2019 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Risk Assessment, Management, and Clinical Trajectory of Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: disease burden for patients, caregivers, and the health-care system

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) will soon become the most prevalent form of HF because of an aging population and an accompanying increase in the number of risk factors for this disease. The high frequency of comorbidities typical of this population contributes to an increased risk for hospitalization and death. It is also partially responsible for the symptomatic deterioration that results in hospitalization and impaired quality of life and functional capacity in patients. The effects of HFpEF are felt by patients and their caregivers, who might experience detriment to their own health and their social and working lives. Financial burden is associated with HFpEF, stemming from hospitalization and long-term care costs, as well as absenteeism from work in the case of caregivers. Early identification of patients at risk and aggressive management are key to preventing this disease and its progression.

Integrating remote monitoring into heart failure patients' care regimen: A pilot study

Background

Around 50% of hospital readmissions due to heart failure are preventable, with lack of adherence to prescribed self-care as a driving factor. Remote tracking and reminders issued by mobile health devices could help to promote self-care, which could potentially reduce these readmissions.

Objective

We sought to investigate two factors: (1) feasibility of enrolling heart failure patients in a remote monitoring regimen that uses wireless sensors and patient-reported outcome measures; and (2) their adherence to using the study devices and completing patient-reported outcome measures.

Methods

Twenty heart failure patients participated in piloting a remote monitoring regimen. Data collection included: (1) physical activity using wrist-worn activity trackers; (2) body weight using bathroom scales; (3) medication adherence using smart pill bottles; and (4) patient -reported outcomes using patient-reported outcome measures.

Results

We evaluated 150 hospitalized heart failure patients and enrolled 20 individuals. Two factors contributed to 50% (65/130) being excluded from the study: smartphone ownership and patient discharge. Over the course of the study, 60.0% of the subjects wore the activity tracker for at least 70% of the hours, and 45.0% used the scale for more than 70% of the days. The pill bottle was used less than 10% of the days by 55.0% of the subjects.

Conclusions

Our method of recruiting heart failure patients prior to hospital discharge may not be feasible as the enrollment rate was low. Once enrolled, the majority of subjects maintained a high adherence to wearing the activity tracker but low adherence to using the pill bottle and completing the follow-up surveys. Scale usage was fair, but it received positive reviews from most subjects. Given the observed usage and feedback, we suggest mobile health-driven interventions consider including an activity tracker and bathroom scale. We also recommend administering a shorter survey more regularly and through an easier interface.

Standardized definitions for evaluation of heart failure therapies: scientific expert panel from the Heart Failure Collaboratory and Academic Research Consortium

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and Academic Research Consortium (ARC), comprised of leading heart failure (HF) academic research investigators, patients, United States (US) Food and Drug Administration representatives, and industry members from the US and Europe. A series of meetings were convened to establish definitions and key concepts for the evaluation of HF therapies including optimal medical and device background therapy, clinical trial design elements and statistical concepts, and study endpoints. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel discussions as consensus recommendations focused on populations and endpoint definitions; it is not exhaustive or restrictive, but designed to stimulate HF clinical trial innovation.

Prognostic Understanding and Preference for the Communication Process with Physicians in Hospitalized Heart Failure Patients

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is a highly prevalent, heterogeneous, and life-threatening condition. Precise prognostic understanding is essential for effective decision making, but little is known about patients' attitudes toward prognostic communication with their physicians.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a questionnaire survey, consisting of patients' prognostic understanding, preferences for information disclosure, and depressive symptoms, among hospitalized patients with HF (92 items in total). Individual 2-year survival rates were calculated using the Seattle Heart Failure Model, and its agreement level with patient self-expectations of 2-year survival were assessed. A total of 113 patients completed the survey (male 65.5%, median age 75.0 years, interquartile range 66.0-81.0 years). Compared with the Seattle Heart Failure Model prediction, patient expectation of 2-year survival was matched only in 27.8% of patients; their agreement level was low (weighted kappa = 0.11). Notably, 50.9% wished to know "more," although 27.7% felt that they did not have an adequate prognostic discussion. Compared with the known prognostic variables (eg, age and HF severity), logistic regression analysis demonstrated that female and less depressive patients were associated with patients' preference for "more" prognostic discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' overall prognostic understanding was suboptimal. The communication process requires further improvement for patients to accurately understand their HF prognosis and be involved in making a better informed decision.

