Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5573_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
48 Мб
Скачать
282
N. Barker et al.
ACS.Symptoms can include cardiogenic shock, chest pain, and pulmonary edema. For free wall rupture, patients may also have cardiac arrest and develop cardiac tamponade [4, 29]. Free wall rupture is managed through urgent surgical repair. Pre­and perioperative mechanical circulatory support may be needed to reduce left ven­tricular end diastolic pressure. Management of ventricular septal or papillary muscle rupture involved a combination of pharmacotherapy to maintain blood pressure and cardiac output (e.g., vasopressors and inotropes) as well as surgical repair, ideally 7days or more from the event [29, 35, 36]. Mechanical circulatory support may be required for both complications. It is also recommended to incorporate palliative care due to the nature and severity of the complications [29, 35].
Heart failure can also develop as a complication of acute coronary syndrome. HF can be preexisting and can develop at the time of MI, during hospitalization, or fol­lowing discharge. The risk factors for development of HF include female gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, atrial brillation, history of previous MI, and age greater than 75years. Symptoms of excess uid and resting shortness of breath are usually present in patients who present with MI and acute onset of HF. Urgent concomitant management of both ACS and HF is essential to improve patient outcomes. Intravenous diuretics (furosemide or bumetanide) are utilized for uid management. Decreased cardiac output and symptoms of cardiogenic shock are managed with the addition of inotropes (dobutamine and/or milrinone) and vasopressors (norepinephrine or epinephrine). In some patients, temporary mechan­ical circulatory support (MCS) with or without respiratory and/or renal replacement may be required. MCS can include intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), heart pump, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). MCS has not consistently dem­onstrated consistent reduction in morbidity and mortality and, therefore, should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Patients who have cardiogenic shock in the set­ting of MI should be managed at a PCI-capable hospital. Once patients who have ACS and HF are stabilized, pharmacotherapy demonstrating the benet for patients with HF should be initiated [4, 29, 37].

10.7 Long-Term Management

Long-term pharmacotherapy for stabilization of cardiac disease and prevention of ACS recurrence and further morbidity and mortality includes DAPT, statins, beta­blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.
DAPT with aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor post-acute coronary syndrome has dem­onstrated reduced rates of stent restenosis, myocardial infarction, death from car­diovascular causes, or stroke. DAPT-initiated post-acute coronary syndrome should continue in ideal circumstances for 12 months. Premature discontinuation or
10 Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS)
283
interruption of DAPT can increase the risk for stent thrombosis and mortality. Stent thrombosis can result in mortality rates up to 45% [4, 29, 38, 39]. Aspirin should be continued lifelong in all patients unless otherwise contraindicated.
Ticagrelor and prasugrel are recommended over clopidogrel as the P2Y12 of choice in DAPT. In the results of the PLATO trial, patients receiving ticagrelor had a signicant reduction in the combined primary efcacy end point evaluating the occurrence of myocardial infarction, death from cardiovascular causes, or stroke without experiencing increased fatal or TIMI major bleeding [40]. In the results of the TRITON TIMI 38 study, patients undergoing PCI who received prasugrel in comparison to clopidogrel demonstrated a signicant reduction in the rates of the primary combined efcacy end point of myocardial infarction, death from cardio­vascular causes, or stroke. However, patients receiving prasugrel also experienced increased rates of fatal and nonfatal TIMI major hemorrhage. Patients demonstrat­ing the greatest benet from prasugrel include patients with diabetes or who had in-stent thrombosis. Subgroup analysis of TRITON TIMI 38 also dened three patient groups that would not benet from prasugrel [41]. There is a risk for net harm when prasugrel is used in patients with a history of stroke (ischemic or hemor­rhagic). There is no net benet observed in patients who are 75years of age or greater or who weigh less than 60kg [42]. Overall, in these three patient groups, there is an increased risk of bleeding with prasugrel. The updated ESC guidelines for ACS provide a class I recommendation for ticagrelor or prasugrel (when avail­able and tolerated) over clopidogrel in patients undergoing PCI [4, 29, 38, 39].
For patients who underwent ischemia-guided therapy without intervention, the aspirin can be combined with either clopidogrel or ticagrelor. TRITON-TIMI did not include patients who received medical management for acute coronary syndrome [39]. TRIOLOGY ACS evaluated patients receiving medical management with pra- sugrel in comparison to clopidogrel in patients with unstable angina or NSTEMI.There was not a statistically signicant difference in the occurrence of the primary end point of myocardial infarction, death from cardiovascular causes, or nonfatal stroke or the safety end point of major bleeding events in patients receiving prasugrel. Therefore, prasugrel is not recommended as part of DAPT in patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving medical/ischemia-guided management [4, 29, 38, 39].
DAPT may be stopped at 6months in patients who have stable ischemic heart disease and elective PCI with stent placement. (Class I ACS) Shorter duration of DAPT may also be considered in patients who have a lower ischemic risk, and the risk of morbidity and bleeding with continuation exceeds the benets of therapy. In patients who have an increased risk for bleeding, proton pump inhibitors can be considered to reduce risk. While esomeprazole and omeprazole may decrease response to clopidogrel, there is not enough evident to demonstrate increased risk of ischemic events [4, 29, 38, 39]. Table10.5 provides details regarding DAPT de­escalation following a minimum of 1month of DAPT therapy.
284
Table 10.5 DAPT de-escalation [4]. Adapted from ESC ACS guidelines 2023
Time (months) Abbreviated DAPT options DAPT de-escalation
0 HBR HBR and non-HBR patients Potent P2Y12 DAPT
1 1month 3months 6months P2Y12 inhibitor de-escalation 3 6 9 P2Y12 or ASA monotherapy 12
ASA+ticagrelor or prasugrel
Change to ASA+clopidogrel
N. Barker et al.

