4.5 Review

Iron therapy for the treatment of iron deficiency in chronic heart failure: intravenous or oral?

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 248-262

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.236

关键词

Iron deficiency; Iron; Heart failure; Anaemia; Intravenous; Oral; Quality of life

资金

  1. Vifor Pharma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article considers the use and modality of iron therapy to treat iron deficiency in patients with heart failure, an aspect of care which has received relatively little attention compared with the wider topic of anaemia management. Iron deficiency affects up to 50% of heart failure patients, and is associated with poor quality of life, impaired exercise tolerance, and mortality independent of haematopoietic effects in this patient population. The European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for heart failure 2012 recommend a diagnostic work-up for iron deficiency in patients with suspected heart failure. Iron absorption from oral iron preparations is generally poor, with slow and often inefficient iron repletion; moreover, up to 60% of patients experience gastrointestinal side effects. These problems may be exacerbated in heart failure due to decreased gastrointestinal absorption and poor compliance due to pill burden. Evidence for clinical benefits using oral iron is lacking. I.v. iron sucrose has consistently been shown to improve exercise capacity, cardiac function, symptom severity, and quality of life. Similar findings were observed recently for i.v. ferric carboxymaltose in patients with systolic heart failure and impaired LVEF in the double-blind, placebo-controlled FAIR-HF and CONFIRM-HF trials. I.v. iron therapy may be better tolerated than oral iron, although confirmation in longer clinical trials is awaited. Routine diagnosis and management of iron deficiency in patients with symptomatic heart failure regardless of anaemia status is advisable, and, based on current evidence, prompt intervention using i.v. iron therapy should now be considered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据