Evaluating dyspnoea in acute heart failure: progress at last!

This editorial refers to ‘The impact of early standard therapy on dyspnoea in patients with acute heart failure: the URGENT-dyspnoea study’[†][1], by A. Mebazaa et al. on page 832 It is remarkable how little we know about dyspnoea, the most common symptom experienced by patients with acute heart failure.1,2 The innovative and important study reported by Mebazaa et al. makes for fascinating reading and raises important questions for clinical research and also for clinical practice.3 We simply do not know how to measure dyspnoea in acute heart failure and whether the commonly used instruments are sensitive to change, i.e. able to detect the effect of treatment.1 Indeed, there are few studies on this question in chronic heart failure either.4 Despite this, the scientific community, industry, and regulators have already tested and rejected new treatments, at least partly on the basis of failing to improve dyspnoea more … *Corresponding author. Tel: +44 141 330 3479, Fax: +44 141 330 6955, Email: j.mcmurray{at}bio.gla.ac.uk [1]: #fn-1

[1]  K. Sliwa,et al.  The impact of early standard therapy on dyspnoea in patients with acute heart failure: the URGENT-dyspnoea study. , 2010, European heart journal.

[2]  A. Mebazaa,et al.  How to measure dyspnea in acute heart failure? , 2009, Therapeutische Umschau. Revue therapeutique.

[3]  I. Piña,et al.  Phase III clinical trial end points in acute heart failure syndromes: a virtual roundtable with the Acute Heart Failure Syndromes International Working Group. , 2009, American heart journal.

[4]  M. Gheorghiade,et al.  A proposal to standardize dyspnoea measurement in clinical trials of acute heart failure syndromes: the need for a uniform approach. , 2008, European heart journal.

[5]  C. O'connor,et al.  Effects of tezosentan on symptoms and clinical outcomes in patients with acute heart failure: the VERITAS randomized controlled trials. , 2007, JAMA.

[6]  A. Ries,et al.  Minimally Clinically Important Difference for the UCSD Shortness of Breath Questionnaire, Borg Scale, and Visual Analog Scale , 2005, COPD.

[7]  N. Leidy,et al.  Bridging the Gap: Using Triangulation Methodology to Estimate Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCIDs) , 2005, COPD.

[8]  J. Teerlink Dyspnea as an end point in clinical trials of therapies for acute decompensated heart failure. , 2003, American heart journal.

[9]  D. Karras,et al.  Clinically meaningful changes in quantitative measures of asthma severity. , 2000, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[10]  J. McMurray,et al.  A comparison of the reproducibility and the sensitivity to change of visual analogue scales, Borg scales, and Likert scales in normal subjects during submaximal exercise. , 1999, Chest.

[11]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.