10.7.1 High Bleed Risk (HBR)

Pharmacists should counsel patients about the role and benet of taking DAPT and the potential increased risk for stent thrombosis and mortality with noncompliance or premature discontinuation.

10.7.2 Statins

Atherosclerotic coronary vascular disease is known to be related to circulating lev­els of cholesterol; in particular, the most atherogenic form is known to be low­density lipoprotein (LDL). High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol is not atherogenic and may confer protective benets, and very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol is known to be both atherogenic and the primary transporter for triglycerides. Apolipoprotein B, or apoB, is the main atherogenic component of both LDL-C and VLDL-C and therefore may be a better measure of atherogenic risk than cholesterol levels alone. High-intensity or maximally tolerated statin therapy is recommended for secondary prevention in all patients who have ASCVD. Statins inhibit 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase, which is the rate-limiting enzyme in cholesterol synthesis. This results in increased expres­sion of LDL receptors on hepatic tissue and breakdown of LDL.Statin therapy is usually well tolerated but does have a 5–20% occurrence of subjective statin­associated muscle symptoms (SAMSs), which can lead to noncompliance or avoid­ance of statin therapy. The guidelines recommend considering SAMS as a side effect rather than an intolerance because patients will oftentimes be able to tolerate therapy with an alternative statin or dose [4, 4345].
High-intensity statin therapy includes atorvastatin 40 or 80mg daily or rosuvas­tatin 20 or 40mg daily. The denition of ASCVD includes patients who have expe­rienced acute coronary syndrome, e.g., STEMI, NSTEMI, unstable or stable angina, and coronary revascularization, as well as symptomatic peripheral arterial disease or previous revascularization or amputation, stroke, and transient attack. Low­density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is reduced 50% by high-intensity statin ther­apy. LDL and non-high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol treatment targets
10 Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS)
Table 10.6 Statin dosing and intensity. Adapted from 2018 Cholesterol Guidelines [43]
Intensity LDL reduction (%) Statins Doses validated in RCT
High 50 Atorvastatin
Rosuvastatin
Moderate 30–49 Atorvastatin
Fluvastatin Lovastatin Pravastatin Simvastatin Rosuvastatin
Low <30 Lovastatin
Pravastatin
40 or 80mg daily 20 or 40mg daily
10mg daily 40mg twice daily 40mg daily 40mg daily 20 or 40mg daily 10mg daily
20mg daily 10 or 20mg daily
285
were removed in the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guideline, as many patients with ASCVD may still benet from reduction of LDL cholesterol levels by 50% or greater than baseline levels even when already at prior target levels before therapy [4, 4345]. Table10.6 illustrates comparative statin potency and LDL reduction.
In the 2018 ACC/AHA multidisciplinary guideline for management of choles­terol, the addition of non-statin therapy with ezetimibe for LDL cholesterol reduc­tion can be considered for patients who are considered to have a very-high-risk ASCVD [43]. Very-high-risk ASCVD includes patients with multiple major ASCVD events or ASCVD in combination with multiple high-risk conditions (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, current smoking, persistent LDL elevation of 70mg/dL or greater despite high-intensity statin therapy) [43, 45]. Ezetimibe inhibits the absorp­tion of cholesterol at the brush border of the small intestine [4345]. Addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy further improves cardiovascular outcomes and reduces LDL cholesterol. Ezetimibe has a low risk for side effects and can lower LDL-C by 15–30% [4, 4346]. Furthermore, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor therapy could be considered for very-high-risk ASCVD patients who are already receiving statin therapy at the maximum tolerated dose in combina­tion with ezetimibe and when LDL remains 70mg/dL or greater [4, 4345]. PCSK9 binds to LDL receptors and promotes degradation within the liver. Circulating LDL is primarily cleared when bound to the LDLR; therefore, lower levels of LDLR result in increased levels of LDL-C.There are three agents available in the United States that reduce PCSK9 activity, which include alirocumab, evolocumab, and inclisiran. These agents have been observed to reduce LDL-C by 45–70%. Adverse effects observed are typically mild and include injection-site reactions and naso­pharyngitis. These are not usually therapies that are initiated during hospitalization due to cost and require insurance review and approval to conrm that patients will be able to obtain and afford them [4, 47].
Statin doses provided in the table were validated in the RCT and 2010 meta­analysis, which demonstrated reduced risk for major cardio
vascular events. Although higher doses of simvastatin (80mg) were previously studied and demon­strated benet, due to the increased risk for myopathy and rhabdomyolysis, the FDA does not recommend initiation or titration of simvastatin to 80mg dosing.
286
N. Barker et al.

10.7.3 Beta-Blockers

Long-term pharmacotherapy for acute coronary syndrome aims to decrease the risk for stent thrombosis, mortality, chest pain, and recurrence of cardiac events. Data supports the use of beta-blockers in patients who have chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, LVEF 40%); it reduces mortality as well as cardiovascular events. The benecial effects of beta-blockers do not appear to be dose dependent in this population. There is less data and experience regarding the effects of beta-blockers in patients without previous heart failure or acute coronary syndrome [4, 29, 48, 49]. Side effects associated with beta-blocker therapy are dose related and include fatigue, bradycardia, and postural hypotension [4, 29, 48].
Cardiovascular death or complications at 30days and 3-year follow-up were not reduced in retrospective evaluation of 755,215 national registry patients 65years of age or older with coronary artery disease undergoing elective PCI without a previ­ous history of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome [49]. Reduction in mortality and cardiovascular events was observed in patients undergoing CABG either with or without a history of acute coronary syndrome [4, 29, 4850]. The recommended duration of beta-blocker therapy is still unclear [4, 50, 51]. There is questionable benet for the use of beta-blocker therapy for greater than 1year in patients experi­encing STEMI or NSTEMI [4, 5254]. For patients who have left ventricular ejec­tion fraction 40%, specic beta-blockers are recommended based upon data demonstrating reduced mortality and improved cardiac function.
10.7.4 Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/Angiotensin
Receptor Blockers
Outcomes in post-MI patients who have hypertension, LVEF 40%, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes have also been improved by ACE inhibitors. In particular, initia­tion of ACE inhibitors post-MI has demonstrated a signicant reduction in mortality at 30days and ventricular remodeling [4, 12]. Valsartan, losartan, and candesartan are the ARBs determined to have benet in patients with HF or LVEF ≤40%, whereas all ACE inhibitors provide similar benet. Although ACE inhibitor or ARB transition to angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI, valsartan/sacubitril) is recommended through guideline-directed medication therapy for heart failure patients with LVEF 40%, trial data has not supported greater benet in post-MI patients. A recent trial failed to demonstrate that valsartan/sacubitril reduced the risk of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization due to symptomatic HF compared to ACE inhibitors. No difference was observed in the ARNI vs. ACE inhibitor group [55]. As a result, the guidelines recommend ACE inhibitor initiation in patients post-MI who have LVAD 40% over ARNI [4, 29].
10
Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS)
287

