Why the study?
Targeting clinical congestion alone oversimplifies acute heart failure, while recent trials indicate that management is time sensitive and that tailored treatment based on pathophysiology, aetiologies, and risk profiles could improve outcomes.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Review
May inform phenotype-based acute HF decisions; leaves open prospective randomized validation.
Acute heart failure (AHF) has become a global public health burden largely because of the associated high morbidity, mortality, and cost. The treatment options for AHF have remained relatively unchanged over the past decades. Historically, clinical congestion alone has been considered the main target for treatment of acute decompensation in patients with AHF; however, this is an oversimplification of the complex pathophysiology. Within the similar clinical presentation of congestion, significant differences in pathophysiological mechanisms exist between the fluid accumulation and redistribution. Tissue hypoperfusion is another vital characteristic of AHF and should be promptly treated with appropriate interventions. In addition, recent clinical trials of novel therapeutic strategies have shown that heart failure management is 'time sensitive' and suggested that treatment selection based on individual aetiologies, triggers, and risk factor profiles could lead to better outcomes. In this review, we aim to describe the specifics of the 'time-sensitive' approach by the clinical phenotypes, for example, pulmonary/systemic congestion and tissue hypoperfusion, wherein patients are classified based on pathophysiological conditions. This mechanistic classification, in parallel with the comprehensive risk assessment, has become a cornerstone in the management of patients with AHF and thus supports effective decision making by clinicians. We will also highlight how therapeutic modalities should be individualized according to each clinical phenotype.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shiraishi et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: