Manejo de la IC avanzada o refractaria. Dr. Nicolas Manito

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

0 comments

Post a comment

    Post a comment
    Embed Video
    Edit your comment Cancel

    Notes on slide 1

    Interestingly, most patients who suffer from sudden cardiac death (64%) are the patients who are minimally symptomatic with Class II heart failure. The sickest, most symptomatic patient (Class IV) experience heart failure deaths (56%) from pump failure, rather than sudden cardiac death (33%). It is important to remember that although it can be said that a heart failure patient in NYHA Class II may have a higher risk of SCD, their relative annual risk of dying is less than the other NYHA classes. The SCD-HeFT Trial (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial) which enrolled NYHA Class II and III patients, hopes to answer whether patients in these classes are truly at a higher risk for SCD and need protection.

    Key Message: The benefits of CRT were similar across subgroups.

    Las dosis más bajas no aumentaban la frecuencia cardiaca

    Favorites, Groups & Events

    Manejo de la IC avanzada o refractaria. Dr. Nicolas Manito - Presentation Transcript

    1. Dr. Nicolás Manito Unidad de Insuficiencia Cardiaca y Trasplante Cardiaco Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge MANEJO DE LA IC AVANZADA O REFRACTARIA
    2. Tratamiento de la Insuficiencia Cardíaca por disfunción ventricular sistólica Jessup M and Brozena S. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2007-18.
      • - TRASPLANTE CARDIACO.
      • ASISTENCIA VENTRICULAR
      • - DISPOSITIVOS
      • - CUIDADOS PALIATIVOS
    3. Clase funcional IV (NYHA) Stage D
    4. REGISTRO ESPAÑOL DE TRASPLANTE CARDÍACO 1984-2008
    5. REGISTRO ESPAÑOL DE TRASPLANTE CARDÍACO 1984-2007 Supervivencia actuarial por periodos. Grado de recomendación I, nivel de evidencia C. ESC 2008
    6.  
    7. Lietz K. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:1282–90 Improved Survival of Patients With End-Stage Heart Failure Listed for Heart Transplantation Status 1 Status 2
    8. Mechanical ventilation 2.13 (1.68–2.71) 0.001 Valvular CM 1.93 (1.17–3.19) 0.01 UNOS status 1A 1.92 (1.57–2.35) 0.001 Serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dl 1.77 (1.47–2.12) 0.001 IABP 1.63 (1.29–2.06) 0.001 Age at listing 60 yrs 1.42 (1.16–1.74) 0.001 Intravenous inotropes 1.41 (1.14–1.75) 0.002 Body weight ≤ 70 kg 1.35 (1.11–1.64) 0.002 PCWP > 20 mm Hg 1.29 (1.07–1.54) 0.006 ICD at the moment of listing 0.79 (0.65–0.96) 0.001 Multivariable Analysis of Risk Factors for Death Within 2 Months After Listing of UNOS Status 1 Candidates for Heart Transplantation: U.S. Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients:Years 2000 to 2005 (n 5,451) Lietz K. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:1282–90 P RISK RATIO (95%CI)
    9. Restrictive CM 3.94 (1.92–8.09) 0.001 Intravenous inotropes 2.95 (1.89–4.61) 0.001 Congenital heart disease 2.83 (1.24–6.46) 0.01 Secondary dilated CM 1.86 (1.12–3.11) 0.02 Serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl 1.70 (1.20–2.41) 0.003 PCWP 20 mm Hg 1.66 (1.20–2.28) 0.002 Blood group B 0.63 (0.45–0.90) 0.01 Multivariable Analysis of Risk Factors for Death Within 2 Months After Listing of UNOS Status 2 Candidates for Heart Transplantation: U.S. Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients:Years 2000 to 2005 (n: 6937) P RISK RATIO (95%CI) Lietz K. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:1282–90
    10. Class I: 1. An ICD for secondary prevention should be always considered ( Level of Evidence: A ). 2. An implanted or wearable ICD should be provided for Status 1B patients who are discharged home given that the wait for transplantation remains significant (Level of Evidence: C). 3. Amiodarone should be used as the agent of choice when anti-arrhythmic therapy is necessary to prevent recurrent atrial or symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias despite its numerous side effects (Level of Evidence: A). 4. Re-synchronization therapy in advanced heart failure patients should be considered together with a defibrillator (Level of Evidence: B). Class IIa: 1. It is reasonable to consider placement of a defibrillator in patients with Stage D failure who are candidates for transplantation or LVAD destination therapy (Level of Evidence: C). Heart Rhythm Considerations in Heart Transplant Candidates : International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates—2006 Gronda E et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2006; 25:1043-1056
      • Ampliación de la edad del receptor : 65 -70 años
      • Neoplasias con un intervalo libre de al menos 5 años
      • Miocardiopatías por antraciclinas
      • Disfunción renal con aclaramiento de creatinina inferior a 50 ml/min.
      • Manejo de la HAP : GTP > 15 y RVP > 5 UW.
      • Pacientes con HIV en tratamiento antiretroviral.
      • Pacientes con enfermedades sistémicas : Amiloidosis
      • Arritmias ventriculares refractarias a DAI o T. Quirúrg.
      • Ampliación de criterios de aceptación de donantes
      AVANCES Y CAMBIOS EN EL TRASPLANTE CARDIACO
    11. ECMO ASISTENCIA CIRCULATORIA MECÁNICA COMO PUENTE AL TRASPLANTE CARDIACO Centrimag-Levitronix ABIOMED BVS 5000
    12. BOMBAS AXIALES IMPLANTABLES 1998 Micromed Nasa de Bakey Jarvik 2000 Heart Mate II 2002 Incor VENTAJAS : - Sin valvulas - Menos accidentes tromboembolicos - Menor tamaño y peso - Menos infecciones - Mejor duracion mecánica - Implantacion mas facil “ FLUJO CONTINUO NO ES PERJUDICIAL “
    13.  
    14. Patient Profile/ Status: INTERMACS Levels
      • 1. Critical cardiogenic shock
      • Progressive decline
      • Stable but inotrope dependent
      • Recurrent advanced HF
      • Exertion intolerant
      • Exertion limited
      • Advanced NYHA III
      Stevenson L W et al. J Heart Lung Transplant . 2009;28:535–41. Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTER MACS) Temporary circulatory support Arrhythmia Frequent Flyer X X X -hosp X X X- home X X X X X X X X
      • Ventricular
      • tach / fib Total
      • Patient Profile pre-implant No Yes n % of 463
      • Critical cardiogenic shock 158 46 204 44%
      • Progressive decline 135 30 165 36%
      • Stable but inotrope dependent 34 3 37 8%
      • Recurrent advanced HF 28 6 34 7%
      • Exertion intolerant 6 2 8 2%
      • Exertion limited 5 2 7 1%
      • Advanced NYHA III 8 - 8 2%
      • Total 374 89 463 100%
      INTER MACS: March 2006 – Dec 2007, n = 463 Stevenson L W et al. J Heart Lung Transplant . 2009;28:535–41 .
    15. INTERMACS: Jun 23, 2006 – Mar 30, 2007 Prospective Patients: n=156 Months after Device Implant % Survival All Others n=28, deaths=4 Event: Death Critical Cardiogenic Shock n=67, deaths=18 Prog Decline n=61, deaths=10 p= .07 Patient Profile at Implant 80% vs 60% Survival at 3 months 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
      • En la actualidad, los dispositivos de asistencia
      • ventricular izquierda están indicados en pacientes en
      • espera de trasplante cardiaco y para el manejo de pacientes con miocarditis aguda grave.
      • Grado de recomendación IIa, nivel de evidencia C.
      • Aunque no se dispone de suficiente experiencia, se
      • puede considerar el uso de estos dispositivos a largo
      • plazo cuando no se haya establecido un tratamiento
      • definitivo.
      • Grado de recomendación IIb, nivel de evidencia C.
      Guía de práctica clínica de la Sociedad Europea de Cardiología (ESC) para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la insuficiencia cardiaca aguda y crónica (2008) Asistencia Ventricular y Corazón artificial 2009 Update ACCF/AHA. Circulation Grado de recomendación IIa, nivel de evidencia B.
    16. Severity of Heart Failure Modes of Death MERIT-HF Study Group. LANCET. 1999;353:2001-07. 12% 24% 64% CHF Other Sudden Death n = 103 NYHA II 26% 15% 59% CHF Other Sudden Death n = 103 NYHA III 56% 11% 33% CHF Other Sudden Death n = 27 NYHA IV
    17. ICD device trials in heart failure
    18. Primary Endpoint CARE-HF CA rdiac RE synchronization in H eart F ailure Pacientes en clase funcional IV
      • Grupo control : 27 (6,7%)
      • Grupo TRC : 23 (5,6%)
    19. N= 217 (13%) EF LVEDV low BP IHD Diabetes 6 min W OPT vs CF III
    20. N= 217 (13%) OPT: HF death of 39% CFIII and 48%CFIV
    21.   1 er AÑO T.MED. OP. TRC TRC+D TCO CF IV 44% 36% 30% 20% 2º AÑO CF IV 62% 45% 55% 25% IC refract. 29% 26% 41% MS 25% 16% 9%       Lindenfeld J et al. Circulation . 2007;115:204-208 ESTUDIO COMPANION - CF IV (NYHA) Supervivencia
    22. FUNCTIONAL CLASS IV HEART FAILURE PATIENTS TREATED WITH CARDIAC RESYNCHRONIZATION THERAPY M.A. Castel et al. H. Clínic . Barcelona . Europace. Berlin 2009 38 patients with NYHA Class IV Age, yrs, mean ±SD 65.31 ± 11.67 Male, n (%) 26 (74.3) Aetiology, n (%) Ischemic Idiopathic 22 (59.4) 14 (37.8) Atrial fibrillation, n (%) 19 (51.4) AICD, n (%) 18 (48.6) Upgrade, n (%) 12 (32.4) Inotropic treatment, n (%) 16 (43.2)
    23. M.A. Castel et al. H. Clínic . Barcelona. Europace. Berlin 2009 FUNCTIONAL CLASS IV HEART FAILURE PATIENTS TREATED WITH CARDIAC RESYNCHRONIZATION THERAPY Variable Baseline 6-months p NYHA class 4 2.8±1.1 <0.001* QRS 168.2 ± 29.8 145.5± 22.3 0.001* QoL (points) 66.4±19.4 34.9±23.8 0.004* 6MWT (m) 0 (17 pat) 144.8±27 (4 pat) 349.5 ±31.2 325±25 <0.001* Ns LVEF (%) 21.1 ± 7.4 25.7±7.4 0.008* LVEDD (mm) 73.5±8.0 74.1±6.8 Ns LVESD (mm) 58.2±8.2 60.6±10.4 Ns Creatinine (mg/dl) 1.6±0.6 1.61±0.6 Ns Sodium (mmol/L) 130.8±5.8 136.2±4.6 0.001* Haemoglobin (g/dl) 11.8 ± 1.9 12.8±1.8 Ns Cholesterol (mg/dl) 139.6 ± 51.4 157.8±52.2 Ns BNP (pg/ml) 926.8 ± 1101.2 758.6±823.4 Ns
    24. Follow up: 11.7 ± 9.8 months 12 Events at 6 m: 8 HF, 2 SD, 1 HTX, 1 CVA 17 Total Events: 12 HF, 2 SD and 3 HTx Six months mortality: 32% Twelve months mortality: 42% Responders at 6 months: 36.4% ● Univariate analysis: baseline sodium and low QRS reduction after CRT were associated with increased mortality. ● Multivariate Cox regression showed that a QRS shortening of <12.5% from baseline QRS was an independent predictor of mortality (HR 4,5 (95% CI: 0,96-20,8) p =0,038). FUNCTIONAL CLASS IV HEART FAILURE PATIENTS TREATED WITH CARDIAC RESYNCHRONIZATION THERAPY M.A. Castel et al. H. Clínic . Barcelona. Europace. Berlin 2009
    25.  
      • MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
      • Delivery of quality care to patients and their families
      • Education
      • Treatment co-ordination
      • Research
      • Policy
      Jaarsma T et al. European Journal of Heart Failure .2009;11: 433–443 Palliative care in heart failure
    26. Consideraciones sobre la aplicación en la práctica clínica del LEVOSIMENDAN
      • No administrar si la TA < 90 mm Hg
      • No administrar bolus de carga
      • Asociado a catecolaminas : Dobutamina ( 5 µgr/kg/min), Dopamina
      • Uso como terapia inotrópica intermitente en pacientes con IC terminal: 1 cc (2,5 mg) en 100 cc de SG 5% en 4 h.
      • Infusión de 0,15 µgr/kg/min ( “ Chupitos de Levosimendan” )
      2009 Update ACCF/AHA. Circulation Grado de recomendación III nivel de evidencia A.
    27. CONSIDERACIONES FINALES
      • La IC en estadio D y/o clase funcional IV requiere una mejor definición y categorización .
      • El trasplante cardiaco es una excelente terapia para pacientes con IC avanzada o refractaria limitada por el número de donantes
      • La asistencia ventricular mecánica como puente al trasplante cardiaco es una terapia claramente establecida. Tiene todavía grandes retos como puente a la recuperación o como terapia de destino
      • La implantación de dispositivos como la TRC+DAI se puede aplicar con éxito a pacientes con IC avanzada (CF IV) y un perfil de riesgo aceptable..
      • Los cuidados paliativos en insuficiencia cardiaca son una asignatura pendiente que podran mejorar con la implantación de las unidades de IC
    SlideShare Zeitgeist 2009

    + guest6ee1ffguest6ee1ff Nominate

    custom

    88 views, 0 favs, 0 embeds more stats

    VI Reunión Anual de la Sección de insuficiencia more

    More info about this document

    © All Rights Reserved

    Go to text version

    • Total Views 88
      • 88 on SlideShare
      • 0 from embeds
    • Comments 0
    • Favorites 0
    • Downloads 0
    Most viewed embeds

    more

    All embeds

    less

    Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
    Flag as inappropriate

    Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

    Cancel
    File a copyright complaint
    Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

    Categories