10.7.5 Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) block aldosterone binding to recep­tors in the distal renal tubules. As a result, sodium and water excretion is increased without loss of potassium and hydrogen ions. In addition, effects on arterial smooth muscle may also be blocked. Spironolactone administration in combination with ACE inhibitor early post-myocardial infarction was found to reduce left ventricular remodeling post-myocardial infarction [4, 12, 56]. There are two MRAs available, spironolactone and eplerenone. Side effects associated with MRAs include hyper­kalemia and impotence. Spironolactone is associated with a 10% risk of gyneco­mastia, whereas eplerenone is not. For patients who have experienced acute coronary syndrome and LVEF 40%, MRAs reduce collagen formation and remodeling of the ventricles of the heart [4, 12, 56, 57]. In patients who had experienced recent ACS and had LVEF 40% with heart failure symptoms, eplerenone has demon­strated reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular-related hospitalizations [57]. Spironolactone or eplerenone is started at 25mg daily and titrated up to 50mg daily, if tolerated. Eplerenone was further studied evaluating the safety and efcacy of early treatment in patients with acute MI without previous heart failure or reduced LVEF.The results demonstrated a reduction in the compos­ite end point for rehospitalization, sustained ventricular arrhythmia, elevated natri­uretic peptides, cardiovascular mortality, LVEF 40%, or extended hospitalization due to heart failure diagnosis [58].
The prevalence and consequences of ACS constitute the consideration of a medi­cal emergency. Immediate medical attention is vital to survival and improved out­comes in many cases. While non-pharmacological therapies are the primary form of management, concomitant pharmacological treatment is vital to preventing disease progression and improving outcomes. A variety of complications can occur or be exacerbated in relation to ACS.Management of these complications is often dynamic depending on the severity of ischemia experienced and preexisting medical condi­tions. Long-term medication management with goal-directed therapy improves sur­vival and cardiac outcomes. These therapies are often started in the intensive care unit and should be considered early in management as tolerated by the patient. Timely recognition, treatment, and secondary prevention are fundamental to patient outcomes.

