Misconceptions in acute heart failure diagnosis and Management in the Emergency Department - 16/08/18
, Alex Koyfman, MD b, Eric J. Chin, MD c 
Abstract |
Introduction |
Acute heart failure (AHF) accounts for a significant number of emergency department (ED) visits, and the disease may present along a spectrum with a variety of syndromes.
Objective |
This review evaluates several misconceptions concerning heart failure evaluation and management in the ED, followed by several pearls.
Discussion |
AHF is a heterogeneous syndrome with a variety of presentations. Physicians often rely on natriuretic peptides, but the evidence behind their use is controversial, and these should not be used in isolation. Chest radiograph is often considered the most reliable imaging test, but bedside ultrasound (US) provides a more sensitive and specific evaluation for AHF. Diuretics are a foundation of AHF management, but in pulmonary edema, these medications should only be provided after vasodilator administration, such as nitroglycerin. Nitroglycerin administered in high doses for pulmonary edema is safe and effective in reducing the need for intensive care unit admission. Though classically dopamine is the first vasopressor utilized in patients with hypotensive cardiogenic shock, norepinephrine is associated with improved outcomes and lower mortality. Disposition is complex in patients with AHF, and risk stratification tools in conjunction with other assessments allow physicians to discharge patients safely with follow up.
Conclusion |
A variety of misconceptions surround the evaluation and management of heart failure including clinical assessment, natriuretic peptide use, chest radiograph and US use, nitroglycerin and diuretics, vasopressor choice, and disposition. This review evaluates these misconceptions while providing physicians with updates in evaluation and management of AHF.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : Acute heart failure, Dyspnea, Vasodilator, Biomarker, Diuretic, Ultrasound, Disposition, Risk stratification
Plan
Vol 36 - N° 9
P. 1666-1673 - septembre 2018 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
