Search

Aim: Sacubitril/valsartan treatment reduces mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but has limited application in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on peak oxygen consumption (VO2) in patients with non‐obstructive HCM. Methods and results: This is a phase II, randomized, open‐label multicentre study that enrolled adult patients with symptomatic non‐obstructive HCM (New York Heart Association class I–III) who were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose 97/103 mg) or control for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was a change in peak VO2. Secondary endpoints included echocardiographic measures of cardiac structure and function, natriuretic peptides and other cardiac biomarkers, and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure quality of life. Between May 2018 and October 2021, 354 patients were screened for eligibility, 115 patients (mean age 58 years, 37% female) met the study inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan (n = 79) or control (n = 36). At 16 weeks, there was no significant change in peak VO2 from baseline in the sacubitril/valsartan (15.3 [4.3] vs. 15.9 [4.3] ml/kg/min, p = 0.13) or control group (p = 0.47). No clinically significant changes were found in blood pressure, cardiac structure and function, plasma biomarkers, or quality of life. Conclusion: In patients with HCM, a 16‐week treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated but had no effect on exercise capacity, cardiac structure, or function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Heart rate variability (HRV) is a measure of cardiac autonomic function. This study: (1) evaluated the differences in HRV and haemodynamic function between individuals with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and healthy controls, and (2) determined the relationship between HRV and haemodynamic variables in individuals with HCM. Methods: Twenty‐eight individuals with HCM (n = 7, females; age 54 ± 15 years; body mass index: 29 ± 5 kg/m2) and 28 matched healthy individuals (n = 7 females; age 54 ± 16 years; body mass index: 29 ± 5 kg/m2) completed 5‐min HRV and haemodynamic measurements under resting (supine) conditions using bioimpedance technology. Frequency domain HRV measures (absolute and normalized low‐frequency power (LF), high‐frequency power (HF) and LF/HF ratio) and RR interval were recorded. Results: Individuals with HCM demonstrated higher vagal activity (i.e., absolute unit of HF power (7.40 ± 2.50 vs. 6.03 ± 1.35 ms2, p = 0.01) but lower RR interval (914 ± 178 vs. 1014 ± 168 ms, p = 0.03) compared to controls. Stroke volume (SV) index and cardiac index were lower in HCM compared with healthy individuals (SV, 33 ± 9 vs. 43 ± 7 ml‎/beat‎/m², p < 0.01; cardiac index,2.33 ± 0.42 vs. 3.57 ± 0.82 L/min/m2, p < 0.01), but total peripheral resistance (TPR) was higher in HCM (3468 ± 1027 vs. 2953 ± 1050 dyn·s·m2cm−5, p = 0.03). HF power was significantly related to SV (r = −0.46, p < 0.01) and TPR (r = 0.28, p < 0.05) in HCM. Conclusions: Short‐term frequency domain indices of HRV provide a feasible approach to assess autonomic function in individuals with HCM. Vagal activity, represented by HF power, is increased, and associated with peripheral resistance in individuals with HCM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Single‐use electrocardiography (ECG) leads have been developed to reduce healthcare‐associated infection. This study compared the validity and reliability of short‐term heart rate variability (HRV) obtained from single‐use disposable ECG leads. Methods: Thirty healthy subjects (33 ± 10 years; 9 females) underwent 5‐min resting HRV assessments using disposable (single use) ECG cable and wire system (Kendall DL™ Cardinal Health) and a standard, reusable ECG leads (CardioExpress, Spacelabs Healthcare). Results: Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with 95% confidence interval (CI) between disposable and reusable ECG leads was for the time domain [R‐R interval (ms); 0.99 (0.91, 1.00)], the root mean square of successive normal R‐R interval differences (RMSSD) (ms); 0.91 (0.76, 0.96), the SD of normal‐to‐normal R‐R intervals (SDNN) (ms); 0.91 (0.68, 0.97) and frequency domain [low‐frequency (LF) normalized units (nu); 0.90 (0.79, 0.95), high frequency (HF) nu; 0.91 (0.80, 0.96), LF power (ms2); 0.89 (0.62, 0.96), HF power (ms2); 0.90 (0.72, 0.96)] variables. The mean difference and upper and lower limits of agreement between disposable and reusable leads for time‐ and frequency‐domain variables were acceptable. Analysis of repeated measures using disposable leads demonstrated excellent reproducibility (ICC 95% CI) for R‐R interval (ms); 0.93 (0.85, 0.97), RMSSD (ms); 0.93 (0.85, 0.97), SDNN (ms); 0.88 (0.75, 0.95), LF power (ms2); 0.87 (0.72, 0.94), and HF power (ms2); 0.88 (0.73, 0.94) with coefficient of variation ranging from 2.2% to 5% (p > 0.37 for all variables). Conclusion: Single‐use Kendall DL™ ECG leads demonstrate a valid and reproducible tool for the assessment of HRV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A large body of research supports the use of exercise to improve symptoms, quality of life, and physical function in patients with chronic heart failure. Previous reviews have focused on reporting outcomes of exercise interventions such as cardiorespiratory fitness. However, none have critically examined exercise prescription. The aim of this review was to evaluate the reporting and application of exercise principles in randomised control trials of exercise training in patients with chronic heart failure. A systematic review of exercise intervention RCTs in patients with CHF, using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT), was undertaken. The Ovid Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus/Web of Science, and Cochrane Library and Health Technology Assessment Databases were searched from 2000 to June 2020. Prospective RCTs in which patients with CHF were randomized to a structured exercise programme were included. No limits were placed on the type or duration of exercise structured exercise programme or type of CHF (i.e. preserved or reduced ejection fraction). We included 143 studies, comprising of 181 different exercise interventions. The mean CERT score was 10 out of 19, with no study achieving a score of 19. Primarily, details were missing regarding motivational strategies, home-based exercise components, and adherence/fidelity to the intervention. Exercise intensity was the most common principle of exercise prescription missing from intervention reporting. There was no improvement in the reporting of exercise interventions with time (R² = 0.003). Most RCTs of exercise training in CHF are reported with insufficient detail to allow for replication, limiting the translation of evidence to clinical practice. We encourage authors to provide adequate details when reporting future interventions. Where journal word counts are restrictive, we recommend using supplementary material or publishing trial protocols prior to beginning the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Methods Results Conclusion This study evaluated the relationship between HRV and echocardiography indices of cardiac function.Healthy individuals (N = 30) aged 33 ± 10 years old, underwent short‐term resting HRV assessment and transthoracic echocardiography with speckle tracking analysis. Time domain ‐ (i.e. R‐R interval, root mean square of successive RR interval difference (RMSSD), standard deviation of normal RR intervals (SDNN) and frequency domain‐measures of HRV (i.e. high‐frequency power (HF), low‐frequency power (LF), high‐frequency normalised (HFnorm) and low‐frequency normalised (LFnorm)). Echocardiography indices of cardiac function included; Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left‐ and right‐ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV‐GLS, and RV GLS), left atrial strain: left atrial reservoir (LAres), left atrial conduit (LAcon) and left atrial contraction (LACT).The mean values for HRV time‐domain measures were: R‐R (991 ± 176 ms), SDNN (50.9 ± 21.5 ms), and RMSSD (46.8 ± 29.4 ms); and frequency‐domain: LF (727 ± 606 ms2), HF (415 ± 35 ms2), LFnorm (56 ± 19.4) and HFnorm (36.5 ± 18.8). Mean values for indices of cardiac function were LVEF (59.9% ± 2.8%), LV‐GLS (19.2% ± 1.4%), RV‐GLS (21.7% ± 2.7%), LAres (36.8% ± 6.99%), LAcon (26.2% ± 6.95%) and LACT (12.3% ± 3.56%). There was a significant negative relationship between HF and LV‐GLS (r = −0.47, p = 0.01) and RMSSD and LVEF (r = −0.39, p = 0.03) respectively.Heart rate variability measures such as high frequency power and RMSSD are associated with left ventricle systolic function in healthy individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Methods Results Conclusion Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) was declared a global pandemic in 2019. It remains uncertain to what extent COVID‐19 effects the heart in heathy individuals. To evaluate the effect of the COVID‐19 on cardiac structure and function in middle‐aged and older individuals.A single‐centre prospective observational study enroled a total of 124 participants (84 with history of COVID‐19 [COVID‐19 group] and 40 without a history of COVID‐19 [non‐COVID group]). All participants underwent echocardiography with speckle tracking to assess cardiac structure and function at rest and during peak exercise.There were no differences in left and right ventricular diastolic function (p ≥ 0.05) between the COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 groups. Participants in COVID‐19 group demonstrated higher left ventricular mass (130 ± 39.8 vs. 113 ± 27.2 g, p = 0.008) and relative wall thickness (0.38 ± 0.07 vs. 0.36 ± 0.13, p = 0.049). Left ventricular global longitudinal strain was reduced in the COVID‐19 group at rest and at peak‐exercise (rest: 18.3 ± 2.01 vs. 19.3 ± 1.53%, p = 0.004; peak exercise: 19.1 ± 2.20 vs. 21.0 ± 1.58%, p ≤ 0.001). However, no difference was seen in resting left ventricular ejection fraction (58 ± 2.89 vs. 59 ± 2.51%, p = 0.565) between groups. Right ventricular fractional area change was reduced in the COVID‐19 group (p = 0.012).Cardiac structural and functional remodelling was observed in middle‐aged and older otherwise healthy individuals with a history of COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2. The clinical presentation of this virus mainly manifests in the respiratory system but may also lead to severe complications in the cardiovascular system. The global burden of COVID‐19 has led to an unprecedented need to gain further insight into patient outcomes, management, and clinical practice. This review aims to provide an overview of the current literature on heart failure (HF) hospitalizations, management, and care pathways for supporting patients during and beyond this pandemic. A literature review of five areas of interest was conducted and included: (i) HF hospitalization; (ii) recognizing the needs and supporting HF patients during COVID‐19; (iii) supporting rehabilitation services; (iv) transitioning to a telehealth framework; and (v) the need for evidence. Patients with new‐onset or existing HF are particularly vulnerable, but a significant reduction in HF hospital admissions has been reported. During these periods of uncertainty, the current care pathways for acute and elective cardiac patients have had to change with the relocation of HF services to protect the vulnerable and reduce transmission of COVID‐19. Optimizing community HF services has the potential to reduce the pressures on secondary care during the recovery from this pandemic. Telemedicine and virtual health care are emerging technologies and overcome the risk of in‐person exposure. Successful remote delivery of cardiac rehabilitation services has been reported during the pandemic. Delivery of a robust telehealth framework for HF patients will improve communication between clinician and patient. The reduction in HF admissions is a concern for the future and may result in unintended mortality. New‐onset and current HF patients must understand their diagnosis and future prognosis and seek help and support using the appropriate platform when needed. Realigning HF services and the use of telemedicine and virtual health care has great potential but needs to be carefully understood to ensure engagement and approval in this population to overcome barriers and challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the agreement between cardiac output estimated by two‐dimensional echocardiography and bioreactance methods at rest and during dobutamine stress test in heart failure patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods: Hemodynamic measurements were assessed in 20 stable HFpEF patients (12 females; aged 61 ± 7 years) using echocardiography and bioreactance methods during rest and dobutamine stress test at increment dosages of 5, 10, 15, and 20 μg/kg/min until maximal dose was achieved or symptoms and sign occurred, that is, chest pain, abnormal blood pressure elevation, breathlessness, ischemic changes, or arrhythmia. Results: Resting cardiac output and cardiac index estimated by bioreactance and echocardiography were not significantly different. At peak dobutamine stress test, cardiac output and cardiac index estimated by echocardiography and bioreactance were significantly different (7.06 ± 1.43 vs 5.71 ± 1.59 L/min, P <.01; and 4.27 ± 0.67 vs 3.43 ± 0.87 L/m2/min; P <.01) due to the significant differences in stroke volume. There was a strong positive relationship between cardiac outputs obtained by the two methods at peak dobutamine stress (r =.79, P <.01). The mean difference (lower and upper limits of agreement) between bioreactance and echocardiography cardiac outputs at rest and peak dobutamine stress was −0.45 (1.71 to −2.62) L/min and −1.35 (0.60 to −3.31) L/min, respectively. Conclusion: Bioreactance and echocardiography methods provide different cardiac output values at rest and during stress thus cannot be used interchangeably. Ability to continuously monitor key hemodynamic variables such as cardiac output, stroke volume, and heart rate is the major advantage of bioreactance method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: N‐terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) plays an important role in diagnosis and management of heart failure. The aim of the present study was to assess haemodynamic response to exercise and to evaluate the relationship between NT‐proBNP, cardiac function, and exercise tolerance in chronic heart failure. Methods and results: A single‐centre, cross‐sectional pilot study recruited 17 patients with chronic heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (age 67 ± 7 years) and 20 healthy volunteers (age 65 ± 12 years). The NT‐proBNP was measured in the heart failure group. All participants completed maximal graded cardiopulmonary exercise stress testing coupled with gas exchange (using metabolic analyser for determination of exercise tolerance, i.e. peak O2 consumption) and continuous haemodynamic measurements (i.e. cardiac output and cardiac power output) using non‐invasive bioreactance technology. Heart failure patients demonstrated significantly lower peak exercise cardiac function and exercise tolerance than healthy controls, i.e. cardiac power output (5.0 ± 2.0 vs. 3.2 ± 1.2 W, P < 0.01), cardiac output (18.2 ± 6.3 vs. 13.5 ± 4.0 L/min, P < 0.01), heart rate (148 ± 23.7 vs. 111 ± 20.9 beats/min, P < 0.01), and oxygen consumption (24.3 ± 9.5 vs. 16.8 ± 3.8 mL/kg/min, P < 0.01). There was no significant relationship between NT‐proBNP and cardiac function at rest, i.e. cardiac power output (r = −0.28, P = 0.28), cardiac output (r = −0.18, P = 0.50), and oxygen consumption (r = −0.18, P = 0.50), or peak exercise, i.e. cardiac power output (r = 0.18, P = 0.49), cardiac output (r = 0.13, P = 0.63), and oxygen consumption (r = −0.05, P = 0.84). Conclusions: Lack of a significant and strong relationship between the NT‐proBNP and measures of cardiac function and exercise tolerance may suggest that natriuretic peptides should be considered with caution in interpretation of the severity of cardiac dysfunction and functional capacity in chronic heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aims: Primary care physicians lack access to an objective cardiac function test. This study for the first time describes a novel cardiac output response to stress (CORS) test developed to improve diagnosis and monitoring of heart failure in primary care and investigates its reproducibility. Methods and results: Prospective observational study recruited 32 consecutive primary care patients (age, 63 ± 9 years; female, n = 18). Cardiac output was measured continuously using the bioreactance method in supine and standing positions and during two 3 min stages of a step‐exercise protocol (10 and 15 steps per minute) using a 15 cm height bench. The CORS test was performed on two occasions, i.e. Test 1 and Test 2. There was no significant difference between repeated measures of cardiac output and stroke volume at supine standing and Stage 1 and Stage 2 step exercises (all P > 0.3). There was a significant positive relationship between Test 1 and Test 2 cardiac outputs (r = 0.92, P = 0.01 with coefficient of variation of 7.1%). The mean difference in cardiac output (with upper and lower limits of agreement) between Test 1 and Test 2 was 0.1 (−1.9 to 2.1) L/min, combining supine, standing, and step‐exercise data. Conclusions: The CORS, as a novel test for objective evaluation of cardiac function, demonstrates acceptable reproducibility and can potentially be implemented in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Purpose: This study assessed the agreement between cardiac output estimated by inert gas rebreathing and bioreactance methods at rest and during exercise. Methods: Haemodynamic measurements were assessed in 20 healthy individuals (11 females, nine males; aged 32 ± 10 years) using inert gas rebreathing and bioreactance methods. Gas exchange and haemodynamic data were measured simultaneously under rest and different stages (i.e. 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 W) of progressive graded cardiopulmonary exercise stress testing using a bicycle ergometer. Results: At rest, bioreactance produced significantly higher cardiac output values than inert gas rebreathing (7·8 ± 1·4 versus 6·5 ± 1·7 l min−1, P = 0·01). At low‐to‐moderate exercise intensities (i.e. 30–90 W), bioreactance produced significantly higher cardiac outputs compared with rebreathing method (P<0·05). At workloads of 120 W and above, there was no significant difference in cardiac outputs between the two methods (P = 0·10). There was a strong relationship between the two methods (r = 0·82, P = 0·01). Bland–Altman analysis including rest and exercise data showed that inert gas rebreathing reported 1·95 l min−1 lower cardiac output than bioreactance, with lower and upper limits of agreement of −3·1–7·07 l min−1. Analysis of peak exercise data showed a mean difference of 0·4 l min−1 (lower and upper limits of agreement of −4·9–5·7 l min−1) between both devices. Conclusion: Bioreactance and inert gas rebreathing methods show acceptable levels of agreement for estimating cardiac output at higher levels of metabolic demand. However, they cannot be used interchangeably due to strong disparity in results at rest and low‐to‐moderate exercise intensity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study conducted for recognizing and describing the psychological impact on a patient with facial palsy. It mentions that the study aims to increase awareness of the problems faced by these patients and suggests directed psychological intervention alongside their medical therapy. It states that the study shows that using Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS), patients with anxiety and depression can be effectively identified and offered appropriate therapy.

Objectives/hypothesis: Facial palsy manifests a broad array of deficits affecting function, form, and psychological well-being. Assessment scales were introduced to standardize and document the features of facial palsy and to facilitate the exchange of information and comparison of outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine which assessment methodologies are currently employed by those involved in the care of patients with facial palsy as a first step toward the development of consensus on the appropriate assessments for this patient population., Study Design: Online questionnaire., Methods: The Sir Charles Bell Society, a group of professionals dedicated to the care of patients with facial palsy, were surveyed to determine the scales used to document facial nerve function, patient reported outcome measures (PROM), and photographic documentation., Results: Fifty-five percent of the membership responded (n = 83). Grading scales were used by 95%, most commonly the House-Brackmann and Sunnybrook scales. PROMs were used by 58%, typically the Facial Clinimetric Evaluation scale or Facial Disability Index. All used photographic recordings, but variability existed among the facial expressions used. Videography was performed by 82%, and mostly involved the same views as still photography; it was also used to document spontaneous movement and speech. Three-dimensional imaging was employed by 18% of respondents., Conclusions: There exists significant heterogeneity in assessments among clinicians, which impedes straightforward comparisons of outcomes following recovery and intervention. Widespread adoption of structured assessments, including scales, PROMs, photography, and videography, will facilitate communication and comparison among those who study the effects of interventions on this population., (© 2014 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)