hospitals with a SSU was 8.9% higher (95%CI 6.5%-11.4%), but 30-day ED revisit and mortality rates were lower among patients discharged directly from the ED (-10.3%, 95%CI -16,9% to -3.7%; and -10.0%, 95%CI -16.6 to -3.4%, respectively). For admitted patients, the overall LOS was 9.3±9.5days, being 2.2days shorter (95%CI -2.7 to -1.7) in hospitals with a SSU, with no significant differences in in-hospital, 30-day mortality or 30-day ED revisit rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that SSU may improve the safety of emergency care of patients with AHF, but at the cost of a higher rate of hospital admissions, and it may also reduce the LOS for admitted patients without affecting post discharge safety.

IMPROV-ED study: outcomes after discharge for an episode of acute-decompensated heart failure and comparison between patients discharged from the emergency department and hospital wards

OBJECTIVE

To define the short- and mid-term outcomes of patients discharged after an episode of acute-decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and evaluate the differences between patients discharged directly from the emergency department (ED) and those discharged after hospitalization.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, multicenter, cohort-designed study, including consecutive patients diagnosed with ADHF in 27 Spanish EDs. Thirty-four variables on epidemiology, comorbidity, baseline status, vital signs, signs of congestion, laboratory tests, and treatment were collected in every patient. The primary outcome was a combined endpoint of ED revisit (without hospitalization) or hospitalization due to ADHF, or all-cause death. Secondary outcomes were each of these three events individually. Outcomes were obtained by survival analysis at different timepoints in the entire cohort, and crude and adjusted comparisons were carried out between patients discharged directly from the ED and after hospitalization.

RESULTS

Of the 3233 patients diagnosed with ADHF during a 2-month period, we analyzed 2986 patients discharged alive: 787 (26.4%) discharged from the ED and 2199 (73.6%) after hospitalization. The cumulative percentages of events for the whole cohort (at 7/30/180 days) for the combined endpoint were 7.8/24.7/57.8; for ED revisit 2.5/9.4/25.5; for hospitalization 4.6/15.3/40.7; and for death 0.9/4.3/16.8. After adjustment for patient profile and center, significant increases were found in the hazard ratios for ED- compared to hospital-discharged patients in the combined endpoint, ED revisit and hospitalization, being higher at short-term [at 7 days, 2.373 (1.678-3.355), 2.069 (1.188-3.602), and 3.071 (1.915-4.922), respectively] than at mid-term [at 180 days, 1.368 (1.160-1.614), 1.642 (1.265-2.132), and 1.302 (1.044-1.623), respectively]. No significant differences were found in death.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ADHF discharged from the ED have worse outcomes, especially at short term, than those discharged after hospitalization. The definition and implementation of effective strategies to improve patient selection for direct ED discharge are needed.