This paper details the substance and recommendations arising from a meeting convened by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in August 2009, to assess the challenges and opportunities of emergency department management of acute heart failure syndrome (AHFS). The assembled faculty represented a large cross section of medical professionals spanning the medical management continuum of patients presenting with acute heart failure and included heart failure cardiologists, emergency physicians, laboratory medicine specialists, nurses, and bench scientists. Their recommendations include proposals regarding the design and conduct of emergency department-based clinical trials, suggestions regarding the development of improved methods for early detection and monitoring of AHFS, and potential needs for expanding translational and applied AHFS focused research and biotechnology. We anticipate that this review will serve as a starting point for future investigations across the spectrum of funding sources.

Many patients with acute heart failure are initially managed in emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. Although some require hospitalization for further management, it is likely that a sizeable proportion could be safely discharged either directly from the ED or after a more extended period of management in an observation-type unit. Identification of low-risk patients who are safe for such an approach to management continues to be a global unmet need. This is driven in part by a lack of clarity on postdischarge outcomes for lower risk patients and a nonexistent consensus on what may be acceptable event rates. The current paper reviews previous studies carried out on patients directly discharged from the ED, suggests a general disposition algorithm and focuses on discharge metrics, which are based on both evidence and expert opinion. In addition, we propose that the following variables be considered for future determination of acceptable event rates: (a) baseline characteristics and risk status of the patient; (b) access to follow-up;

No abstract

IntroductionOur purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of food and drug administration (FDA) recommended dosing of IV nicardipine versus IV labetalol for the management of acute hypertension.MethodsMulticenter randomized clinical trial. Eligible patients had 2 systolic blood pressure (SBP) measures ≥180 mmHg and no contraindications to nicardipine or labetalol. Before randomization, the physician specified a target SBP ± 20 mmHg (the target range: TR). The primary endpoint was the percent of subjects meeting TR during the initial 30 minutes of treatment.ResultsOf 226 randomized patients, 110 received nicardipine and 116 labetalol. End organ damage preceded treatment in 143 (63.3%); 71 nicardipine and 72 labetalol patients. Median initial SBP was 212.5 (IQR 197, 230) and 212 mmHg (IQR 200,225) for nicardipine and labetalol patients (P = 0.68), respectively. Within 30 minutes, nicardipine patients more often reached TR than labetalol (91.7 vs. 82.5%, P = 0.039). Of 6 BP measures (taken every 5 minutes) during the study period, nicardipine patients had higher rates of five and six instances within TR than labetalol (47.3% vs. 32.8%, P = 0.026). Rescue medication need did not differ between nicardipine and labetalol (15.5 vs. 22.4%, P = 0.183). Labetalol patients had slower heart rates at all time points (P < 0.01). Multivariable modeling showed nicardipine patients were more likely in TR than labetalol patients at 30 minutes (OR 2.73, P = 0.028; C stat for model = 0.72)ConclusionsPatients treated with nicardipine are more likely to reach the physician-specified SBP target range within 30 minutes than those treated with labetalol.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00765648