RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guideline 95 on the management of chronic heart failure (CHF) was published in February 2007, superseding SIGN guideline 35 of February 1999. The guideline promotes evidence based management of CHE. AIMS: To describe an existing service model and to review our level of concordance with SIGN guidelines. METHODS: We describe a model of a CHF service based in a district general hospital (DGH) in Scotland. We conducted a retrospective review on consecutive new referrals between August and November 2002, and a prospective review of new attendances between September 2005 and January 2006. RESULTS: In 2002 and 2005/6, 49 and 45 patients were reviewed respectively, with 26 and 28 patients showing left ventricular systolic dysfunction on echocardiography. Median ages of patients were 81 and 79 years respectively. Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor (ACEI) or Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker (AIIRB) therapy was in use in 23 (88.5%) and 24 (85.7%) patients respectively. The use of beta-blockers, digoxin and spironolactone was shown to have improved between both reviews. CONCLUSIONS: We have been able to demonstrate an improving level of concordance with SIGN guidelines in a district general hospital (DGH) heart failure service model run by care of the elderly physicians and supported by specialist nurses.
Asunto(s)
Manejo de la Enfermedad , Insuficiencia Cardíaca Sistólica/tratamiento farmacológico , Antagonistas Adrenérgicos beta/uso terapéutico , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Bloqueadores del Receptor Tipo 1 de Angiotensina II/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de la Enzima Convertidora de Angiotensina/uso terapéutico , Cardiotónicos/uso terapéutico , Digoxina/uso terapéutico , Diuréticos/uso terapéutico , Insuficiencia Cardíaca Sistólica/epidemiología , Humanos , Inhibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Reductasas/uso terapéutico , Auditoría Médica , Servicio Ambulatorio en Hospital , Inhibidores de Agregación Plaquetaria/uso terapéutico , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Estudios Prospectivos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Escocia/epidemiología , Espironolactona/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is the commonest cardiac dysrhythmia. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There are two approaches to the management of atrial fibrillation: controlling the ventricular rate or converting to sinus rhythm in the expectation that this would abolish its adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in adults on the annual risk of stroke, peripheral embolism, and mortality. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (2000 to 2002), EMBASE (1998 to 2002), CINAHL (1982 to 2002), Web of Science (1981 to 2002). We hand searched the following journals: Circulation (1997 to 2002), Heart (1997 to 2002), European Heart Journal (1997-2002), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (1997-2002) and selected abstracts published on the web site of the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (2001, 2002). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials of pharmacological cardioversion versus rate control in adults (>18 years) with acute, paroxysmal or sustained atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, of any duration and of any aetiology. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer applied the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. Trial quality was assessed and the data were entered into RevMan. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two completed studies AFFIRM (n=4060) and PIAF (n=252). We found no difference in mortality between rhythm control and rate control relative risk 1.14 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.31). Both studies show significantly higher rates of hospitalisation and adverse events in the rhythm control group and no difference in quality of life between the two treatment groups. In AFFIRM there was a similar incidence of ischaemic stroke, bleeding and systemic embolism in the two groups. Certain malignant dysrhythmias were significantly more likely to occur in the rhythm control group. There were similar scores of cognitive assessment. In PIAF, cardioverted patients enjoyed an improved exercise tolerance but there was no overall benefit in terms of symptom control or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm is superior to rate control. Rhythm control is associated with more adverse effects and increased hospitalisation. It does not reduce the risk of stroke. The conclusions cannot be generalised to all people with atrial fibrillation. Most of the patients included in these studies were relatively older (>60 years) with significant cardiovascular risk factors.