Key result
Despite advances in understanding the pathophysiology of acute heart failure and novel therapies, there is currently insufficient evidence to suggest changes to standards of care.
Why the study?
Advances in the diagnosis and management of acute heart failure from recent clinical trials and observational studies needed to be highlighted.
Recent studies on novel biomarkers and pharmacological therapies for acute heart failure do not currently provide sufficient evidence to change existing standards of care.
Acute heart failure standards of care should remain unchanged; leaves open need for definitive trials on emerging therapies.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To highlight the advances in the diagnosis and management of acute heart failure (AHF) from recent clinical trials and observational studies. RECENT FINDINGS: We highlight date from recent studies examining the use of novel biomarkers (micro RNAs, osteopontin, insulin-like growth-factor binding protein-7) for the diagnosis of AHF. In addition, we summarize the evidence for novel pharmacological therapies including: serelaxin, ularitide, clevidipine, urocortins, BMS-986231, TRB027, vericiguat, omecamtiv, and torsemide. Finally, we explore the evidence behind the use of novel management algorithms. SUMMARY: Despite many advances in understanding the pathophysiology of AHF, there is currently insufficient evidence to suggest changes to standards of care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gouda et al. (2018) conducted a review in acute heart failure. Novel biomarkers and pharmacological therapies was evaluated. Despite advances in understanding the pathophysiology of acute heart failure and novel therapies, there is currently insufficient evidence to suggest changes to standards of care.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: