Browsing by Author "Iliescu, Vlad Anton"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Improving Postdischarge Outcomes in Acute Heart Failure
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2018-07) Chioncel, Ovidiu; Collins, Sean P.; Ambrosy, Andrew P.; Pang, Peter S.; Antohi, Elena-Laura; Iliescu, Vlad Anton; Maggioni, Aldo P.; Butler, Javed; Mebazaa, Alexandre; Emergency Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    The global burden that acute heart failure (AHF) carries has remained unchanged over the past several decades (1). European registries (2–5) showed that 1-year outcome rates remain unacceptably high (Table 1) and confirm that hospitalization for AHF represents a change in the natural history of the disease process(6). As patients hospitalized for HF have a bad prognosis, it is crucial to utilize hospitalization as an opportunity to: 1) assess the individual components of the cardiac substrate; 2) identify and treat comorbidities; 3) identify early, safe endpoints of therapy to facilitate timely hospital discharge and outpatient follow-up; and 4) implement and begin optimization guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs). As outcomes are influenced by many factors, many of which are incompletely understood, a systematic approach is proposed that should start with admission and continues through post-discharge (7).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Therapeutic Advances in the Management of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2019-03) Antohi, Elena-Laura; Ambrosy, Andrew P.; Collins, Sean P.; Ahmed, Ali; Iliescu, Vlad Anton; Cotter, Gad; Pang, Peter S.; Butler, Javed; Chioncel, Ovidiu; Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is the most common presenting phenotype of acute heart failure (AHF). The main goal of this article was to review the contemporary management strategies in these patients and to describe how future clinical trials may address unmet clinical needs. Areas of uncertainty: The current pathophysiologic understanding of AHF is incomplete. The guideline recommendations for the management of ADHF are based only on algorithms provided by expert consensus guided by blood pressure and/or clinical signs of congestion or hypoperfusion. The lack of adequately conducted trials to address the unmet need for evidence therapy in AHF has not yet been surpassed, and at this time, there is no evidence-based strategy for targeted decongestive therapy to improve outcomes. The precise time point for initiation of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs), as respect to moment of decompensation, is also unknown. Data sources: The available data informing current management of patients with ADHF are based on randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and administrative databases. Therapeutic advances: A major step-forward in the management of ADHF patients is recognizing congestion, either clinical or hemodynamic, as a major trigger for heart failure (HF) hospitalization and most important target for therapy. However, a strategy based exclusively on congestion is not sufficient, and at present, comprehensive assessment during hospitalization of cardiac and noncardiovascular substrate with identification of potential therapeutic targets represents "the corner-stone" of ADHF management. In the last years, substantial data have emerged to support the continuation of GDMTs during hospitalization for HF decompensation. Recently, several clinical trials raised hypothesis of "moving to the left" concept that argues for very early implementation of GDMTs as potential strategy to improve outcomes. Conclusions: The management of ADHF is still based on expert consensus documents. Further research is required to identify novel therapeutic targets, to establish the precise time point to initiate GDMTs, and to identify patients at risk of recurrent hospitalization.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Therapeutic Advances in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2019-03) Chioncel, Ovidiu; Collins, Sean P.; Ambrosy, Andrew P.; Pang, Peter S.; Radu, Razvan I.; Ahmed, Ali; Antohi, Elena-Laura; Masip, Josep; Butler, Javed; Iliescu, Vlad Anton; Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening state of tissue hypoperfusion, associated with a very high risk of mortality, despite intensive monitoring and modern treatment modalities. The present review aimed at describing the therapeutic advances in the management of CS. Areas of uncertainty: Many uncertainties about CS management remain in clinical practice, and these relate to the intensity of invasive monitoring, the type and timing of vasoactive therapies, the risk-benefit ratio of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) therapy, and optimal ventilation mode. Furthermore, most of the data are obtained from CS in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), although for non-AMI-CS patients, there are very few evidences for etiological or MCS therapies. Data sources: The prospective multicentric acute heart failure registries that specifically presented characteristics of patients with CS, distinct to other phenotypes, were included in the present review. Relevant clinical trials investigating therapeutic strategies in post-AMI-CS patients were added as source information. Several trials investigating vasoactive medications and meta-analysis providing information about benefits and risks of MCS devices were reviewed in this study. Therapeutic advances: Early revascularization remains the most important intervention for CS in settings of AMI, and in patients with multivessel disease, recent trial data recommend revascularization on a "culprit-lesion-only" strategy. Although diverse types of MCS devices improve hemodynamics and organ perfusion in patients with CS, results from almost all randomized trials incorporating clinical end points were inconclusive. However, development of new algorithms for utilization of MCS devices and progresses in technology showed benefit in selected patients. A major advance in the management of CS is development of concept of regional CS centers based on the level of facilities and expertise. The modern systems of care with CS centers used as hubs integrated with emergency medical systems and other referee hospitals have the potential to improve patient outcomes. Conclusions: Additional research is needed to establish new triage algorithms and to clarify intensity and timing of pharmacological and mechanical therapies.