English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  Little is know about the outcomes of acute heart failure (AHF) with acute coronary syndrome (ACS-AHF), compared to those without ACS (NACS-AHF).    Methods  We conducted a prospective registry of AHF patients involving 18 hospitals in Saudi Arabia between October 2009 and December 2010. In this sub-study, we compared the clinical correlates, management and hospital course, as well as short, and long-term outcomes between AHF patients with and without ACS.    Results  Of the 2609 AHF patients enrolled, 27.8 % presented with ACS. Compared to NACS-AHF patients, ACS-AHF patients were more likely to be old males (Mean age = 62.7 vs. 60.8 years,  p  = 0.003, and 73.8 % vs. 62.7 %,  p  < 0.001, respectively), and to present with De-novo heart failure (56.6 % vs. 28.1 %,  p  < 0.001). Additionally they were more likely to have history of ischemic heart disease, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and less likely to have chronic kidney disease ( p  < 0.001 for all comparisons). The prevalence of severe LV systolic dysfunction (EF < 30 %) was higher in ACS-AHF patients. During hospital stay, ACS-AHF patients were more likely to develop shock ( p  < 0.001), recurrent heart failure ( p  = 0.02) and needed more mechanical ventilation ( p  < 0.001). β blockers and Angiotensin Converting Enzyme inhibitors were used more often in ACS-AHF patients ( p  = 0.001 and,  p  = 0.004 respectively). ACS- AHF patients underwent more coronary angiography and had higher prevalence of multi-vessel coronary artery disease ( p  < 0.001 for all comparisons). The unadjusted hospital and one-month mortality were higher in ACS-AHF patients (OR = 1.6 (1.2–2.2),  p  = 0.003 and 1.4 (1.0–1.9),  p  = 0.026 respectively). A significant interaction existed between the level of left ventricular ejection fraction and ACS-AHF status. After adjustment, ACS-AHF status was only significantly associated with hospital mortality (OR = 1.6 (1.1–2.4),  p  = 0.019). The three-years survival following hospital discharge was not different between the two groups.    Conclusion  AHF patients presenting with ACS had worse hospital prognosis, and an equivalent long-term survival compared to AHF patients without ACS. These findings underscore the importance of timely recognition and management of AHF patients with concomitant ACS given their distinct presentation and underlying pathophysiology compared to other AHF patients.

Acute heart failure with and without acute coronary syndrome: clinical correlates and prognostic impact (From the HEARTS registry)