The Room Where It Happens: A Skeptic's Analysis of the New Heart Failure Guidelines

Echocardiography-Derived Forward Left Ventricular Output Improves Risk Prediction in Systolic Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Although it is widely used to classify patients with heart failure (HF), the prognostic role of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is debated. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that echocardiographic measures of forward left ventricular (LV) output, being more representative of cardiac hemodynamics, might improve risk prediction in a large cohort of patients with HF with systolic dysfunction.

METHODS

Consecutive stable patients with HF with LVEF <50% on guideline-recommended therapies undergoing echocardiography including the evaluation of forward LV output (i.e., LV outflow tract [LVOT] velocity-time integral [VTI], stroke volume index [SVi], and cardiac index) over a 6-year period were selected and followed for the end point of cardiac and all-cause death.

RESULTS

Among the 1,509 patients analyzed (mean age, 71 ± 12 years; 75% men; mean LVEF, 35 ± 9%), 328 (22%) died during a median follow-up period of 28 months (interquartile range, 14-40 months), 165 (11%) of cardiac causes. On multivariable regression analysis, LVOT VTI (P < .001), SVi (P < .001), and cardiac index (P < .001), but not LVEF (P > .05), predicted cardiac and all-cause death. The optimal prognostic cutoffs for LVOT VTI, SVi, and cardiac index were 15 cm, 38 mL/m2, and 2 L/min/m2, respectively. Adding each of these measures to a multivariable risk model (including clinical, biohumoral, and echocardiographic markers) improved risk prediction (P < .001). Among the different measures of forward LV output, cardiac index was less accurate than LVOT VTI and SVi.

CONCLUSIONS

The echocardiographic evaluation of forward LV output improves risk prediction in patients with HF across a wide LVEF spectrum over other well-established clinical, biohumoral, and echocardiographic prognostic markers.

Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Infective Endocarditis in Adults: A WikiGuidelines Group Consensus Statement

Importance

Practice guidelines often provide recommendations in which the strength of the recommendation is dissociated from the quality of the evidence.

Objective

To create a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial infective endocarditis (IE) that addresses the gap between the evidence and recommendation strength.

Evidence Review

This consensus statement and systematic review applied an approach previously established by the WikiGuidelines Group to construct collaborative clinical guidelines. In April 2022 a call to new and existing members was released electronically (social media and email) for the next WikiGuidelines topic, and subsequently, topics and questions related to the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial IE were crowdsourced and prioritized by vote. For each topic, PubMed literature searches were conducted including all years and languages. Evidence was reported according to the WikiGuidelines charter: clear recommendations were established only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were crafted discussing the risks and benefits of different approaches.

Findings

A total of 51 members from 10 countries reviewed 587 articles and submitted information relevant to 4 sections: establishing the diagnosis of IE (9 questions); multidisciplinary IE teams (1 question); prophylaxis (2 questions); and treatment (5 questions). Of 17 unique questions, a clear recommendation could only be provided for 1 question: 3 randomized clinical trials have established that oral transitional therapy is at least as effective as intravenous (IV)-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Clinical reviews were generated for the remaining questions.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this consensus statement that applied the WikiGuideline method for clinical guideline development, oral transitional therapy was at least as effective as IV-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Several randomized clinical trials are underway to inform other areas of practice, and further research is needed.

Use of Novel Strategies to Develop Guidelines for Management of Pyogenic Osteomyelitis in Adults: A WikiGuidelines Group Consensus Statement

IMPORTANCE

Traditional approaches to practice guidelines frequently result in dissociation between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To construct a clinical guideline for pyogenic osteomyelitis management, with a new standard of evidence to resolve the gap between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence, through the use of a novel open access approach utilizing social media tools.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This consensus statement and systematic review study used a novel approach from the WikiGuidelines Group, an open access collaborative research project, to construct clinical guidelines for pyogenic osteomyelitis. In June 2021 and February 2022, authors recruited via social media conducted multiple PubMed literature searches, including all years and languages, regarding osteomyelitis management; criteria for article quality and inclusion were specified in the group's charter. The GRADE system for evaluating evidence was not used based on previously published concerns regarding the potential dissociation between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Instead, the charter required that clear recommendations be made only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were drafted to discuss pros and cons of care choices. Both clear recommendations and clinical reviews were planned with the intention to be regularly updated as new data become available.

FINDINGS

Sixty-three participants with diverse expertise from 8 countries developed the group's charter and its first guideline on pyogenic osteomyelitis. These participants included both nonacademic and academic physicians and pharmacists specializing in general internal medicine or hospital medicine, infectious diseases, orthopedic surgery, pharmacology, and medical microbiology. Of the 7 questions addressed in the guideline, 2 clear recommendations were offered for the use of oral antibiotic therapy and the duration of therapy. In addition, 5 clinical reviews were authored addressing diagnosis, approaches to osteomyelitis underlying a pressure ulcer, timing for the administration of empirical therapy, specific antimicrobial options (including empirical regimens, use of antimicrobials targeting resistant pathogens, the role of bone penetration, and the use of rifampin as adjunctive therapy), and the role of biomarkers and imaging to assess responses to therapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The WikiGuidelines approach offers a novel methodology for clinical guideline development that precludes recommendations based on low-quality data or opinion. The primary limitation is the need for more rigorous clinical investigations, enabling additional clear recommendations for clinical questions currently unresolved by high-quality data.

Do the Current Guidelines for Heart Failure Diagnosis and Treatment Fit with Clinical Complexity?

Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome defined by specific symptoms and signs due to structural and/or functional heart abnormalities, which lead to inadequate cardiac output and/or increased intraventricular filling pressure. Importantly, HF becomes progressively a multisystemic disease. However, in August 2021, the European Society of Cardiology published the new Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic HF, according to which the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) continues to represent the pivotal parameter for HF patients’ evaluation, risk stratification and therapeutic management despite its limitations are well known. Indeed, HF has a complex pathophysiology because it first involves the heart, progressively becoming a multisystemic disease, leading to multiorgan failure and death. In these terms, HF is comparable to cancer. As for cancer, surviving, morbidity and hospitalisation are related not only to the primary neoplastic mass but mainly to the metastatic involvement. In HF, multiorgan involvement has a great impact on prognosis, and multiorgan protective therapies are equally important as conventional cardioprotective therapies. In the light of these considerations, a revision of the HF concept is needed, starting from its definition up to its therapy, to overcome the old and simplistic HF perspective.

From left ventricular ejection fraction to cardiac hemodynamics: role of echocardiography in evaluating patients with heart failure

In clinical practice heart failure (HF) patients are generally classified on the basis of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction. This approach, however, has important limitations. According to the definition of HF as a clinical syndrome that results from any impairment of LV filling or ejection of blood, a more articulated hemodynamic categorization of HF patients taking into account both LV forward flow and filling pressure would be desirable. However, the reliability of hemodynamic measures using echocardiographic techniques, which are the most used in current clinical practice for evaluation of HF patients, needs to be clarified. The aim of this article, therefore, is to verify whether echocardiography has acceptable feasibility, accuracy and reproducibility for the noninvasive evaluation of LV hemodynamics. This evaluation is necessary to progress to a hemodynamic characterization of HF patients that would ultimately overcome the HF classification based on ejection fraction.

Novel Echocardiographic Approach to Hemodynamic Phenotypes Predicts Outcome of Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Although in clinical practice heart failure (HF) patients are classified using left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), this categorization is insufficient for prognosis, especially when LVEF is preserved or there is a concomitant right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. We hypothesized that a combined noninvasive evaluation of LV forward flow, filling pressure, and RV function would be better than LVEF in predicting all-cause mortality of hospitalized patients with HF.

METHODS

Transthoracic echocardiographic examinations of 603 patients hospitalized with HF were analyzed. In a subsample of 200 patients with HF, LV stroke volume index, LV filling pressure estimation, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, and systolic pulmonary artery pressure were combined to determine 4 hemodynamic profiles: normal flow-normal pressure, normal flow-high pressure, low flow without RV dysfunction, and low flow with RV dysfunction profile. This model was then applied in a validation cohort (n=403).

RESULTS

Prognosis worsened from the normal flow-normal pressure profile to the low flow with right ventricular dysfunction profile. At the multivariate survival analysis, the model showed independent high risk-stratification capability (P<0.001), even in subgroups of patients with LVEF < or ≥50% (P=0.011 and P<0.001, respectively) and < or ≥40% (P=0.044 and P<0.001, respectively). LVEF and HF classification based on LVEF did not predict outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Echocardiographic-derived profiling of LV forward flow, filling pressure, and RV function allowed categorization of patients hospitalized with HF and predicted all-cause mortality independently of LVEF. This model is based on conventional echocardiography, is easy to apply, and is, therefore, suggested for clinical practice.

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: pro and cons of the new classification of Heart Failure by European Society of Cardiology guidelines

Currently, the assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the cornerstone of the classification of patients with heart failure (HF). The mid-range LVEF (HFmrEF) category was identified in an attempt to uncover specific characteristics of these patients. So far, the analysis of trials, registries, and observational studies have demonstrated that patients with mid-range LVEF belong to a patient cohort with generally intermediate clinical profile as compared with other groups but with a remarkable variety of intrinsic phenotypes. This is due to the limitations of LVEF as the sole criterion to categorize patients with HF and characterize their prognosis, above all when it is >40%. To better define the HFmrEF phenotype, it is reasonable to consider other parameters, such as LVEF changes over time, HF aetiology, co-morbidities, and other imaging parameters. A multiparametric evaluation may contextualize a patient with HFmrEF in a more defined phenotype with a specific prognosis.

Prone position for acute respiratory failure in adults

BACKGROUND

Acute hypoxaemia de novo or on a background of chronic hypoxaemia is a common reason for admission to intensive care and for provision of mechanical ventilation. Various refinements of mechanical ventilation or adjuncts are employed to improve patient outcomes. Mortality from acute respiratory distress syndrome, one of the main contributors to the need for mechanical ventilation for hypoxaemia, remains approximately 40%. Ventilation in the prone position may improve lung mechanics and gas exchange and could improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review are (1) to ascertain whether prone ventilation offers a mortality advantage when compared with traditional supine or semi recumbent ventilation in patients with severe acute respiratory failure requiring conventional invasive artificial ventilation, and (2) to supplement previous systematic reviews on prone ventilation for hypoxaemic respiratory failure in an adult population.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 31 January 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 31 January 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 31 January 2014) and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1992 to 31 January 2014) in Ovid MEDLINE for eligible randomized controlled trials. We also searched for studies by handsearching reference lists of relevant articles, by contacting colleagues and by handsearching published proceedings of relevant journals. We applied no language constraints, and we reran the searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS in June 2015. We added five new studies of potential interest to the list of "Studies awaiting classification" and will incorporate them into formal review findings during the review update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effects of prone position versus supine/semi recumbent position during conventional mechanical ventilation in adult participants with acute hypoxaemia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed all trials identified by the search and assessed them for suitability, methods and quality. Two review authors extracted data, and three review authors reviewed the data extracted. We analysed data using Review Manager software and pooled included studies to determine the risk ratio (RR) for mortality and the risk ratio or mean difference (MD) for secondary outcomes; we also performed subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine relevant RCTs, which enrolled a total of 2165 participants (10 publications). All recruited participants suffered from disorders of lung function causing moderate to severe hypoxaemia and requiring mechanical ventilation, so they were fairly comparable, given the heterogeneity of specific disease diagnoses in intensive care. Risk of bias, although acceptable in the view of the review authors, was inevitable: Blinding of participants and carers to treatment allocation was not possible (face-up vs face-down).Primary analyses of short- and longer-term mortality pooled from six trials demonstrated an RR of 0.84 to 0.86 in favour of the prone position (PP), but findings were not statistically significant: In the short term, mortality for those ventilated prone was 33.4% (363/1086) and supine 38.3% (395/1031). This resulted in an RR of 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.02) marginally in favour of PP. For longer-term mortality, results showed 41.7% (462/1107) for prone and 47.1% (490/1041) for supine positions, with an RR of 0.86 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.03). The quality of the evidence for both outcomes was rated as low as a result of important potential bias and serious inconsistency.Subgroup analyses for mortality identified three groups consistently favouring PP: those recruited within 48 hours of meeting entry criteria (five trials; 1024 participants showed an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.59 to 94)); those treated in the PP for 16 or more hours per day (five trials; 1005 participants showed an RR of 0.77 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.99)); and participants with more severe hypoxaemia at trial entry (six trials; 1108 participants showed an RR of 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92)). The quality of the evidence for these outcomes was rated as moderate as a result of potentially important bias.Prone positioning appeared to influence adverse effects: Pressure sores (three trials; 366 participants) with an RR of 1.37 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.79) and tracheal tube obstruction with an RR of 1.78 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.60) were increased with prone ventilation. Reporting of arrhythmias was reduced with PP, with an RR of 0.64 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.87).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing evidence of benefit nor harm from universal application of PP in adults with hypoxaemia mechanically ventilated in intensive care units (ICUs). Three subgroups (early implementation of PP, prolonged adoption of PP and severe hypoxaemia at study entry) suggested that prone positioning may confer a statistically significant mortality advantage. Additional adequately powered studies would be required to confirm or refute these possibilities of subgroup benefit but are unlikely, given results of the most recent study and recommendations derived from several published subgroup analyses. Meta-analysis of individual patient data could be useful for further data exploration in this regard. Complications such as tracheal obstruction are increased with use of prone ventilation. Long-term mortality data (12 months and beyond), as well as functional, neuro-psychological and quality of life data, are required if future studies are to better inform the role of PP in the management of hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the ICU.