The current standard of care for heart failure (HF) is guideline-directed medical therapy combined with device-based interventions in eligible patients. However, many patients experience progressive deterioration in their HF status that warrants additional intervention. Consequently, each year, the lack of efficient treatment options for more than 75% of new heart failure patients leaves about 200,000 waiting for their disease to worsen while their health and quality of life deteriorate. While there have been many advances over the years, it is becoming increasingly clear that medical devices, including mechanical circulatory support, will enhance HF management and improve patient outcomes.
The development of new device technologies associated with tailored medical management will likely play a significant role in extending and saving patient lives while improving their quality of life.
The cornerstone of successful therapy with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is timely and appropriate patient selection. This requires patient evaluation based on severity of the heart failure (HF), operative risk, psychosocial stability, and ability to adhere to the post-MCS self-care regimen. Two statistical models are available for individual patient risk quantification: the Heart Failure Survival Score which identifies ambulatory patients with severe heart failure who are potential candidates for transplantation or MCS and the The Seattle Heart Failure Model which is predictive of mortality in HF and may be used to identify at-risk patients. However, both models have limitations. In this context, the Heart Failure Survival Score validity is limited because it was devised in an era that preceded the use of spironolactone, defibrillators, and biventricular pacemakers while the Seattle Heart Failure Model overestimate survival when used to stratify advanced HF patients. Due to the recent updates in clinical guidelines and technological developments, a new and updated risk model for patients with HF is mandatory. The goal of this Research Topic is collected innovative devices for the treatment of HF and provide evidence and a new risk score for patients with HF.
This Research Topic welcome innovative manuscripts and updated reviews and meta-analysis on the following topics:
- Risk scores/models for Heart Failure Treatment.
- Life Quality in Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.
- Expanding Clinical Indications for Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.
- Innovative Technological Developments for Left Heart Failure Treatment.
- Innovative Technological Developments for Right Heart Failure Treatment.
The current standard of care for heart failure (HF) is guideline-directed medical therapy combined with device-based interventions in eligible patients. However, many patients experience progressive deterioration in their HF status that warrants additional intervention. Consequently, each year, the lack of efficient treatment options for more than 75% of new heart failure patients leaves about 200,000 waiting for their disease to worsen while their health and quality of life deteriorate. While there have been many advances over the years, it is becoming increasingly clear that medical devices, including mechanical circulatory support, will enhance HF management and improve patient outcomes.
The development of new device technologies associated with tailored medical management will likely play a significant role in extending and saving patient lives while improving their quality of life.
The cornerstone of successful therapy with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is timely and appropriate patient selection. This requires patient evaluation based on severity of the heart failure (HF), operative risk, psychosocial stability, and ability to adhere to the post-MCS self-care regimen. Two statistical models are available for individual patient risk quantification: the Heart Failure Survival Score which identifies ambulatory patients with severe heart failure who are potential candidates for transplantation or MCS and the The Seattle Heart Failure Model which is predictive of mortality in HF and may be used to identify at-risk patients. However, both models have limitations. In this context, the Heart Failure Survival Score validity is limited because it was devised in an era that preceded the use of spironolactone, defibrillators, and biventricular pacemakers while the Seattle Heart Failure Model overestimate survival when used to stratify advanced HF patients. Due to the recent updates in clinical guidelines and technological developments, a new and updated risk model for patients with HF is mandatory. The goal of this Research Topic is collected innovative devices for the treatment of HF and provide evidence and a new risk score for patients with HF.
This Research Topic welcome innovative manuscripts and updated reviews and meta-analysis on the following topics:
- Risk scores/models for Heart Failure Treatment.
- Life Quality in Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.
- Expanding Clinical Indications for Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.
- Innovative Technological Developments for Left Heart Failure Treatment.
- Innovative Technological Developments for Right Heart Failure Treatment.
