Acute heart failure: Clinical presentation, one-year mortality and prognostic factors

Transcription

1 The European Journal of Heart Failure 7 (2005) Acute heart failure: Clinical presentation, one-year mortality and prognostic factors Alain Rudiger a, T,1, Veli-Pekka Harjola b,1, Andreas Mqller a, Eero Mattila b, Petrus S7ila b, Markku Nieminen b, Ferenc Follath a a Department of Medicine, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland b Department of Medicine, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland Received 9 August 2004; received in revised form 25 November 2004; accepted 27 January 2005 Abstract Aims: Acute heart failure (HF) is a common but ill-defined clinical entity. We describe patients hospitalised with acute HF in regard of clinical presentation, mortality, and risk factors for an unfavourable outcome. Methods and results: We conducted a prospective study including 312 consecutive patients from two European centers hospitalised with acute HF, defined as new onset or worsening of symptoms and signs of HF within 7 days. The mean age was 73 years and 56% were men. Twenty-eight percent had de-novo acute HF and 72% a decompensation of chronic HF. Coronary heart disease (CHD) was the most frequent underlying heart disease, elevated blood pressure N150 mmhg and acute ischemia being the most important triggers. Four percent of the patients had cardiogenic shock, 13% presented with pulmonary edema. LV-EF was b35%, 35 50% and N50% in 35%, 32% and 33% of the patients, respectively. ICU-treatment was necessary in 39% of the patients. Thirty-day mortality (11%) was increased in the presence of shock or elevated troponin T levels. Twelve-month all-cause mortality (29%) increased in the presence of shock, left ventricular dysfunction, renal insufficiency, CHD, and age. Conclusions: This prospective study shows that despite modern treatment, morbidity and mortality of patients hospitalised with acute HF remain high. D 2005 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Acute heart failure; Cardiogenic shock; Pulmonary oedema; Mortality 1. Introduction Numerous studies have addressed the problem of chronic heart failure (HF) but acute HF has widely been neglected in the past. However, the number of patients suffering from acute heart failure (HF) is increasing, and the prognosis of acute, decompensated HF seems to be poor with a high inhospital and midterm mortality [1 9]. Only little is known about the long-term prognosis and possible risk factors for a fatal outcome in this population [10]. Furthermore, the lack of a generally accepted definition has led to only poorly * Corresponding author. Present address: Wolfson Institute of Biomedical Research, University College London, The Cruciform Building, Gower Street, London WC 1E 6BT. Tel.: ; fax: address: arudiger99@yahoo.de (A. Rudiger). 1 A. Rudiger and V.-P. Harjola contributed equally to this survey. comparable results. In view of new diagnostic and therapeutic options a reassessment of the problem is required [11,12]. The aim of our prospective observation study was to use the same diagnostic criteria for acute HF in two different European centers, and to describe patients with acute HF with regard to clinical presentation, mortality, and risk factors for an unfavourable outcome. 2. Methods 2.1. Study population We conducted a prospective observational study using an identical evaluation protocol in the University Hospital of Zurich, Switzerland (named as center 1 in the following text ), /$ - see front matter D 2005 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi: /j.ejheart

2 A. Rudiger et al. / The European Journal of Heart Failure 7 (2005) between December 2001 and September 2002, and in the Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland (center 2) between September 2002 and February Center 1 operates both as tertiary referral hospital and as primary care facility, and center 2 is a tertiary referral hospital. The reference population for the primary care and tertiary referrals for center 1 is 100,000 and 1.5 million inhabitants, and 1.4 million inhabitants for tertiary care in center 2, respectively Diagnosis of acute heart failure Acute HF was diagnosed in the presence of: 1. an underlying heart disease 2. at least two of the following clinical symptoms or signs: dyspnea NYHA III or IV, orthopnea, rales, elevated jugular venous pressure or systolic blood pressure (BP) below 90 mmhg with decreased end-organ perfusion 3. a characteristic chest X-ray (cardiomegaly, venous congestion and/or pulmonary oedema). Importantly, there had to be a rapid onset or significant worsening of HF symptoms within 7 days before admission. The diagnosis of acute HF was made by the physicians in charge of the patient either at the emergency room, at the medical intensive care unit (ICU), or on the ward. In both hospitals all patients admitted to any of the medical wards, including the ICU, the cardiac care unit, and the cardiology clinic, were screened for these diagnostic criteria. At discharge acute HF had to be listed as one of the major diagnoses. Each patient was enrolled only once, even if he/ she was readmitted during the observation period. Patients were excluded from the survey if they were discharged directly from the emergency room and treated as outpatients. Other causes for exclusion were shortness of breath due to pulmonary disease, pulmonary embolism or primary pulmonary hypertension. The characterisation of the patients included age, gender, pre-existing conditions, symptoms and signs on clinical examination. These data were collected by the study team from the patient charts. The results of the following investigations were assessed if available: blood tests, electrocardiogram (ECG), chest X-ray, echocardiogram, coronary angiography. We also evaluated the underlying cardiac disease and possible triggers of acute HF and followed the hospital course. After 12 months the patients or their general physicians were contacted from center 1. In center 2 survival information was obtained from national mortality registry Case definition Patients included in the study were classified in one of the following three categories according to the modified Killip and Kimball classification [13,14]: Cardiogenic shock: Impaired end-organ perfusion with the clinical signs of cold skin, decreased mental performance or oliguria and a systolic BP below 90 mmhg despite adequate treatment with fluids, or need of inotropes or vasopressors. Pulmonary oedema: Dyspnea at rest, rales over all lung fields and chest X-ray compatible with alveolar pulmonary oedema without cardiogenic shock. Congestive HF: Symptoms and signs of HF exclusive of cardiogenic shock or pulmonary oedema. The study population was subdivided into groups of new acute HF and decompensated chronic HF. New (denovo) acute HF was defined as the first manifestation of HF in patients without any previous episode of HF. Decompensated chronic HF was defined as rapid worsening of HF symptoms and signs in patients with pre-existing chronic HF Statistical analysis All data were collected from the patient charts and entered into a computerised database. Median (range), mean (FSD) or percentage were calculated for the overall sample and subgroups. Comparisons were made with the use of the Mann Whitney U test, t-test, Fisher s exact test, or the chisquare test, as appropriate. Survival estimates for all cause mortality were calculated with the method of Kaplan and Meier. The Log Rank test was used to compare the mortality of subgroups. All analyses were performed with the use of SPSS 11.5 for Windows. p-values below 0.05 were taken as significant and all hypothesis testing was two-tailed. 3. Results 3.1. Patient characteristics During the enrolment period, 96 and 216 consecutive patients with acute HF were included into the survey in centers 1 and 2, respectively. Baseline characteristics of the patients are given in Table 1. Fifty-six percent of the patients were men, and they were significantly younger than women (70F12 vs 77F12 years, p below 0.001). Twenty-eight percent of all patients had de-novo acute HF, whereas 72% had decompensation of chronic HF. Seventy-six percent of all patients were admitted to hospital within 3 days from the onset of symptoms. Co-morbidities were common and are shown in Table 2. Coronary heart disease (CHD), valvular heart disease and dilated cardiomyopathy were the three most common underlying heart diseases. In patients with valvular heart disease mitral regurgitation was the most common valve dysfunction and usually mild to moderate. However, 28 patients presented with severe aortic valve dysfunction, 17 had a history of aortic valve replacement, and 5 patients had a tricuspid valve dysfunction. Elevated systolic BP above 150 mmhg, acute ischemia and new atrial fibrillation were the most important triggers for clinical deterioration. Some

3 664 A. Rudiger et al. / The European Journal of Heart Failure 7 (2005) Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients with acute heart failure on hospital admission All (N=312) Center 1 (N=96) Center 2 (N=216) p-valuet Age MeanFSD (year) 73F12 71F13 74F Patients V 65 years no. (%) 84 (26.9) 34 (35.4) 50 (23.1) Patients N75 years no. (%) 147 (47.1) 42 (43.8) 105 (48.6) Male sex no. (%) 176 (56.4) 58 (60.4) 118 (54.6) Symptoms Dyspnea NYHA III or IV no. (%) 286 (94.1) 92 (97.9) 194 (92.4) Orthopnea no. (%) 224 (71.8) 63 (65.6) 161 (74.5) Chest pain CCS 3 or 4 no. (%) 110 (36.4) 29 (30.2) 81 (39.3) Respiration rate (/min) a median (range) 22.0 (10 45) 20.5 (12 45) 24 (10 44) Blood pressure (mmhg) systolic median (range) 140 (70 230) 130 (70 227) 145 (88 230) b0.001 diastolic median (range) 80 (30 170) 78.5 (30 170) 83 (44 140) Heart rate (/min) median (range) 90 (34 180) 93 (52 180) 89 (34 170) Blood tests Creatinine (Amol/l) b median (range) 93 (37 641) 111 (64 506) 85 (37 641) b0.001 Hemoglobin (g/l) median (range) 126 (43 202) 121 (43 161) 129 (62 202) Troponin T positive (z0.1 Ag/l) no. (%) 88 (30.7) 28 (30.8) 60 (30.6) Chest X-ray no. (%) 312 (100) 96 (100) 216 (100) Alveolar infiltrates no. (%) 43 (14.3) 14 (14.7) 29 (14.1) Interstitial congestion no. (%) 83 (27.6) 32 (33.7) 51 (24.8) Pleural effusions no. (%) 136 (50.7) 52 (55.3) 84 (48.3) ECG no. (%) 311 (99.7) 95 (98.9) 216 (100) STEMI no. (%) 23 (7.3) 7 (7.3) 16 (7.4) ACS (without STEMI) no. (%) 55 (17.6) 17 (17.7) 38 (17.6) Echocardiography no. (%) 226 (72.4) 58 (60.4) 168 (77.8) LV-EF c b35% no. (%) 83 (34.9) 32 (50.8) 51 (29.1) LV-EF c 35 49% no. (%) 76 (31.9) 10 (15.9) 66 (37.7) LV-EF c z50% no. (%) 79 (33.2) 21 (33.3) 58 (33.1) Coronary angiography no. (%) 130 (41.7) 32 (33.3) 98 (45.4) NYHA denotes New York Heart Association class, CCS Canadian Cardiac Society class, ECG electrocardiogram, STEMI ST-elevation myocardial infarction, ACS acute coronary syndrome and LV-EF left ventricular ejection fraction. a Respiration rate was documented only in 117 (37.5%) patients. b 1 mg/dl=88.4 cmol/l. c If no echocardiography was performed then LV-EF was taken, if available, from ventriculography. Data shown are the no. (%) of those who underwent LV- EF measurement. T p-value for the comparison between the two centers. patients had more than one underlying cardiac disorder or more than one possible trigger (Table 3). In 25% of the patients acute ischemia was estimated to be the trigger of acute HF. Within this group of patients 29% of patients had a ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and the other 71% had an acute coronary syndrome without ST-elevation. Seventy-six percent of the patients had a measurement of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LV-EF) by either echocardiography or ventriculography (Fig. 1). Median LV-EF was lower in patients from center 1 compared to patients from center 2 (34 [11 72]% vs 40 [15 80]%, p=0.042). Patients with a systolic BP N150 mmhg on Table 2 Co-morbidities in patients with acute heart failure All (N=312) Center 1 (N=96) Center 2 (N=216) p-valuet History of Atrial fibrillation no. (%) 91 (29.2) 21 (21.9) 70 (32.4) Elevated blood pressure no. (%) 168 (53.8) 51 (53.1) 117 (54.2) Diabetes mellitus no. (%) 100 (32.1) 25 (26.0) 75 (34.7) Cigarette smoking no. (%) 102 (32.7) 44 (45.8) 58 (26.9) Renal insufficiency Cr-Cl b50 ml/min a no. (%) 109 (41) 50 (52.1) 59 (34.7) Anemia Hemoglobin g/l no. (%) 106 (34.6) 35 (36.5) 71 (33.8) Hemoglobin b100 g/l no. (%) 23 (7.5) 12 (12.5) 11 (5.2) a Cr-Cl denotes creatinine clearance, which was estimated according to the modified Cockcroft and Gault formula [37]. T p-value for the comparison between the two centers.

4 A. Rudiger et al. / The European Journal of Heart Failure 7 (2005) Table 3 Underlying heart disease and possible triggers of acute heart failure All (N=312) Center 1 (N=96) Center 2 (N=216) p-valuet Underlying heart disease CHD no. (%) 193 (61.9) 57 (59.4) 136 (63.0) Valvular cardiopathy no. (%) 61 (24.4) 24 (25.5) 37 (23.7) Dilated cardiomyopathy no. (%) 19 (6.1) 2 (2.1) 17 (7.9) Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy no. (%) 4 (1.3) 2 (2.1) 2 (0.9) Myocarditis no. (%) 4 (1.3) 3 (3.1) 1 (0.5) Endocarditis no. (%) 2 (0.6) 1 (1.0) 1 (0.5) Alcoholic cardiopathy no. (%) 2 (0.6) 1 (1.0) 1 (0.5) Pericardial effusion no. (%) 6 (1.9) 5 (5.2) 1 (0.5) HTPL no. (%) 2 (0.6) 2 (2.1) 0 (0) Others no. (%) 21 (6.7) 3 (3.1) 18 (8.3) Trigger Acute ischemia no. (%) 78 (25.0) 24 (25.0) 54 (25.0) 1.0 SBP adm =150 mmhg no. (%) 111 (35.7) 19 (19.8) 92 (42.8) b0.001 SBP adm =180 mmhg no. (%) 37 (11.9) 7 (7.3) 30 (14) New AF no. (%) 47 (15.1) 18 (18.8) 29 (13.4) Symptomatic bradycardia no. (%) 22 (7.1) 3 (3.1) 19 (8.8) Severe valve dysfunction a no. (%) - 15 (15.6) - - CHD denotes coronary heart disease, HTPL heart transplantation, SBP adm systolic blood pressure on admission and AF atrial fibrillation. a Was not assessed in center 2. T p-value for the comparison between the two centers. admission had a higher LV-EF than patients with a systolic BP below 150 mmhg (43 [20 80]% vs 36 [11 73]%, p=0.004). Similarly, LV-EF was higher in patients with a history of elevated BP compared to patients with no history of elevated BP (42 [11 80]% vs 35 [15 73]%, p=0.002). Patients with renal dysfunction (creatinine clearance [Cr- Cl] below 50 ml/min) were older (79F11 vs 69F12, p below 0.001) and had a lower hemoglobin level (117 [58 165]g/l vs 136 [43 180]g/l, p below 0.001) than patients with normal renal function. Patients with diabetes had a higher creatinine level on admission (104 [48 641]Amol/l vs 89 [37 506]Amol/l, p=0.006) than non-diabetics Clinical presentation of acute HF The clinical presentations differed remarkably little between the two centers. Congestive HF with clinical EF >=50% 25.3% no LV-EF 23.7% and radiological signs of decompensation was the predominant presentation of acute HF and occurred in 75 (78%) and 183 (85%) patients from center 1 and center 2, respectively. Pulmonary oedema was diagnosed in 13 (14%) and 28 (13%) patients from center 1 and center 2, respectively. Cardiogenic shock was present in 8 (8.3%) patients from center 1, whereas cardiogenic shock was found in only 5 (2.3%) patients from center 2. Patients with cardiogenic shock had higher troponin levels (0.28 [0 48.3]Ag/l vs 0.03 [0 7.95]Ag/l, p=0.001), higher creatinine levels (115 ([72 436]Amol/l vs 92 [37 641]Amol/l, p=0.04) and a lower LV-EF (27 [11 55]% vs 40 [15 80]%, p=0.005). When patients with shock were excluded from the analysis the following differences between patients with pulmonary oedema and congestive HF were obvious: Patients with pulmonary oedema more often had a history of elevated BP (78% vs 52%, p=0.002) and a trend to higher systolic BP on admission (150 [99 227] mmhg vs 140 [70 230] mmhg, p=0.053). On the other hand patients with congestive HF had higher creatinine levels (109 [44 369]Amol/l vs 90 [37 64]Amol/l, p=0.017) Hospital course EF 35-49% 24.4% EF <35% 26.6% Fig. 1. Distribution of left ventricular ejection fractions (LV-EF) in patients with acute heart failure. ICU-admission was required in 39% of all patients. The median length of ICU stay was 3 days in both centers (range 1 66 and 1 16 for center 1 and 2, respectively). Total length of stay was 11.5 (2 77) days and 8 (1 50) days in center 1 and 2, respectively ( pb0.001). Eight percent of the patients died during the initial hospitalisation, 61% of the patients were discharged home, and 31% of the patients were

5 666 A. Rudiger et al. / The European Journal of Heart Failure 7 (2005) Survival Congestive HF (N=258) Pulmonary oedema (N=41) Follow up (days) Cardiogenic shock (N=13) Fig. 2. Kaplan Meier curves for three groups of patients with different presentation of acute heart failure (N=312, Log Rank 0.002). transferred to another hospital or to another department (e.g. cardiac surgery) Follow up The all-cause mortality at 30 days, 12 weeks, and 1 year was 11%, 18%, and 29%, respectively (2 patients from center 1 were lost for 12-month follow up). Thirtyday mortality was influenced by the clinical presentation on admission and was 46% in patients with cardiogenic shock, 9.8% in patients with pulmonary oedema and 8.9% in patients with congestive HF ( p=0.001 shock vs noshock, p=0.774 pulmonary oedema vs congestive HF). Thirty-day mortality was higher in patients with an elevated (z0.1ag/l) troponin T level (21% vs 7.0%; p=0.002). On the other hand, patients with a history of high BP had a lower 30-day mortality than the ones without a history of hypertension (6.5% vs 15%; p=0.016). There was a trend to a higher 30-day mortality in patients requiring ICU-treatment (14% vs 8.4%, p=0.132). One-year survival tended to be better in center 2 with an one-year mortality of 26% vs 37% in center 1 ( p=0.081). Cardiogenic shock (more frequent in center 1) was associated with a substantial all-cause mortality rate of 62% at 12 months, resulting in an odds ratio of 4.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] ). Other risk factors for increased one-year mortality were impaired left ventricular systolic function, renal insufficiency, the presence of CHD, and older age (Figs. 2 5). Odds ratios (95% CI) for LV- EFb35%, Cr-Cl b50 ml/min, the presence of CHD, and age N75years were 2.6 ( ), 2.5 ( ), 1.7 ( ) and 1.7 ( ), respectively. Renal insufficiency and impaired LV-EF remained risk factors for death when patients with cardiogenic shock were excluded from the analysis. No significant differences in one-year survival were found with respect to gender, presence of pulmonary oedema, history of HF, history of elevated BP, underlying Survival.8.7 LV-EF >50% (N=83) LV-EF 35-50% (N=76).6 LV-EF <35% (N=79) Follow up (days) Fig. 3. Kaplan Meier curves for three groups of patients acute heart failure and different left ventricular ejection fractions (N=238, Log Rank 0.001).

6 A. Rudiger et al. / The European Journal of Heart Failure 7 (2005) Survival.8.7 Creatinineclearance > _ 50ml/min (N=157).6 Creatinineclearance < 50ml/min (N=109) Follow up (days) Fig. 4. Kaplan Meier curves for two groups of patients with acute heart failure and different renal functions (N=266, Log Rank 0.001). CHD, myocardial ischemia, positive troponin level on admission, diabetes, low hemoglobin level on admission or ICU-treatment. 4. Discussion Acute HF can be diagnosed in the presence of an underlying heart disease and the appearance of typical symptoms and signs within 7 days. By using this simple clinical definition, we performed a prospective survey in two European centers. Therewith important insights on presentation, outcome and risk factors for increased short and long-term mortality of patients hospitalised with acute HF have been obtained Clinical presentation of acute HF In the present study 4% of the patients had cardiogenic shock, 13% suffered from pulmonary oedema, and the majority presented with congestive HF severe enough to require hospital admission. Nearly one third had a de-novo acute HF, whereas two thirds had a decompensation of chronic HF. CHD was the leading underlying disease and was present in more than half the patients. The next common etiologies were valvular heart disease and dilated cardiomyopathy. Other underlying cardiopathies, like myocarditis or alcoholic cardiopathy, were rare findings. Elevated BP N150 mmhg, acute myocardial ischemia, atrial fibrillation and severe valve dysfunction were the most frequent factors associated with acute HF in our study. In Presentation: shock vs no shock ( 13/299) LV-EF: <50% vs >_ 50% (159/ 79) LV-EF: <35% vs >_ 35% ( 83/155) Cr-Cl <50ml/min vs Cr-Cl >_ 50ml/min (109/157) Age: >65yrs vs _ < 65yrs (228/ 84) CHD vs no CHD (193/119) Age: >75yrs vs _< 75yrs (147/165) Site: center 1 vs center 2 ( 96/216) Troponin >_ 0.1ug/l vs <0.1ug/l ( 88/199) Diabetes vs no diabetes (100/212) History of HF vs no history of HF (224/ 88) Gender: men vs women (176/136) History of elevated BP vs no hypertension (168/144) Fig. 5. Odds ratios for different risk factors influencing one-year mortality of patients with acute heart failure. The numbers in brackets indicate the number of patients in each group. LV-EF denotes left ventricular ejection fraction, Cr-Cl creatinine clearance, CHD coronary heart disease, HF heart failure and BP blood pressure.

7 668 A. Rudiger et al. / The European Journal of Heart Failure 7 (2005) contrast, acute ischemia, new atrial fibrillation and correctable valve disorders are often exclusion criteria in randomised controlled trials investigating new drugs for acute HF [15 18]. In the previous literature, the term acute has been used quite imprecisely and interpreted differently by investigators. Thus, we limited our study population to those with a time span of 7 days or less between the onset or worsening of HF symptoms and admission. More than two thirds of our patients were admitted to hospital within 72 h. About a fourth of our population had a LV-EF b35%, a frequent inclusion criterion in chronic HF trials [19]. Thus, the clinical trials have to be interpreted with respect to their often restricted selection of patients which would exclude the majority of acute HF patients. However, a quarter of all patients presented with a preserved LV systolic function ( LV-EF z50%), which corresponds to previous reports [20 22] Outcome and risk factors The prognostic significance of elevated troponin levels was confirmed in our study, as in a wide variety of studies, especially regarding acute coronary syndrome [23 25]. Interestingly, 30-days survival was improved if the patient had a history of elevated BP. This may be explained by the higher LV-EF in patients with hypertension, an assumption that is supported by recent observations from the EuroHeart Failure Survey [26]. Another explanation might be the use of cardioprotective antihypertensive drugs like ACE-inhibitors or beta blockers in this patient group. However, treatments were not evaluated in this study and further investigations are needed to prove this hypothesis. Twelve-months all-cause mortality was increased by older age, impaired systolic left ventricular function and renal insufficiency. Moreover, the hemodynamic status on admission was the most important risk factor for mortality. Cardiogenic shock was associated with a substantial mortality. The 30-days and 12-month mortality of 46% and 62% in our study are only partly comparable with the ones published in the SHOCK trial which investigated patients with cardiogenic shock as a complication of myocardial infarction [27,28]. In both the control group and the intervention group with early revascularisation, mortality rates were high in SHOCK trial with 56% and 47% after 30 days and 76% and 53% after 1 year, respectively. In contrast to patients with shock, the short- and long-term outcome for hemodynamically stable patients were similar whether the patients had severe congestive HF or pulmonary oedema. This stands in contrast to data on patients with acute coronary syndromes and may be a result of the limited number of patients in our study [29]. Our high all-cause mortality rate at 12 months is comparable to the findings of a study including 150 patients with HF defined by the presence of rales and/or pulmonary vascular congestion on the chest X-ray [30]. In that single center study a mortality rate of 40% after 1 year was reported, and the presence of shock and a depressed LV-EF were negative predictors of in-hospital mortality but did, in contrast to our study, not influence one-year mortality Differences between the study centers In the past, the lack of a uniform definition of acute HF had led to only poorly comparable results. Using identical inclusion criteria, we found very similar and comparable findings in the two study centers. Nevertheless, few differences were present. Cardiogenic shock was more common in center 1, which can be explained by different admission policies between the two centers. Additionally, renal dysfunction was more common in center 1. On the other hand, patients from center 2 had higher BP on admission and better LV-EF. Together, these findings probably explain the longer hospital stay and the trend to a higher 12-month mortality in center Limitations of the study Some of the key clinical signs, that is, respiratory rate, examination of the jugular venous pressure and auscultation findings (third heart sound, rales) were not systematically documented by the physicians in charge of the patients. Some of this inconsistency of data most likely reflects that normal findings were not recorded. The incompleteness of routine medical records and patient charts at least partially illustrates that physicians probably underscore the importance of clinical signs for making the diagnosis and guiding the treatment of heart failure [31,32]. This lack of systematic evaluation of symptoms and signs at baseline is a limitation of our observational study, which, however, reflects real-life practice of performing clinical examination and writing medical reports. Hemodynamic monitoring with right heart catheterisation was performed only when indicated but the results were not collected for this study. B-type natriuretic peptide levels were not measured at the time of the study Comparison with acute HF trials and registries It is often questioned whether randomised clinical trials represent real-life patient populations well enough. With respect to acute HF, this question has largely been unanswered. Thus, we compared the demographic findings of our study with OPTIME, VMAC and LIDO, three recent studies investigating milrinone, nesiritide and levosimendan, respectively, in patients with acute HF [33 35]. In all three studies, patients were explicitly younger and less women were included. All trials excluded patients with, among others, ongoing myocardial ischemia, uncontrolled atrial fibrillation, corrigible valve disorders or severe renal insufficiency. Therefore itts not surprising that mortality was lower in all three trials, both in the treatment groups, as well as, in the control groups.

8 A. Rudiger et al. / The European Journal of Heart Failure 7 (2005) In the EuroHeart failure survey, 11,327 hospitalised patients with diagnosed or suspected acute or chronic HF were investigated in Europe. In comparison to that study, a similar distribution of age and gender was observed in our series. Furthermore, the prevalence of CHD and valvular heart disease, as well as important co-morbidities like diabetes, hypertension and atrial fibrillation were comparable [36]. Nevertheless, 12-week mortality was higher in our study than in the EuroHeart failure survey, i.e. 18% and 14%, respectively. This difference might have occurred by chance only. But importantly, patients with stable HF and even only suspicion of HF were included in EuroHeart failure survey which understandably may result in a lower mortality. Only recently, guidelines for the diagnosis and classification of acute HF have been elaborated by the European Society of Cardiology and will be published later this year. These instructions will allow a uniform patient categorisation in upcoming epidemiological surveys and clinical trials. In conclusion, this realistic assessment of acute HF in two large European hospitals with both central and regional function describes epidemiology, clinical presentation, short- and long-term outcome, and risk factors for increased mortality. These information allow a risk assessment of patients hospitalised with acute HF, and may serve as basis for future trials investigating new therapeutic options. References [1] McMurray J, McDonagh T, Morrison CE, Dargie HJ. Trends in hospitalization for heart failure in Scotland Eur Heart J 1993;14: [2] Cowie MR, Mosterd A, Wood DA, et al. The epidemiology of heart failure. Eur Heart J 1997;18: [3] Cowie MR, Wood DA, Coats AJ, et al. Incidence and aetiology of heart failure: a population-based study. Eur Heart J 1999;20: [4] Brophy JM, Deslauriers G, Boucher B, Rouleau JL. The hospital course and short term prognosis of patients presenting to the emergency room with decompensated congestive heart failure. Can J Cardiol 1993;9: [5] Haldeman GA, Croft JB, Giles WH, Rashidee A. Hospitalization of patients with heart failure: National Hospital Discharge Survey, Am Heart J 1999;137: [6] Jaagosild P, Dawson NV, Thomas C, et al. Outcomes of acute exacerbation of severe congestive heart failure. Arch Intern Med 1998;158: [7] Rame JE, Sheffield MA, Dries DL, et al. Outcome after emergency department discharge with primary diagnosis of heart failure. Am Heart J 2001;142: [8] Levy D, Kenchaiah S, Larson MG, et al. Long-term trends in the incidence of and survival with heart failure. N Engl J Med 2002;347: [9] Jessup M, Brozena S. Heart failure. N Engl J Med 2003;348: [10] Brophy JM, Deslauriers G, Rouleau JL. Long term prognosis of patients presenting to the emergency room with decompensated congestive heart failure. Can J Cardiol 1994;10: [11] Cotter G, Moshkovitz Y, Milovanov O, et al. Acute heart failure: a novel approach to its pathogenesis and treatment. Eur J Heart Fail 2002;4: [12] Felker GM, Adams KF, Konstam MA, O Connor CM, Gheorghiade M. The problem of decompensated heart failure: nomenclature, classification, and risk stratification. Am Heart J 2003;145:S [13] Killip T, Kimball JT. Treatment of myocardial infarction in a coronary care unit: a two year experience with 250 patients. Am J Cardiol 1967;20: [14] Killip T, Kimball JT. A survey of the coronary care unit: concept and results. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1968;11: [15] Colucci WS, Elkayam U, Horton DP, et al. Intravenous nesiritide, a natriuretic peptide, in the treatment of decompensated congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 2000;343: [16] Silver MA, Horton DP, Ghali JK, Elkayam U. Effect of nesiritide versus dobutamine on short-term outcomes in the treatment of patients with acutely decompensated heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39: [17] Slawsky MT, Colucci WS, Gottlieb SS, et al. Acute hemodynamic and clinical effects of levosimendan in patients with severe heart failure. Circulation 2000;102: [18] Moiseyev VS, Põder P, Andrejevs N, et al. Safety and efficacy of a novel calcium sensitizer, levosimendan, in patients with left ventricular failure due to an acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2002;23: [19] Yusuf S, SOLVD investigators. Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 1991;325: [20] Vasan RS, Benjamin EJ, Levy D. Prevalence, clinical features and prognosis of diastolic heart failure: an epidemiologic perspective. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;26: [21] Gandhi SK, Powers JC, Nomeir A-M, et al. The pathogenesis of acute pulmonary edema associated with hypertension. N Engl J Med 2001;344: [22] Van Kraaij DJW, van Pol PE, Ruiters AW, et al. Diagnosing diastolic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2002;4: [23] Heidenreich PA, Alloggiamento T, Melsop K, et al. The prognostic value of troponin in patients with non-st-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a meta analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38: [24] Ammann P, Maggiorini M, Bertel O, et al. Troponin as a risk factor for mortality in critically ill patients without acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41: [25] Steg PG, Dabbous OH, Feldman LJ, et al. Determinants and prognostic impact of heart failure complicating acute coronary syndromes. Circulation 2004;109: [26] Lenzen MJ, Scholte op Reimer WJ, Boersma E, et al. Differences between patients with a preserved and a depressed left ventricular function: a report from the EuroHeart Failure Survey. Eur Heart J 2004;25: [27] Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularisation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 1999;341: [28] Menon V, Hochman JS. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Heart 2002;88: [29] Khot UN, Jia G, Moliterno DJ, et al. Prognostic importance of physical examination for heart failure in non-st-elevation acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 2003;290: [30] Roguin A, Behar D, Ben Ami H, et al. Long-term prognosis of acute pulmonary oedema an ominous outcome. Eur J Heart Fail 2000;2: [31] Stevenson LW, Perloff JK. The limited reliability of physical signs for estimating hemodynamics in chronic heart failure. JAMA 1989;261: [32] Drazner MH, Rame JE, Phil M, Stevenson LW, Dries AL. Prognostic importance of elevated jugular venous pressure and a third heart sound in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med 2001: [33] Cuffe MS, Califf RM, Adams KF, et al. Short-term intravenous milrinone for acute exacerbation of chronic heart failure. JAMA 2002:

9 670 A. Rudiger et al. / The European Journal of Heart Failure 7 (2005) [34] Young JB, VMAC investigators. Intravenous nesiritide vs nitroglycerin for treatment of decompensated congestive heart failure. JAMA 2002;287: [35] Follath F, Cleland JG, Papp JG, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravenous levosimendan compared with dobutamine in severe lowoutput failure (the LIDO-study): a randomised double-blind trial. Lancet 2002;360: [36] Cleland JG, Swedberg K, Follath F, et al. The EuroHeart failure survey programme a survey on the quality of care among patients with heart failure in Europe. Eur Heart J 2003;24: [37] Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron 1976;16:31 41.