The Role of Adherence to Basic Pharmacotherapy of Heart Failure for Prevention of Late Adverse Events in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction After Surgical Revascularization of Myocardium

Aim. To determine the role of adherence to the basic drug treatment of heart failure (HF) in prevention of late major adverse events (MAEs) after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction at three-year follow-up.

Material and methods. A prospective non-controlled single-center study included 125 consecutive patients with stable CAD and LV EF<50% (62±8 years; 114 [91.2%] males), after isolated CABG. At three-year follow-up MAЕs occurred in 40 (32.0%) patients. The data on pharmacotherapy at followup were obtained in 124 patients: 85 (68.6%) patients without MAEs and 39 (31.4%) patients with MAEs.

Results. The enrolled sample of patients was characterized by high discharge prescription rate of renin-angiotensin system (RAS; 86.3%) blockers (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-II receptors blockers), beta-blockers (BBs; 97.6%) and mineralocorticoid receptors antagonists (MRAs; 79.0%), being comparable in MAEs and non-MAEs groups. The total coverage of basic HF pharmacotherapy (the combination of RAS blockers, BBs and MRAs) at discharge was 66.1%. At follow-up, about one third of patients in both groups withheld previously prescribed triple HF therapy. The MAEs were associated with more frequent withhold of previously prescribed RAS blockers, as opposed to patients without MAEs (20.5% and 7.1%, respectively; р=0.009). The majority of patients in both groups continued BBs therapy at follow-up (95.0% and 92.9%, respectively; p=0.187). Additionally, we observed the decline of MRAs intake frequency at follow-up (to 43.6% and 49.4%, respectively; p=0.547).

Conclusion. During 3-year follow-up after isolated CABG, about one third of patients with stable CAD and baseline LVEF<50% interrupted triple basic HF therapy (including RAS blockers, BBs and MRAs), mainly due to decrease of RAS blockers and MRAs usage. MAEs in patients with stable CAD and baseline LVEF<50% after CABG were associated with suboptimal use and more frequent interruption of RAS blockers.

Palliative Care in Acute Heart Failure

Purpose of Review

Palliative care is increasingly acknowledged as beneficial in supporting patients and families affected by heart failure, but policy documents have generally focused on the chronic form of this disease. We examined palliative care provision for those with acute heart failure, based on the recently updated National Consensus Project Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care.

Recent Findings

The commonest reason for hospitalization in those > 65 years, acute heart failure admissions delineate crisis points on the unpredictable disease trajectory. Palliative care is underutilized, often perceived as limited to end-of-life care rather than determined by regular systematic needs assessment. No dominant paradigm of palliative care provision has emerged from the nascent evidence base related to this clinical cohort, underscoring the need for further research.

Summary

Embedding palliative support as mainstream to heart failure care from the point of diagnosis may better ensure treatment strategies for those admitted with acute heart failure remain consistent with patients’ preferences and values.

Consensus and development of document for management of stabilized acute decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in India

Aim

Ensuring adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is an effective strategy to reduce mortality and readmission rates for heart failure (HF). Use of a checklist is one of the best tools to ensure GDMT. The aim was to develop a consensus document with a robust checklist for stabilized acute decompensated HF patients with reduced ejection fraction. While there are multiple checklists available, an India-specific checklist that is easy to fill and validated by regional and national subject matter experts (SMEs) is required.

Methodology

A total of 25 Cardiology SMEs who consented to participate from India discussed data from literature, current evidence, international guidelines and practical experiences in two national and four regional meetings.

Results

Recommendations included HF management, treatment optimization, and patient education. The checklist should be filled at four time points- (a) transition from intensive care unit to ward, (b) at discharge, (c) 1st follow-up and (d) subsequent follow-up. The checklist is the responsibility of the consultant or the treating physician which can be delegated to a junior resident or a trained HF nurse.

Conclusion

This checklist will ensure GDMT, simplify transition of care and can be used by all doctors across India. Institutions, associations, and societies should recommend this checklist for adaptability in public and private hospital. Hospital administrations should roll out policy for adoption of checklist by ensuring patient files have the checklist at the time of discharge and encourage practice of filling it diligently during follow-up visits.

Cost-utility analysis of add-on dapagliflozin treatment in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Dapagliflozin is an antidiabetic medication that has been shown to reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study aimed to determine the cost-utility of add-on dapagliflozin treatment for HFrEF.

METHODS

An analytical decision model was constructed to assess lifetime costs and outcomes from a healthcare system perspective. The cohort comprised HFrEF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV with an average age of 65 years. Clinical inputs were derived from the results of the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) trial. Risk of non-cardiovascular death data, readmission rate data, and treatment-related cost data were based on Thai population. The outcomes and costs were discounted at 3% annually. A series of sensitivity analyses were also conducted.

RESULTS

The increased cost of dapagliflozin add-on treatment from 17,442 THB (559 USD) to 54,405 THB (1745 USD) was associated with a QALY gain from 6.33 to 6.92 compared to standard therapy, yielding an ICER of 62,090 THB/QALY (1991 USD/QALY). Sensitivity analyses revealed that the addition of dapagliflozin to the standard treatment demonstrated an 87% cost-effectiveness strategy at a level of willingness to pay (WTP) of 160,000 THB/QALY (5131 USD/QALY). ICER was higher in non-diabetes compared to diabetes (68,304 vs 47,613 THB/QALY or 2191 vs 1527 USD/QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Dapagliflozin is a cost-effective add-on therapy for patients with HFrEF at a WTP of 160,000 THB/QALY (5131 USD/QALY).

NT-proBNP Response to Sacubitril/Valsartan in Hospitalized Heart Failure Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction: TRANSITION Study

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels and determined patient characteristics associated with favorable NT-proBNP reduction response.

BACKGROUND

NT-proBNP levels reflect cardiac wall stress and predict event risk in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF).

METHODS

Post-hoc analysis of the TRANSITION (Comparison of Pre- and Post-discharge Initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy in HFrEF Patients After an Acute Decompensation Event) study, including stabilized ADHF patients with reduced ejection fraction, randomized to open-label sacubitril/valsartan initiation in-hospital (pre-discharge) versus post-discharge. NT-proBNP was measured at randomization (baseline), discharge, and 4 and 10 weeks post-randomization. A favorable NT-proBNP response was defined as reduction to ≤1,000 pg/ml or >30% from baseline.

RESULTS

In patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan in-hospital, NT-proBNP was reduced by 28% at discharge, with 46% of patients obtaining favorable NT-proBNP reduction response compared with a 4% reduction and 18% favorable response rate in patients initiated post-discharge (p < 0.001). NT-proBNP was reduced similarly in patients initiating sacubitril/valsartan pre- and post-discharge (reduction at 4 weeks: 25%/22%; 10 weeks: 38%/34%) with comparable favorable response rates (46%/42% and 51%/48% at 4 and 10 weeks, respectively). NT-proBNP favorable response at 4 weeks was associated with lower risk of first heart failure (HF) rehospitalization or cardiovascular death through 26 weeks (hazard ratio: 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38 to 0.86; p = 0.007). Predictors of a favorable response at 4 weeks were starting dose ≥49/51 mg twice daily, higher baseline NT-proBNP, lower baseline serum creatinine, de novo HF, no atrial fibrillation, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-naive or angiotensin receptor blocker-naive, and no prior myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan produced rapid reductions in NT-proBNP, statistically significant at discharge. A favorable NT-proBNP response over time was associated with a better prognosis and predicted by higher starting dose and predisposing clinical profile. (Comparison of Pre- and Post-discharge Initiation of LCZ696 Therapy in HFrEF Patients After an Acute Decompensation Event [TRANSITION]; NCT02661217).

Decompensation in Critical Care: Early Prediction of Acute Heart Failure Onset

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Acute heart failure, broadly defined as rapid onset of new or worsening signs and symptoms of heart failure, often requires hospitalization and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). This acute condition is highly heterogeneous and less well-understood as compared to chronic heart failure. The ICU, through detailed and continuously monitored patient data, provides an opportunity to retrospectively analyze decompensation and heart failure to evaluate physiological states and patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study is to examine the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors among those admitted to ICUs and to evaluate combinations of clinical features that are predictive of decompensation events, such as the onset of acute heart failure, using machine learning techniques. To accomplish this objective, we leveraged tele-ICU data from over 200 hospitals across the United States.

METHODS

We evaluated the feasibility of predicting decompensation soon after ICU admission for 26,534 patients admitted without a history of heart failure with specific heart failure risk factors (ie, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and myocardial infarction) and 96,350 patients admitted without risk factors using remotely monitored laboratory, vital signs, and discrete physiological measurements. Multivariate logistic regression and random forest models were applied to predict decompensation and highlight important features from combinations of model inputs from dissimilar data.

RESULTS

The most prevalent risk factor in our data set was hypertension, although most patients diagnosed with heart failure were admitted to the ICU without a risk factor. The highest heart failure prediction accuracy was 0.951, and the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.9503 with random forest and combined vital signs, laboratory values, and discrete physiological measurements. Random forest feature importance also highlighted combinations of several discrete physiological features and laboratory measures as most indicative of decompensation. Timeline analysis of aggregate vital signs revealed a point of diminishing returns where additional vital signs data did not continue to improve results.

CONCLUSIONS

Heart failure risk factors are common in tele-ICU data, although most patients that are diagnosed with heart failure later in an ICU stay presented without risk factors making a prediction of decompensation critical. Decompensation was predicted with reasonable accuracy using tele-ICU data, and optimal data extraction for time series vital signs data was identified near a 200-minute window size. Overall, results suggest combinations of laboratory measurements and vital signs are viable for early and continuous prediction of patient decompensation.

A Systematic Review on the Use of Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiated Prior to Discharge in Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure

OBJECTIVE

Systematically review the evidence of sacubitril/valsartan initiated in the hospital setting prior to discharge in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF).

DATA SOURCES

A literature search using keywords related to sacubitril/valsartan, HF, and inpatient use was performed using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Google Scholar from inception through May 8, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Eligible studies included patients initiated on sacubitril/valsartan while inpatient and reported efficacy and safety outcomes.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 10 articles were included for study review, of which 9 were full text and 1 was a conference poster. Key outcomes of interest were related to tolerability, N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), functional capacity, target dose attainment, or rehospitalization rates. NT-proBNP levels were improved in 4 trials, and the results of functional capacity were mixed based on 2 studies. Rehospitalization rates were reported as secondary outcomes, and only 1 large study showed numerical and statistical improvement. The most frequent dose initiated prior to discharge was sacubitril/valsartan 24/26 mg twice daily. Hypotension was the most commonly reported adverse drug reaction and was commonly cited as a reason for not tolerating inpatient initiation with sacubitril/valsartan therapy.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Inpatient initiation of sacubitril/valsartan may improve surrogate and clinical outcomes after hemodynamic stabilization. Clinicians should consider patient-specific factors to ensure that benefits outweigh the risks and monitor for hypotension when initiated prior to hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

Initiating inpatient treatment with sacubitril/valsartan after hemodynamic stabilization is reasonable based on available evidence.

Cardiac biomarkers of heart failure in chronic kidney disease

Heart failure remains a continuing threat to patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although various heart failure biomarkers have been applied for early detection, diagnosis and prognosis in CKD, these are easily affected by renal insufficiency thus limiting use in these patients. In this review, the major four groups of heart failure biomarkers are explored. These include those associated with: myocardial stretch, ie, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP) and mid-regional proatrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP); myocyte injury, ie, high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), heart-type fatty acid-binding protein (H-FABP); fibrosis, matrix remodelling and inflammation, ie, soluble growth stimulating gene 2 (sST2), galectin-3 (Gal-3), growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15); and renal function, ie, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), cystatin C (CysC), urinary sodium and urinary albumin. This review highlights classic heart failure biomarkers with critical values adjusted to glomerular filtration rate, summarizes research progress of new heart failure biomarkers and future research directions. Because diagnostic and prognostic usefulness of a single time point biomarker is limited, biomarkers should be combined and monitored at multiple times for optimal clinical impact.

Multimodality Imaging in Evaluation of Cardiovascular Complications in Patients With COVID-19: JACC Scientific Expert Panel

Standard evaluation and management of the patient with suspected or proven cardiovascular complications of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome related-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is challenging. Routine history, physical examination, laboratory testing, electrocardiography, and plain x-ray imaging may often suffice for such patients, but given overlap between COVID-19 and typical cardiovascular diagnoses such as heart failure and acute myocardial infarction, need frequently arises for advanced imaging techniques to assist in differential diagnosis and management. This document provides guidance in several common scenarios among patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection and possible cardiovascular involvement, including chest discomfort with electrocardiographic changes, acute hemodynamic instability, newly recognized left ventricular dysfunction, as well as imaging during the subacute/chronic phase of COVID-19. For each, the authors consider the role of biomarker testing to guide imaging decision-making, provide differential diagnostic considerations, and offer general suggestions regarding application of various advanced imaging techniques.

