Search

Background: Certain telemedicine programmes for heart failure (HF) have been shown to reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure-related hospitalisations, but their cost-effectiveness remains controversial. The SCAD programme is a home-based interactive telemonitoring service for HF, which is one of the largest and longest-running telemonitoring programmes for HF in France. The objective of this cost-utility analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the SCAD programme with respect to standard hospital-based care in patients with HF., Methods: A Markov model simulating hospitalisations and mortality in patients with HF was constructed to estimate outcomes and costs. The model included six distinct health states (three 'not hospitalised' states, two 'hospitalisation for heart failure' states, both depending on the number of previous hospitalisations, and one death state). The model lifetime in the base case was 10 years. Model inputs were based on published literature. Outputs (costs and QALYs) were compared between SCAD participants and standard care. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in the input parameters of the model., Results: The number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was 3.75 in the standard care setting and 4.41 in the SCAD setting. This corresponds to a gain in QALYs provided by the SCAD programme of 0.65 over the 10 years lifetime of the model. The estimated total cost was €30,932 in the standard care setting and €35,177 in the SCAD setting, with an incremental cost of €4245. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the SCAD programme over standard care was estimated at €4579/QALY. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the variables that had the most impact on the ICER were HF management costs. The likelihood of the SCAD programme being considered cost-effective was 90% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €11,800., Conclusions: Enrolment of patients into the SCAD programme is highly cost-effective. Extension of the programme to other hospitals and more patients would have a limited budget impact but provide important clinical benefits. This finding should also be taken into account in new public health policies aimed at encouraging a shift from inpatient to ambulatory care., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Left ventricular remodeling following ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with poor outcome, including heart failure (HF). Neprilysin inhibition leads to improved outcome in patients with altered left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)., Methods: We aimed to assess the association between serum levels of neprilysin and left ventricular (LV) volumes, function and remodeling in STEMI patients with successful myocardial reperfusion and no clinical sign of HF. Sixty-eight patients were admitted for STEMI and had both plasma neprilysin measurement at baseline and 3D transthoracic echocardiogram at baseline and after a median follow-up of 7 months. We compared 3 groups: a group with a low-level of plasma neprilysin (< 125 pg/mL, i.e. the lower limit of detection of the assay) and the two other groups were defined as being below or above the median value of the remaining samples., Results: Median age was 58.5 ± 12.8 years and 56 (82.4%) were men. Median LVEF was 45.0 ± 8.5%. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (low-level of neprilysin group [≤125 pg/mL, n = 38], medium-level of neprilysin group [126-450 pg/mL, n = 15] and a high-level group [> 450 pg/mL, n = 15]). At baseline there was a non-significant trend towards lower end-diastolic volume (p = 0.07) but significantly lower LVEF in the high neprilysin group (46.4 ± 8.3%, 47.1 ± 8.1% and 39.1 ± 6.9%, p < 0.01). At follow-up, the magnitude of LVEF increase was significantly more important in the high neprilysin group compared to the other groups (p = 0.022 for relative change in LVEF and 6.6 ± 7.3%, 3.6 ± 9.0% and 11.3 ± 8.4%, p = 0.031 for absolute change in LVEF) resulting in similar LVEF levels at follow-up between all groups (53.0 ± 8.9%, 50.6 ± 9.7% and 50.4 ± 9.9%, p = 0.55)., Conclusions: Initial high neprilysin levels may identify patients with stunned myocardium early after STEMI, with a recovery of contractility leading to improved LVEF at follow-up. Future studies will have to assess the role of neprilysin in the setting of STEMI and the potential benefit of its blockade.

Background: The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the key selection criterion for an implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. LVEF is usually assessed by two-dimensional echocardiography, but cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is increasingly used. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether LVEF assessment using CMR imaging (CMR-LVEF) or two-dimensional echocardiography (2D echo-LVEF) may predict differently the occurrence of clinical outcomes., Methods: In this retrospective study, we reviewed patients referred for primary prevention ICD implantation to Caen University Hospital from 2005 to 2014. We included 173 patients with either ischemic (n = 120) or dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 53) and who had undergone pre-ICD CMR imaging. The primary composite end point was the time to death from any cause or first appropriate device therapy., Results: The mean CMR-LVEF was significantly lower than the mean 2D echo-LVEF (24% ± 6 vs 28% ± 6, respectively; p < 0.001). CMR-LVEF was a better independent predictive factor for the occurrence of the primary composite endpoint with a cut-off value of 22% (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 2.22; 95% CI [1.34-3.69]; p = 0.002) than 2D echo-LVEF with a cut-off value of 26% (HR = 1.61; 95% CI [0.99-2.61]; p = 0.056). Combination of the presence of scar with CMR-LVEF< 22% improved the predictive value for the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR = 2.58; 95% CI [1.54-4.30]; p < 0.001). The overall survival was higher among patients with CMR-LVEF≥22% than among patients with CMR-LVEF< 22% (p = 0.026), whereas 2D echo-LVEF was not associated with death., Conclusions: CMR-LVEF is better associated with clinical outcomes than 2D echo-LVEF in primary prevention using an ICD. Scar identification further improved the outcome prediction. The combination of CMR imaging and echocardiography should be encouraged in addition to other risk markers to better select patients.

Pregnancies complicated by congenital or acquired heart diseases are at high risk of maternal, obstetrical and neonatal poor outcomes. During the period 2000-2014, 197 pregnancies occurring in 147 women with heart disease were managed in our institution. A maternal cardiac event complicated 13 pregnancies. Obstetrical and neonatal complications occurred respectively in 35.0% (95% CI [28.3-41.7]) and 37.0% (95% CI [30.3-43.7]) of pregnancies. All complications were more frequent amongst cardiomyopathies or obstructive and conotruncal lesions, whereas left-to-right shunts were less prone to present with complications. Complications occurred between the end of the second trimester and the middle of the third trimester or during the post-partum period. Caesarean section was the mode of delivery in 37% (95% CI [30.3-43.7]) of cases, and general anaesthesia was performed in 8.6% of cases (95% CI [4.7-12.5]). Although reporting relatively mild heart diseases, this retrospective study shows an evolution in the management of pregnancies complicated by cardiopathies. Vaginal delivery under locoregional anaesthesia can be achieved in many pregnancies, whereas others require strict multi-disciplinary follow-up in a specialized centre. The creation of a large, multi-centric registry might help improve and personalize the management of these high-risk pregnancies., (Copyright © 2017 Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation (Sfar). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although rare, complications of right heart catheterization (RHC) are usually related to the access site. Antecubital venous access for RHC allows immediate ambulation and may reduce access-site complications, but data on this approach are scarce., Methods: Our study prospectively collected comprehensive data from consecutive RHCs performed at our academic center between February 2010 and August 2013. Demographic, procedural, and in-hospital outcomes were compared between patient groups defined by antecubital and femoral approaches., Results: A total of 1007 RHC procedures was performed; 895 (88.9%) were performed through an antecubital approach and 112 (11.1%) were performed through a femoral approach. Antecubital attempts were successful in 92.8% of the clinically eligible patients. The antecubital approach was associated with a shorter procedure duration and fluoroscopy time as well as a lower radiation dose (P < 0.001 for all) compared with femoral access. Radiation dose and fluoroscopy time were significantly reduced (P < 0.001 for both) when antecubital procedures were performed by experienced operators compared with trainees. Periprocedural complications occurred in 8 patients (0.8%) (leading to prolonged hospitalization in only 1 patient in the femoral group). Access-site hematoma occurred more frequently in the femoral group (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: An antecubital venous approach is a feasible alternative to femoral venous access for RHC. Shorter fluoroscopy time, lower radiation dose, and fewer access-site hematomas with this approach argue for its preferential use when possible and performed in an experienced centre., (Copyright © 2015 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 30-35% is widely accepted as a cut-off for primary prevention with an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) in patients with both ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy supposedly on optimal medical therapy. This study reports evolutions of LVEF and treatments of patients implanted in our institution with an ICD for primary prevention of sudden death, after 2 years of follow-up., Methods and Results: Among 84 patients with LVEF under 35% implanted between 2005 and 2007, 28 (33%) had improved their LVEF >35% after the 2 years of follow-up. During this period, even if Beta-blockers (98%) and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers (95%) were already initially prescribed, treatments were significantly optimized with improvement of maximal doses of beta-blockers and RAS blockers at 2 year follow-up compared with initial prescription (62 vs. 37% and 68 vs. 45%, respectively). In patients with improved LVEF, a trend toward a better treatment optimization and revascularization procedures (in the sub-group of ischaemic patients) were observed compared with non-improved LVEF patients., Conclusions: In our study of patients with prophylactic ICD, one-third of them have improved their LVEF after a 2 year follow-up. Despite an optimal medical therapy at the time of implantation, we were able to further improve the maximal treatment doses after implantation. This study highlights the issue of what should be considered as 'optimal' therapy and the possibility of improvement of LVEF related to a real optimized treatment before implantation.

Background: Despite the increased number of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients and the frequent need for device upgrading and/or occurrence of lead malfunction, the optimal approach to managing abandoned leads remains debated., Aims: To determine the rate and type of complications related to either abandoned or extracted ICD leads., Methods: Patients with abandoned or extracted leads were identified retrospectively. Patient medical records were reviewed to assess long-term lead or device malfunction, defibrillation test values before and after lead abandonment or extraction, and appropriateness of delivered shocks and subsequent surgical procedures related to devices or leads., Results: A total of 58 ICD patients with 47 extracted and 34 abandoned leads were identified. After a mean follow-up of 3.2 ± 2.6 years, the defibrillation test was not affected by either abandoned or extracted leads (23.4 ± 6.6 J vs 25.4 ± 4.9 J, respectively; P = 0.24). There were no differences in the number of ICD-related surgical procedures after extracting versus abandoning leads (22% vs 12%, respectively; P = 0.3) or in the thromboembolic event rate (7.7% vs 6.3%; P = 0.83). During follow-up, no differences in the occurrence of major complications or appropriate/inappropriate shocks were observed between patients with or without abandoned leads., Conclusion: We observed no difference in rates of immediate or medium-term complications between extracting versus abandoning leads. Lead abandonment remains an alternative and safe option when extraction does not appear mandatory according to the age of the leads or experience of the operating centre., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)