INTRODUCTIONDevice therapy is efficacious in preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with reduced ejection fraction. However, few who need the device eventually opt to undergo implantation and even fewer reconsider their decisions after deliberation. This is due to many factors, including unresolved patient barriers. This study identified the factors that influenced patients' decision to decline implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation, and those that influenced patients who initially declined an implant to reconsider having one.

METHODSA single-centre survey was conducted among 240 patients who had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and met the ICD implantation criteria, but had declined ICD implantation.

RESULTSParticipants who refused ICD implantation were mostly male (84%), Chinese (71%), married (72%), currently employed (54%), and had up to primary or secondary education (78%) and monthly income of < SGD 3,000 (51%). Those who were more likely to reconsider their decision were aware that SCD was a consequence of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, knowledgeable of the preventive role of ICDs, currently employed and aware that their doctor strongly recommended the implant. Based on multivariate analysis, knowledge of the role of ICDs for primary prophylaxis was the most important factor influencing patient decision.

CONCLUSIONThis study identified the demographic and social factors of patients who refused ICD therapy. Knowledge of the role of ICDs in preventing SCD was found to be the strongest marker for reconsidering ICD implantation. Measures to address this information gap may lead to higher rates of ICD implantation.

Cross-Sectional Studies ; Death, Sudden, Cardiac ; prevention & control ; Defibrillators, Implantable ; Female ; Heart Failure ; mortality ; physiopathology ; therapy ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Primary Prevention ; methods ; Risk Factors ; Singapore ; epidemiology ; Stroke Volume ; physiology ; Survival Rate ; trends

INTRODUCTIONDiuretics are the mainstay of therapy for restoring the euvolaemic state in patients with decompensated heart failure. However, diuretic resistance remains a challenge.

METHODSWe conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine the efficacy and safety of ultrafiltration (UF) in 44 hospitalised patients who had decompensated heart failure and diuretic resistance between October 2011 and July 2013.

RESULTSAmong the 44 patients, 18 received UF (i.e. UF group), while 26 received diuretics (i.e. standard care group). After 48 hours, the UF group achieved lower urine output (1,355 mL vs. 3,815 mL, p = 0.0003), greater fluid loss (5,058 mL vs. 1,915 mL, p < 0.0001) and greater weight loss (5.0 kg vs. 1.0 kg, p < 0.0001) than the standard care group. The UF group also had a shorter duration of hospitalisation (5.0 days vs. 9.5 days, p = 0.0010). There were no differences in the incidence of 30-day emergency department visits and rehospitalisations for heart failure between the two groups. At 90 days, the UF group had fewer emergency department visits (0.2 vs. 0.8, p = 0.0500) and fewer rehospitalisations for heart failure (0.3 vs. 1.0, p = 0.0442). Reduction in EQ-5D™ scores was greater in the UF group, both at discharge (2.7 vs. 1.4, p = 0.0283) and 30 days (2.5 vs. 0.3, p = 0.0033). No adverse events were reported with UF.

CONCLUSIONUF is an effective and safe treatment that can improve the health outcomes of Asian patients with decompensated heart failure and diuretic resistance.

Aged ; Diuretics ; therapeutic use ; Drug Resistance ; Emergency Service, Hospital ; Female ; Heart Failure ; therapy ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Patient Readmission ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome ; Ultrafiltration