Transitioning Patients with Heart Failure to Outpatient Care

The transition from hospitalization to outpatient care is a vulnerable time for patients with heart failure. This requires specific focus on the transitional care period. Here the authors propose a framework to guide process improvement in the transitional care period. The authors extend this framework by (1) examining the role new technology might play in transitional care, and (2) offering practical advice for teams building transitional care programs.

Advances in the Management of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Patients hospitalized for heart failure pose a considerable clinical and financial burden on the health care system. Early recognition and deep phenotyping of heart failure for reduced and preserved ejection fraction syndromes facilitate the introduction of appropriate guideline-directed therapy and decongestion strategies to help improve heart failure morbidity and mortality. Robust and safe transitions of care programs are needed to deliver adequate care and improve overall survival.

Hospital meal intake in acute heart failure patients and its association with long-term outcomes

Background

Risk prediction for hospitalised heart failure (HF, HHF) patients remains suboptimal. We aimed to determine the prognostic value of hospital food intake (FI) immediately before discharge among HHF patients.

Method

We analysed the data of 255 HHF patients extracted from the records of a single university hospital. The FI percentage of the three meals the day before hospital discharge was averaged. Patients were stratified into adequate FI (100% consumption) and inadequate FI (less than 100% consumption) groups. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality and/or HF readmission within 1 year.

Results

Only 49.3% of HHF patients consumed 100% of their meals. Patients with inadequate FI were older; predominantly women; and had a lower body mass index, higher brain natriuretic peptide levels and Clinical Frailty Scale scores at discharge than those with adequate FI. Inadequate FI was significantly associated with adverse outcomes after adjustments (HR 2.00; 95% CI 1.09 to 3.67; p=0.026). The effect of interaction by ejection fraction (EF) was highly significant: HF with preserved EF (≥40%) was significantly associated with inadequate FI with adverse outcomes (HR 4.95; 95% CI 1.71 to 14.36; p=0.003) but HF with reduced EF (<40%) was not (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.95; p=0.590).

Conclusions

The hospital FI assessment might be a simple, useful tool for predicting and stratifying risk for HHF patients.

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor for the treatment of heart failure: a review of recent evidence

Heart failure (HF) is a growing health concern in aging societies worldwide. Sacubitril/valsartan is changing the real-world treatment in the whole spectrum of HF. The beginning was the PARADIGM-HF trial published in 2014, which demonstrated the beneficial effects of inhibiting natriuretic peptide breakdown in combination with hindering the renin-angiotensin system in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction. Subsequent large-scale randomized trials have evaluated angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor in HF patients with acute decompensation or with preserved ejection fraction. The post hoc analyses are being conducted as well. This review summarizes the recent evidence of sacubitril/ valsartan regarding patient-centered outcomes, based on randomized controlled trials and their associated studies.

Acute heart failure: More questions than answers

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a life-threatening condition with a dramatic burden in terms of symptoms, morbidity and mortality. It is a specific syndrome requiring urgent, life-saving treatment. Multiple specific pathophysiologic mechanisms may be involved, including congestion, inflammation, and neurohormonal activation. This process eventually leads to symptoms, end-organ damage, and adverse outcomes. Clinical presentation varies, but it almost universally includes worsening of congestion associated with different degrees of hypoperfusion. Due to substantial early symptoms burden and high morbidity and mortality, patients with AHF require intensive monitoring and intravenous treatment. However, beyond variable improvement in congestion, none of the available intravenous therapies for AHF was shown to improve longer term outcomes. Although oral treatment with guideline-directed therapies for stable patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) before discharge may fully prevent subsequent episodes, proof that this strategy may benefit patients is lacking. First, most patients with AHF have preserved EF (HFpEF) where no therapies have been shown to be effective. Second, all therapies developed for patients with HFrEF were tested for efficacy on outcomes in patients who were stable without recent AHF. Hence, the implementation of these chronic therapies during an AHF episode is untested. Third, the problem to better treat AHF patients in their early phase remains crucial with treatment strategies largely untested, yet. Further studies targeting AHF specific mechanisms, such as inflammation and end-organ damage, and finding effective intravenous drugs remain therefore warranted.

Representativeness of the PIONEER-HF Clinical Trial Population in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background:

In PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-pro BNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode), the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) was well-tolerated and led to improved outcomes. We aim to determine the representativeness of the PIONEER-HF trial among patients hospitalized for ADHF using real-world data.

Methods:

The study population was derived from all patients discharged alive for ADHF in the Get With The Guidelines—HF registry from 2006 to 2018 with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; all HFrEF with ADHF). We then determined the proportion of patients meeting PIONEER-HF eligibility criteria (PIONEER-HF eligible) and those meeting a set of limited eligibility criteria (actionable cohort). Rates of HF readmissions and all-cause mortality were then compared between the all HFrEF with ADHF, PIONEER-HF eligible, and actionable cohorts using linked Medicare claims data.

Results:

A total of 99 767 patients with HFrEF in Get With The Guidelines—HF were hospitalized for ADHF. PIONEER-HF inclusion criteria were met by 71 633 (71.8%) patients, and both inclusion and exclusion criteria were met by 20 704 (20.8%) patients. Further, 68 739 (68.9%) patients met the criteria for the actionable cohort. Among the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid—linked patients, the HF rehospitalization rate at 1 year was 35.1% (95% CI, 34.5–35.8) for all HFrEF with ADHF patients, 32.6% (95% CI, 31.3–33.9) for the PIONEER-HF eligible cohort, and 33.1% (95% CI, 32.3–33.9) for the actionable cohort. The 1-year all-cause mortality was 36.7% (95% CI, 36.1–7.4) for all HFrEF with ADHF patients, 31.6% (95% CI, 30.3–32.9) for the PIONEER-HF eligible cohort, and 32.2% (95% CI, 31.4–33.0) for the actionable cohort.

Conclusions:

Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes for patients eligible for PIONEER-HF only modestly differ when compared with those encountered in routine practice, suggesting that the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan should be routinely considered for patients with HFrEF hospitalized for ADHF.

Conceptual Considerations for Device-Based Therapy in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Acute decompensated heart failure remains the most common cause of hospitalization in older adults, and studies of pharmacological therapies have yielded limited progress in improving outcomes for these patients. This has prompted the development of novel device–based interventions, classified mechanistically based on the way in which they intend to improve central hemodynamics, increase renal perfusion, remove salt and water from the body, and result in clinically meaningful degrees of decongestion. In this review, we provide an overview of the pathophysiology of acute decompensated heart failure, current management strategies, and failed pharmacological therapies. We provide an in depth description of seven investigational device classes designed to target one or more of the pathophysiologic derangements in acute decompensated heart failure, denoted by the acronym DRI 2 P 2 S. Dilators decrease central pressures by increasing venous capacitance through splanchnic nerve modulation. Removers remove excess fluid through peritoneal dialysis, aquaphoresis, or hemodialysis. Inotropes directly modulate the cardiac nerve plexus to enhance ventricular contractility. Interstitial devices enhance volume removal through lymphatic duct decompression. Pushers are novel descending aorta rotary pumps that directly increase renal artery pressure. Pullers reduce central venous pressures or renal venous pressures to increase renal perfusion. Selective intrarenal artery catheters facilitate direct delivery of short acting vasodilator therapy. We also discuss challenges posed in clinical trial design for these novel device–based strategies including optimal patient selection and appropriate end points to establish efficacy.

Palliative cardiovascular care: The right patient at the right time

In the increasingly complex world of modern medicine, relationship-centered, team-based care is important in geriatric cardiology. Palliative cardiovascular care plays a central role in defining the scope and timing of medical therapies and in coordinating symptom-targeted care in line with patient wishes, values, and preferences. Palliative care addresses advance care planning, symptom relief and caregiver/family support and seeks to ameliorate all forms of suffering, including physical, psychological, and spiritual. Although palliative care grew out of the hospice movement and has traditionally been associated with care at the end of life, the current model acknowledges that palliative care can be delivered concurrent with invasive, life-prolonging interventions. As the population ages, patients with serious cardiovascular disease increasingly suffer from noncardiac, multimorbid conditions and become eligible for interventions that palliate symptoms but also prolong life. Management of implanted cardiac support devices at the end of life, whether rhythm management devices or mechanical circulatory support devices, can involve a host of complexities in decisions to deactivate, timing of deactivation and even the mechanics of deactivation. Studies on palliative care interventions have demonstrated clear improvements in quality of life and are more mixed on life prolongation and cost savings. There is and will remain a dearth of clinicians with specialist palliative care training. Therefore, cardiovascular clinicians have a role to play in provision of practical, "primary" palliative care.

