No abstract

Background The 2021 European heart failure (HF) guidelines recommended treatment with an inhibitor of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis (RAAS), a beta-blocker (BB), a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a cotransporter sodium-glucose type 2 inhibitor (SGLT2) in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%. However, there is little evidence on implementing quadruple therapy in clinical practice. Purpose Study the implementation of quadruple therapy in patients with a new diagnosis of HF and reduced ejection fraction in clinical practice. Methods A prospective multicenter registry (38 centers in Spain) was carried out, including all patients newly diagnosed with HF with LVEF ≤40% in clinical practice. Their baseline and laboratory characteristics were recorded and their pharmacological treatment: at baseline (discharged from hospitalization or first outpatient visit within a maximum period of 1 month after the echocardiographic diagnosis), one month, and 3 months later. Results On 1th of March 2022, 349 patients were included, with baseline treatment data in 289. The mean age was 65.0±14.2 years, and 72.1% were men. The mean LVEF was 28.5±7.3%, with 57.6% in NYHA II and 29.1% in NYHA III–IV. The most frequent causes of cardiomyopathy were: ischemic (25.1%), tachycardiomyopathy (16.6%), and idiopathic (15.7%). 46.4% were dyslipidemic, 57.5% hypertensive and 33.3% diabetic. 65.1% of the patients were in sinus rhythm. Before HF diagnosis, 44.6% had been treated with RAASi, 22.8% with BB, 7.8% with MRA, 8.1% with iSGLT2, and 24.5% with diuretics. The drugs used at baseline and the changes during follow-up are shown in Table 1. Conclusions According to our cohort, almost 60% of newly diagnosed patients with HF and reduced LVEF start quadruple therapy during the first month after diagnosis, with sacubitril/valsartan being the preferred RAASi in most cases. The implementation of drugs with prognostic benefit is above 70% at baseline and exceeds 80% at one month of follow-up, with a progressive reduction in loop diuretics during follow-up. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Spanish Society of Cardiology

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction  Nonagenarians have a high rate of comorbidities and are underrepresented in studies of ischemic heart disease. It is unknown whether treatment at discharge is useful in preventing adverse events at follow up.  Purpose  The aim of this study is to evaluate the secondary prevention with medical treatment in nonagenarians with acute myocardial infarction. Methods A multicenter, observational and retrospective study was carried out in nonagenarians admitted by acute coronary syndrome (ACS) between January 2005 and December 2018. Baseline characteristics, interventional procedures, treatment at discharge and outcomes at 1 year were evaluated. Patients with type 2 acute myocardial infarction were excluded.  Results  680 patients (92,6 ± 2,4 years old) were included. Hypertension was present in 79.4% of the entire population. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed in 32.1% of patients, and this group had a higher GRACE score compared to the conservative treatment group (177 versus 172; p = 0.001). Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were more likely to receive an invasive strategy than the non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (61.5% versus 41.5%; p= 0.001). 263 patients died at 1 year follow up with in-hospital mortality of 17%. In STEMI group, patients with statins and dual antiplatelet therapy at discharge had lower mortality during follow up compared to those who did not received (26.7 % versus 41.5%; p = 0.001 and 31% versus 22%; p = 0.02, respectively) (Image 1).  Conclusions Nonagenarian patients with ACS have a high prevalence of hypertension and ICP procedures are not performed frequently. They also have a high mortality rate, although statins and dual antiplatelet therapy could be an effective secondary prevention. Abstract Figure.

No abstract

No abstract