Aims Residual pulmonary congestion at hospital discharge can worsen the outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and can be detected by lung ultrasound (LUS). The aim of this study was to analyse the prevalence of subclinical pulmonary congestion at discharge and its impact on prognosis in patients admitted for acute HF. Methods and results This is a post-hoc analysis of the LUS-HF trial. LUS was performed by the investigators in eight chest zones with a pocket device. Physical exam was subsequently performed by the treating physicians. Primary outcome was a combined endpoint of rehospitalization, unexpected visit for HF worsening or death at 6- month follow-up. Subclinical pulmonary congestion at discharge was defined as the presence of ≥5 B-lines in LUS in absence of rales in the auscultation employing the area under the ROC curve. At discharge, 100 patients (81%) did not show clinical signs of pulmonary congestion. Of these, 41 had ≥5 B-lines. Independent factors related with the presence of subclinical pulmonary congestion were anaemia, higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). After adjusting by propensity score analysis including age, renal insufficiency, atrial fibrillation, NYHA class, NT-proBNP levels, clinical congestion, and the trial intervention, the presence of subclinical pulmonary congestion at discharge was a risk factor for the occurrence of the primary outcome (hazard ratio 2.63; 95% confidence interval: 1.08–6.41; P = 0.033). Conclusions Up to 40% of patients considered ‘dry’ according to pulmonary auscultation presents subclinical congestion at hospital discharge that can be detected by LUS and implies a worse prognosis at 6- month follow-up. Comorbidities, high values of natriuretic peptides, and higher NYHA class are the factors related with its presence.

Objectives The aim of this study was to analyse baseline characteristics and outcome of patients with heart failure and mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction (HFmrEF, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40%–49%) and the effect of 1-year change in LVEF in this group. Setting Multicentre prospective observational study of ambulatory patients with HF followed up at four university hospitals with dedicated HF units. Participants Fourteen per cent (n=504) of the 3580 patients included had HFmrEF. Interventions Baseline characteristics, 1-year LVEF and outcomes were collected. All-cause death, HF hospitalisation and the composite end-point were the primary outcomes. Results Median follow-up was 3.66 (1.69–6.04) years. All-cause death, HF hospitalisation and the composite end-point were 47%, 35% and 59%, respectively. Outcomes were worse in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (LVEF>50%), without differences between HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (LVEF<40%) and HFmrEF (all-cause mortality 52.6% vs 45.8% and 43.8%, respectively, P=0.001). After multivariable Cox regression analyses, no differences in all-cause death and the composite end-point were seen between the three groups. HF hospitalisation and cardiovascular death were not statistically different between patients with HFmrEF and HFrEF. At 1-year follow-up, 62% of patients with HFmrEF had LVEF measured: 24% had LVEF50%. While change in LVEF as continuous variable was not associated with better outcomes, those patients who evolved from HFmrEF to HFpEF did have a better outcome. Those who remained in the HFmrEF and HFrEF groups had higher all-cause mortality after adjustment for age, sex and baseline LVEF (HR 1.96 (95% CI 1.08 to 3.54, P=0.027) and HR 2.01 (95% CI 1.04 to 3.86, P=0.037), respectively). Conclusions Patients with HFmrEF have a clinical profile in-between HFpEF and HFrEF, without differences in all-cause mortality and the composite end-point between the three groups. At 1 year, patients with HFmrEF exhibited the greatest variability in LVEF and this change was associated with survival.

Background: Current electrocardiographic algorithms lack sensitivity to diagnose acute myocardial infarction ( AMI ) in the presence of left bundle branch block. Methods and Results: A multicenter retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients with suspected AMI and left bundle branch block, referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention between 2009 and 2018. Pre‐2015 patients formed the derivation cohort (n=163, 61 with AMI ); patients between 2015 and 2018 formed the validation cohort (n=107, 40 with AMI ). A control group of patients without suspected AMI was also studied (n=214). Different electrocardiographic criteria were tested. A total of 484 patients were studied. A new electrocardiographic algorithm ( BARCELONA algorithm) was derived and validated. The algorithm is positive in the presence of ST deviation ≥1 mm (0.1 mV) concordant with QRS polarity, in any lead, or ST deviation ≥1 mm (0.1 mV) discordant with the QRS , in leads with max (R|S) voltage (the voltage of the largest deflection of the QRS , ie, R or S wave) ≤6 mm (0.6 mV). In both the derivation and the validation cohort, the BARCELONA algorithm achieved the highest sensitivity (93%–95%), negative predictive value (96%–97%), efficiency (91%–94%) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.92–0.93), significantly higher than previous electrocardiographic rules ( P <0.01); the specificity was good in both groups (89%–94%) as well as the control group (90%). Conclusions: In patients with left bundle branch block referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention , the BARCELONA algorithm was specific and highly sensitive for the diagnosis of AMI , leading to a diagnostic accuracy comparable to that obtained by ECG in patients without left bundle branch block.

Objectives: This pilot trial evaluated the feasibility and safety of an early discharge strategy (EDS: ≤72 h, followed by outpatient lifestyle interventions), in comparison with a conventional discharge strategy (CDS) for low-risk (Zwolle risk score ≤3) ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients treated with primary angioplasty. Methods: One hundred patients were randomized to an EDS (n = 54) or a CDS (n = 46). The primary end point was the feasibility of the EDS: (1) ≥70% of EDS patients discharged ≤72 h, (2) ≥70% visited by a nurse ≤7 days after discharge, (3) ≥70% with ≥3 visits by the nurse and (4) ≥70% visited by a cardiologist ≤3 months. Results: The mean age was 59.2 ± 12.2 years and ejection fraction 54.0 ± 7.1%. Eighty-six percent were male (12% diabetics). Vascular access was radial in 91%. Ischemic time was ≤4 h in 75%. Length of stay was shorter in EDS as compared with CDS (70.1 ± 8.1 vs. 111.8 ± 28.3 h, p < 0.001). EDS feasibility was: (1) 72.2%; (2) 81.5%; (3) 76.9%; (4) 72.2%. There were no adverse events or differences in intervention goals and quality of life between groups. Conclusions: An EDS in low-risk STEMI patients is feasible and seems to be safe. A shorter hospital stay could benefit patients and health care systems.