4.5 Review

Recommendations on pre-hospital & early hospital management of acute heart failure: a consensus paper from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the European Society of Emergency Medicine and the Society of Academic Emergency Medicine

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 544-558

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.289

关键词

Acute heart failure; cardiogenic shock; diuretics; vasodilators

资金

  1. Bayer
  2. Cardiorentis
  3. Medicine Company
  4. Critical Diagnostics
  5. Novartis
  6. Steering Committee member of Cardiorentis
  7. TUBITAK
  8. Medicines Company
  9. Cornerstone Therapeutics
  10. Otsuka
  11. Janssen
  12. Apex Innovations
  13. Inte-Section Medical
  14. Trevena
  15. Vifor Pharma Ltd
  16. Amgen
  17. Servier
  18. Abbott Vascular
  19. Coridea
  20. Respicardia
  21. Swiss National Science Foundation
  22. Swiss Heart Foundation
  23. Cardiovascular Research Foundation Basel
  24. 8sense
  25. Abbott
  26. ALERE
  27. Brahms
  28. Nanosphere
  29. Roche
  30. Siemens
  31. University Hospital Basel
  32. Astra Zeneca
  33. BG medicine
  34. Biomerieux
  35. Lilly
  36. Orion
  37. Resmed
  38. Roche Diagnostics
  39. Ratiopharm
  40. BMS
  41. Boehringer-Ingelheim
  42. Pfizer
  43. Daiichi Sankyo
  44. Boehinger Ingelheim
  45. AstraZeneca
  46. European Union

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute heart failure is a fatal syndrome. Emergency physicians, cardiologists, intensivists, nurses and other health care providers have to cooperate to provide optimal benefit. However, many treatment decisions are opinion-based and few are evidenced-based. This consensus paper provides guidance to practicing physicians and nurses to manage acute heart failure in the pre-hospital and hospital setting. Criteria of hospitalization and of discharge are described. Gaps in knowledge and perspectives in the management of acute heart failure are also detailed. This consensus paper on acute heart failure might help enable contiguous practice.

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