End of life is an unfortunate but inevitable phase of the heart failure patients' journey. It is often preceded by a stage in the progression of heart failure defined as advanced heart failure, and characterised by poor quality of life and frequent hospitalisations. In clinical practice, the efficacy of treatments for advanced heart failure is often assessed by parameters such as clinical status, haemodynamics, neurohormonal status, and echo/MRI indices. From the patients' perspective, however, quality-of-life-related parameters, such as functional capacity, exercise performance, psychological status, and frequency of re-hospitalisations, are more significant. The effects of therapies and interventions on these parameters are, however, underrepresented in clinical trials targeted to assess advanced heart failure treatment efficacy, and data are overall scarce. This is possibly due to a non-universal definition of the quality-of-life-related endpoints, and to the difficult standardisation of the data collection. These uncertainties also lead to difficulties in handling trade-off decisions between quality of life and survival by patients, families and healthcare providers. A panel of 34 experts in the field of cardiology and intensive cardiac care from 21 countries around the world convened for reviewing the existing data on quality-of-life in patients with advanced heart failure, discussing and reaching a consensus on the validity and significance of quality-of-life assessment methods. Gaps in routine care and research, which should be addressed, were identified. Finally, published data on the effects of current i.v. vasoactive therapies such as inotropes, inodilators, and vasodilators on quality-of-life in advanced heart failure patients were analysed.

Acute heart failure and/or cardiogenic shock are frequently triggered by ischemic coronary events. Yet, there is a paucity of randomized data on the management of patients with heart failure complicating acute coronary syndrome, as acute coronary syndrome and cardiogenic shock have frequently been defined as exclusion criteria in trials and registries. As a consequence, guideline recommendations are mostly driven by observational studies, even though these patients have a particularly poor prognosis compared to heart failure patients without signs of coronary artery disease. In acute heart failure, and especially in cardiogenic shock related to ischemic conditions, vasopressors and inotropes are used. However, both pathophysiological considerations and available clinical data suggest that these treatments may have disadvantageous effects. The inodilator levosimendan offers potential benefits due to a range of distinct effects including positive inotropy, restoration of ventriculo-arterial coupling, increases in tissue perfusion, and anti-stunning and anti-inflammatory effects. In clinical trials levosimendan improves symptoms, cardiac function, hemodynamics, and end-organ function. Adverse effects are generally less common than with other inotropic and vasoactive therapies, with the notable exception of hypotension. The decision to use levosimendan, in terms of timing and dosing, is influenced by the presence of pulmonary congestion, and blood pressure measurements. Levosimendan should be preferred over adrenergic inotropes as a first line therapy for all ACS-AHF patients who are under beta-blockade and/or when urinary output is insufficient after diuretics. Levosimendan can be used alone or in combination with other inotropic or vasopressor agents, but requires monitoring due to the risk of hypotension.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract