Key result
Intravenous iron effectively reduces heart failure symptoms and readmission rates and improves functional capacity and quality of life, whereas oral iron is not effective.
Why the study?
Does intravenous iron replacement improve symptoms and outcomes in heart failure patients with iron deficiency?
Does intravenous iron replacement improve symptoms and outcomes in heart failure patients with iron deficiency?
Intravenous iron replacement is an effective and recommended therapy for improving symptoms and outcomes in heart failure patients with iron deficiency, whereas oral iron is ineffective.
Supports routine iron screening in HF; leaves open optimal strategies and long-term outcome confirmation.
Iron is vital for multiple biological processes in the human body. Heart failure (HF) patients are at a high risk of becoming iron deficient. Iron deficiency is a marker of severe HF and an ominous sign of poor outcomes. Iron deficiency can be absolute (low iron stores) or functional (improper functioning in the metabolic processes). The European Society of Cardiology recommends routine screening of iron stores in HF patients using ferritin and transferrin saturation. It advises iron replacement in deficient patients irrespective of the presence of anemia. Iron replacement improved HF symptoms, exercise capacity, and quality of life in deficient patients. It alleviates their disordered breathing during sleep. Therefore, the treatment of iron deficiency is an important target in managing HF. Oral iron is not effective in repleting iron stores in HF patients. Intravenous iron is an effective way to replenish iron stores in this cohort.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elkammash et al. (2022) conducted a review in Heart failure with iron deficiency. Intravenous iron replacement vs. Oral iron or placebo was evaluated. Intravenous iron effectively reduces heart failure symptoms and readmission rates and improves functional capacity and quality of life, whereas oral iron is not effective.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: