AimsLung ultrasound (LUS) is a useful tool with which to assess subclinical pulmonary congestion and to stratify the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether an LUS‐guided follow‐up protocol improves the outcomes of patients with HF.Methods and resultsIn this single‐blind clinical trial, 123 patients admitted for HF were randomized to either a standard follow‐up (n = 62, control group) or a LUS‐guided follow‐up (n = 61, LUS group). The primary endpoint was a composite of urgent visit, hospitalization for worsening HF and death during follow‐up. Visits were scheduled at 14, 30, 90 and 180 days after discharge. Treating physicians were encouraged to modify diuretic therapy in accordance with the number of B‐lines recorded by LUS. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) age of the patients was 69 ± 12 years and 72% were male. The mean ± SD left ventricular ejection fraction was 39 ± 14%. The hazard ratio for the primary outcome in the LUS group was 0.518 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.268–0.998; P = 0.049], mainly resulting from a decrease in the number of urgent visits for worsening HF. The number of patients needed to treat to avoid an event was 5 (95% CI 3–62). Other secondary endpoints such as N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide reduction were not achieved. The safety parameters were similar in the two groups. Patients in the LUS group received more loop diuretics [51 (91%) vs. 42 (75%); P = 0.02] and showed an improvement in the distance achieved in the 6‐min walking test [60 m (interquartile range: 29–125 m) vs. 37 m (interquartile range: 5–70 m); P = 0.023].ConclusionsTailored LUS‐guided diuretic treatment of pulmonary congestion in this proof‐of‐concept study reduced the number of decompensations and improved walking capacity in patients with HF. LUS is a non‐invasive, safe and easy‐to‐use technique with potential clinical applicability to guide pulmonary congestion treatment in patients with HF.

No abstract

Age at transplantation>45 years, induction therapy use, and high sunshine zone were risk factors for both SCC and BCC. Different immunosuppressive agents have different risks of nonmelanoma skin cancer, as AZA increases the risk of SCC and MMF is a protective factor. The relative risk of BCC was not affected by any immunosuppressor.