References

1. Cardiovascular Diseases Fact Sheet. World Health Organization (WHO). June 2021. https://
www.who.int/news- room/fact- sheets/detail/cardiovascular- diseases- (cvds).
Heart
2.
3. Thygesen K, et al. Fourth universal denition of myocardial infarction. Circulation.
Disease and Stroke Statistics 2023 Update. American Heart Association (AHA). January 2023. https://professional.heart.org/en/science- news/heart- disease- and- stroke- statistics-
2023-
update.
2018;38(20):e618–51.
288
4. Byrne RA, etal. ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2023;2023(44):3720–826.
5. Gulati M, et al. 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain: a report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021;144(22):e368–454.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. Kontos MC, Turlington JS.High-sensitivity troponins in cardiovascular disease. Curr Cardiol
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
val Y, etal. Type 1 and 2 myocardial infarction and myocardial injury: clinical transition
Sando to high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I.Am J Med. 2017;130:1431–9.
farian D, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2016 update: a report from the
Mozaf American Heart Association. Circulation. 2016;133(4):e38–360.
olesova MV, Minor S.Silent myocardial infarction: a case report. Cureus. 2023;15(8):e43906.
K Nathanson L program for students and clinicians. http://ecg.bidmc.harvard.edu Cai Q, et tion guideline: from falsely declaring emergency to denying reperfusion in a high-risk popula­tion. Are the Sgarbossa criteria ready for prime time? Am Heart J. 2013;166(3):409–13.
Rep. 2020;22(5):30.
vine G, et al. 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI focused update on primary percutaneous coronary
Le intervention for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an update of the 2011 ACCF/ AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA guide­line for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. JACC. 2016;67(10):1235–50. Montalescot G, et N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1016–27. Meine nary syndromes: results from the CRUSADE quality improvement initiative. Am Heart J. 2005;149(6):1043–9. Bonin M, et cardial infarction. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(4):e006833. Jobs coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2017;390:737–46.
Lawton JS, etal. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: exec-
utive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145(3):e4–e17. Indications for brinolytic therap tive overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists’ (FTT) Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1994;343(8893):311–22.
vase [prescribing information]. South San Francisco, CA: Genentech, Inc.
Acti TNKase [prescribing information]. South San Francisco, CA: Genentech, Inc. Reta
Bivalirudin [prescribing information]. Princeton, NJ: Sandoz, Inc. Argatroban [prescribing information]. Princeton, NJ: Sandoz, Inc.
Efent [prescribing information]. Indianapolis, IN: Eli Lilly & Compan
vix [prescribing information]. Bridgewater, NJ: Bristol-Meyers Squibb/Sano, Inc.
Pla Partnership. Brilinta [prescribing information].
Kangreal [prescribing information]. Cary, NC: Chiesi, Inc.
Sulli JACC review topic of the week. JACC. 2021;78(15):1550–63. Byrne RA, et tary data. Eur Heart J. 2023;2023(00):1–52.
A, McClennen S, Safran C, Goldberger AL.ECG wave-maven: self-assessment
al. The left bundle-branch block puzzle in the 2013 ST-elevation myocardial infarc-
al. Prehospital ticagrelor in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
TJ, et al. Association of intravenous morphine use and outcomes in acute coro-
al. Effect and safety of morphine use in acute anterior ST-segment elevation myo-
A, etal. Optimal timing of an invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute
y in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collabora-
vase [prescribing information]. Cary, NC: Chiesi, Inc.
Wilmington, DE: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP.
van AE, et al. Bridging antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention:
al. ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes supplemen-
N. Barker et al.
Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS)
10
30. Rodevic G, etal. Acute pericarditis after percutaneous coronary intervention: a case report. Medicina. 2021;57:490.
31. Imazio M, etal. Incidence and prognostic signicance of new onset atrial brillation/utter in acute pericarditis. Heart. 2015;101:1463–7.
32.
Frampton J, et 2023;96:83–94.
33.
Thomsen tricular systolic dysfunction according to mode of revascularization: a cardiac arrhythmias and risk stratication after myocardial infarction (CARSIMA) study. Europace. 2021;23:616–23.
34.
Echt DS, et al. Mortality and morbidity in patients recei The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. NEJM. 1991;324(12):781-8.
35.
Damluji 2021;144:e16–35.
36.
Mahtta D, Ibrahim M, Elgendy IY myocardial infarction mechanical complications. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2022;11(3):322–4.
37.
Jenca D, et Fail. 2021;8:222–37.
38.
Smith SC, et coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2011 update. JACC. 2011;58(23):2432–46.
39. Virani SS, etal. 2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline for the management of patients with chronic coronary disease: a report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2023;148:e9–e119.
40. Wallentin L, etal. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(11):1045–57.
41. Wiviott SD, etal. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(20):2001–15.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
Windecker S, etal. Antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial brillation and acute coro-
, etal. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes without revascular-
Roe MT ization. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1297–309. Grundy SM, et PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol. Circulation. 2019;139:e1082–143. Stone NJ. 2017;69(22):2707–9. Smith SC Jr Pokhrel B, [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
books/NBK448100/.
Cannon CP Med. 2015;372(25):2387–97. Collete JP patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: supplementary data. Eur Heart J. 2020;00:1–35. Li C, et patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5:E004190. Gibson CM, et N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2423–34.
nary syndrome treated medically or with percutaneous coronary intervention or undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the AUGUSTUS trial. Circulation. 2019;140:1921–32.
al. Arrhythmias after acute myocardial infarction. Yale J Biol Med.
AF, etal. Risk of arrhythmias after myocardial infarction in patients with left ven-
ving encainide, ecainide, or placebo.
AA, et al. Mechanical complications of acute myocardial infarction. Circulation.
. Overview of prevalence, trends, and outcomes of post
al. Heart failure after myocardial infarction: incidence and predictors. ESC Heart
al. AHA/ACCF secondary prevention and risk reduction therapy for patients with
al. AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/
Statins in secondary prevention, intensity matters. J Am Coll Cardiol.
, etal. AHA/ACCF secondary prevention: 2011 update. JACC. 2011;23:2432–46.
Yuet WC, Levine SN.PCSK9 inhibitors. [Updated 2022 May 13]. In: StatPearls
, etal. Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J
, etal. 2020 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in
al. Relationship between b-blocker therapy at discharge and clinical outcomes in
al. Prevention of bleeding in patients with atrial brillation undergoing PCI.
289
290
52. Steg PG, etal. Low-dose vs standard-dose unfractionated heparin for percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes treated with fondaparinux: the FUTURA/OASIS-8 randomized trial. JAMA. 2010;304:1339–49.
53.
Lopes RD, et lation. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1509–24.
54. Dewilde WJ, etal. Uninterrupted oral anticoagulation versus bridging in patients with long­term oral anticoagulation during percutaneous coronary interv the WOEST trial. EuroIntervention. 2015;11:381–90.
55.
fer MA, etal. Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in acute myocardial infarction.
Pfef N Engl J Med. 2007;357(20):1845–55.
56.
Hayashi M, et ronolactone prevents post-infarct left ventricular remodeling associated with suppression of a marker of myocardial collagen synthesis in patients with rst anterior acute myocardial infarc­tion. Circulation. 2003;107:2559–65.
57.
Pitt B, et function after myocardial infarction. N Eng J Med. 2003;348(14):1309–21. EPHESUS.
58. Montalescot G, etal. Early eplerenone treatment in patients with acute ST-elevation myocar­dial infarction without heart failure: the randomized double-blind reminder study. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2295–302. REMINDER.
al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial bril-
ention: subgroup analysis from
al. Immediate administration of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spi-
al. Eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker, in patients with left ventricular dys-
N. Barker et al.
Chapter 11
Acute Decompensated Heart Failure
CaitlinE.Kulig

11.1 Introduction

Heart failure (HF) is an extremely common disease state with an overall poor prog­nosis, despite advancements in guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). With an aging population, the incidence of heart failure continues to grow in the United States and worldwide. An estimated 6.5million Americans over the age of 20 have heart failure, with an estimated 960,000 new heart failure cases per year. Heart fail­ure is a progressive disease and, by some estimates, contributes to roughly 36% of all cardiovascular deaths, with some studies citing that heart failure is mentioned in one in every eight death certicates [1]. Heart failure hospitalization, due to acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), is a sentinel event associated with a worse prognosis and a negative disease trajectory and remains a huge burden on both patients and the healthcare system [2]. Heart failure hospitalizations remain the number one cause of hospitalizations in Medicare patients and the most common cause of hospitalization in the United States for patients greater than 65years of age [3]. Heart failure hospitalization has the highest 30-day rehospitalization rate among all medical and surgical conditions, accounting for up to 26.9% of total readmission rates. HF costs the US healthcare system nearly 31billion dollars per year, and the costs are projected to increase by 50billion by 2030 [4].
The landscape of heart failure therapy has changed drastically in the past 30years, with a number of medication classes now found to decrease the incidence of mortality and morbidity in these patients. However, heart failure hospitalizations are still extremely common, and the practitioner must be prepared and familiar with the nuances of management of this specialized patient.
C. E. Kulig (*) Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers the State University of New Jersey, Piscataway New Jersey and St. Joseph’s University Medical Center, Paterson, NJ, USA e-mail: Caitlin.kulig@pharmacy.rutgers.edu
Switzerland AG 2025 Y. Alzaidi, M. A. Gebily (eds.), The Pharmacist’s Expanded Role in Critical Care Medicine, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-77335-8_11
291© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature