In this small pilot study, intermittent administration of levosimendan to ambulatory patients with advanced systolic heart failure reduced plasma concentrations of NT-proBNP, worsening of HRQoL and hospitalisation for heart failure. The efficacy and safety of this intervention should be confirmed in larger trials.

AimsWe aimed to determine whether treatment with sildenafil improves outcomes of patients with persistent pulmonary hypertension (PH) after correction of valvular heart disease (VHD).Methods and resultsThe sildenafil for improving outcomes after valvular correction (SIOVAC) study was a multricentric, randomized, parallel, and placebo-controlled trial that enrolled stable adults with mean pulmonary artery pressure ≥ 30 mmHg who had undergone a successful valve replacement or repair procedure at least 1 year before inclusion. We assigned 200 patients to receive sildenafil (40 mg three times daily, n = 104) or placebo (n = 96) for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the composite clinical score combining death, hospital admission for heart failure (HF), change in functional class, and patient global self-assessment. Only 27 patients receiving sildenafil improved their composite clinical score, as compared with 44 patients receiving placebo; in contrast 33 patients in the sildenafil group worsened their composite score, as compared with 14 in the placebo group [odds ratio 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22–0.67; P < 0.001]. The Kaplan–Meier estimates for survival without admission due to HF were 0.76 and 0.86 in the sildenafil and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio 2.0, 95% CI = 1.0–4.0; log-rank P = 0.044). Changes in 6-min walk test distance, natriuretic peptides, and Doppler-derived systolic pulmonary pressure were similar in both groups.ConclusionTreatment with sildenafil in patients with persistent PH after successfully corrected VHD is associated to worse clinical outcomes than placebo. Off-label usage of sildenafil for treating this source of left heart disease PH should be avoided.The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00862043.

No abstract

No abstract

Temporary devices may be used to bridge critically ill candidates directly to heart transplantation in a setting of short waiting list times, as is the case of Spain. In our series, bridging with T-LVAD was associated with more favourable outcomes than bridging with T-BiVAD or VA-ECMO.

Background— Postoperative outcomes of patients with advanced heart failure undergoing ventricular assist device implantation are strongly influenced by their preoperative Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profiles. We sought to investigate whether a similar association exists in patients undergoing emergency heart transplantation. Methods and Results— By means of the Spanish National Heart Transplant Registry database, we identified 704 adult patients treated with emergency heart transplantation in 15 Spanish centers between 2000 and 2009. Post-transplant outcomes were analyzed pertaining to patient preoperative INTERMACS profiles, which were retrospectively assigned by 2 blinded cardiologists. Before transplantation, INTERMACS profile 1 (critical cardiogenic shock) was present in 207 patients, INTERMACS profile 2 (progressive decline) in 291, INTERMACS profile 3 (inotropic dependence) in 176, and INTERMACS profile 4 (resting symptoms) was present in 30 patients. In-hospital postoperative mortality rates were, respectively, 43%, 26.8%, and 18% in patients with profiles 1, 2, and 3 to 4 ( P <0.001). INTERMACS 1 patients also presented the highest incidence of primary graft failure (1: 31.3%, 2: 22.3%, 3–4: 21.8%; P =0.03) and postoperative need for dialysis (1: 33.2%, 2: 18.9%, 3–4: 21.5%; P <0.001). Adjusted odds-ratios for in-hospital postoperative mortality were 4.38 (95% confidence interval, 2.51–7.66) for profile 1 versus 3 to 4, 2.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.56–3.97) for profile 1 versus 2, and 1.76 (95% confidence interval, 1.02–3.03) for profile 2 versus 3 to 4. Long-term survival after hospital discharge was not influenced by preoperative INTERMACS profiles. Conclusions— Preoperative INTERMACS profiles determine outcomes after emergency heart transplantation. Results call for a change in policies related to the management of heart transplant candidates presenting with INTERMACS profiles 1 and 2.

No abstract

Background: Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains high and early recognition and risk stratification are mandatory for optimal patient allocation and to guide treatment strategy. The CardShock and the Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock (IABP-SHOCK II) risk scores have shown good results in predicting short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. However, to date, they have not been compared in a large cohort of ischaemic and non-ischaemic real-world cardiogenic shock patients. Methods: The Red-Shock is a multicentre cohort of non-selected cardiogenic shock patients. We calculated the CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II risk scores in each patient and assessed discrimination and calibration. Results: We included 696 patients. The main cause of cardiogenic shock was acute coronary syndrome, occurring in 62% of the patients. Compared with acute coronary syndrome patients, non-acute coronary syndrome patients were younger and had a lower proportion of risk factors but higher rates of renal insufficiency; intra-aortic balloon pump was also less frequently used (31% vs 56%). In contrast, non-acute coronary syndrome patients were more often treated with mechanical circulatory support devices (11% vs 3%, p<0.001 for both). Both risk scores were good predictors of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome patients and had similar areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (area under the curve: 0.742 for the CardShock vs 0.752 for IABP-SHOCK II, p=0.65). Their discrimination performance was only modest when applied to non-acute coronary syndrome patients (0.648 vs 0.619, respectively, p=0.31). Calibration was acceptable for both scores (Hosmer-Lemeshow p=0.22 for the CardShock and 0.68 for IABP-SHOCK II). Conclusions: In our cohort, both the CardShock and the IABP-SHOCK II risk scores were good predictors of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome-related cardiogenic shock.