DESIGN: Planned substudy of the prospective, descriptive cohort study: Asia, Australia and New Zealand Dyspnoea in Emergency Departments (AANZDEM).
SETTING: 46 EDs in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia collected data over 3 72-hour periods in May, August and October 2014.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients with an ED diagnosis of heart failure.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes included patient epidemiology, investigations ordered, treatment modalities used and patient outcomes (hospital length of stay (LOS) and mortality).
RESULTS: 455 (14.9%) of the 3044 patients had an ED diagnosis of heart failure. Median age was 79 years, half were male and 62% arrived via ambulance. 392 (86%) patients were admitted to hospital. ED diagnosis was concordant with hospital discharge diagnosis in 81% of cases. Median hospital LOS was 6 days (IQR 4-9) and in-hospital mortality was 5.1%. Natriuretic peptide levels were ordered in 19%, with lung ultrasound (<1%) and echocardiography (2%) uncommonly performed. Treatment modalities included non-invasive ventilation (12%), diuretics (73%), nitrates (25%), antibiotics (16%), inhaled β-agonists (13%) and corticosteroids (6%).
CONCLUSIONS: In the Asia Pacific region, heart failure is a common diagnosis among patients presenting to the ED with a principal symptom of dyspnoea. Admission rates were high and ED diagnostic accuracy was good. Despite the seemingly suboptimal adherence to investigation and treatment guidelines, patient outcomes were favourable compared with other registries.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the prospective ASIAN-HF (Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure) registry, 5276 patients with symptomatic HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) from 11 Asian regions and across 3 income regions (high: Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan; middle: China, Malaysia, and Thailand; and low: India, Indonesia, and Philippines) were studied. ICD utilization, clinical characteristics, as well as device perception and knowledge, were assessed at baseline among ICD-eligible patients (EF ≤35% and New York Heart Association Class II-III). Patients were followed for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality. Among 3240 ICD-eligible patients (mean age 58.9±12.9 years, 79.1% men), 389 (12%) were ICD recipients. Utilization varied across Asia (from 1.5% in Indonesia to 52.5% in Japan) with a trend toward greater uptake in regions with government reimbursement for ICDs and lower out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure. ICD (versus non-ICD) recipients were more likely to be older (63±11 versus 58±13 year; P<0.001), have tertiary (versus ≤primary) education (34.9% versus 18.1%; P<0.001) and be residing in a high (versus low) income region (64.5% versus 36.5%; P<0.001). Among 2000 ICD nonrecipients surveyed, 55% were either unaware of the benefits of, or needed more information on, device therapy. ICD implantation reduced risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.97) and sudden cardiac deaths (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.79) over a median follow-up of 417 days.
CONCLUSIONS: ICDs reduce mortality risk, yet utilization in Asia is low; with disparity across geographic regions and socioeconomic status. Better patient education and targeted healthcare reforms in extending ICD reimbursement may improve access.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01633398. Unique identifier: NCT01633398.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared 5697 chronic HF patients of Indian (26%), white (23%), Chinese (17%), Japanese/Koreans (12%), black (12%), and Malay (10%) ethnicities from the HF-ACTION and ASIAN-HF multinational studies using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ; range 0-100; higher scores reflect better health status). KCCQ scores were lowest in Malay (58±22) and Chinese (60±23), intermediate in black (64±21) and Indian (65±23), and highest in white (67±20) and Japanese or Korean patients (67±22) after adjusting for age, sex, educational status, HF severity, and risk factors. Self-efficacy, which measures confidence in the ability to manage symptoms, was lower in all Asian ethnicities (especially Japanese/Koreans [60±26], Malay [66±23], and Chinese [64±28]) compared to black (80±21) and white (82±19) patients, even after multivariable adjustment (P
METHODS: We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases until 31st December 2014 for randomized control trials (RCTs) in HF evaluating statins versus placebo. Identified RCTs and their respective abstracted information were grouped according to statin type evaluated and analyzed separately. Outcomes were initially pooled with the Peto's one-step method, producing odd ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for each statin type. Using these pooled estimates, we performed adjusted indirect comparisons of lipophilic versus hydrophilic statin for each outcome.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies involving 10,966 patients were identified and analyzed. Lipophilic statins were superior to hydrophilic rosuvastatin regarding all-cause mortality (OR 0 · 50; 95 % CI, 0 · 11-0 · 89; p = 0 · 01), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0 · 61; 0 · 25-0 · 97; p = 0 · 009), and hospitalization for worsening HF (OR 0 · 52; 0 · 21-0 · 83; p = 0 · 0005). However, both statins were comparable with regards to cardiovascular hospitalization [OR 0 · 80 (0 · 31, 1 · 28); p = 0 · 36].
CONCLUSIONS: Lipophilic statin treatment shows significant decreases in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization for worsening HF compared with rosuvastatin treatment. This meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence that lipophilic statins offer better clinical outcomes in HF till data from head to head comparisons are available.