Prior Heart Failure Hospitalization, Clinical Outcomes, and Response to Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared With Valsartan in HFpEF

BACKGROUND

The period shortly after hospitalization for heart failure (HF) represents a high-risk window for recurrent clinical events, including rehospitalization or death.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine whether the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan varies in relation to the proximity to hospitalization for HF among patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor] with ARB [Angiotensin Receptor Blocker] Global Outcomes in HFpEF), we assessed the risk of clinical events and response to sacubitril/valsartan in relation to time from last HF hospitalization among patients with HFpEF (≥45%). The primary outcome was composite total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, analyzed by using a semiparametric proportional rates method, stratified by geographic region.

RESULTS

Of 4,796 validly randomized patients in PARAGON-HF, 622 (13%) were screened during hospitalization or within 30 days of prior hospitalization, 555 (12%) within 31 to 90 days, 435 (9%) within 91 to 180 days, and 694 (14%) after 180 days; 2,490 (52%) were never previously hospitalized. Over a median follow-up of 35 months, risk of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was inversely and nonlinearly associated with timing from prior HF hospitalization (p < 0.001). There was a gradient in relative risk reduction in primary events with sacubitril/valsartan from patients hospitalized within 30 days (rate ratio: 0.73; 95% confidence interval: 0.53 to 0.99) to patients never hospitalized (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 1.24; trend in relative risk reduction: pinteraction = 0.15). With valsartan alone, the rate of total primary events was 26.7 (≤30 days), 24.2 (31 to 90 days), 20.7 (91 to 180 days), 15.7 (>180 days), and 7.9 (not previously hospitalized) per 100 patient-years. Compared with valsartan, absolute risk reductions with sacubitril/valsartan were more prominent in patients enrolled early after hospitalization: 6.4% (≤30 days), 4.6% (31 to 90 days), and 3.4% (91 to 180 days), whereas no risk reduction was observed in patients screened >180 days or who were never hospitalized (trend in absolute risk reduction: pinteraction = 0.050).

CONCLUSIONS

Recent hospitalization for HFpEF identifies patients at high risk for near-term clinical progression. In the PARAGON-HF trial, the relative and absolute benefits of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in HFpEF appear to be amplified when initiated in the high-risk window after hospitalization and warrant prospective validation. (PARAGON-HF; NCT01920711).

Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Cardiac Rehabilitation on Exercise Tolerance and Cardiac Function in Heart Failure Patients Undergoing Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Objective

To evaluate the effects of cardiac rehabilitation on exercise tolerance and cardiac function in heart failure patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

Methods

Randomized controlled trials were initially identified from systematic reviews of the literature about cardiac rehabilitation and heart failure patients with CRT. We undertook updated literature searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang databases until July 1, 2017. STATA12.0 software was used.

Results

Four randomized controlled studies were included. The total sample size was 157 patients, including 77 in the control group. Cardiac rehabilitation treatment affected the peak VO₂ in heart failure patients with CRT (P _{heterogeneity}=0.491, I ² = 0%). The results lacked heterogeneity, and the data were merged in a fixed-effects model (WMD = 2.17 ml/kg/min, 95% CI (1.42, 2.92), P < 0.001). The peak VO₂ was significantly higher in the cardiac rehabilitation group than in the control group. The sensitivity analysis showed that the results of the meta-analysis were robust. Cardiac rehabilitation treatment affected LVEF in heart failure patients with CRT (P _{heterogeneity}=0.064, I ² = 63.6%); the heterogeneity among the various research results meant that the data were merged in a random-effects model (WMD = 4.75%, 95% CI (1.53, 7.97), P=0.004). The LVEF was significantly higher in the cardiac rehabilitation group than in the control group. The sources of heterogeneity were analyzed, and it was found that one of the studies was the source of significant heterogeneity. After the elimination of that study, the data were reanalyzed, and the heterogeneity was significantly reduced. There were still significant differences in the WMD and 95% CI.

Conclusion

Cardiac rehabilitation can improve exercise tolerance and cardiac function in heart failure patients with CRT. Future studies are needed to evaluate whether these beneficial effects of cardiac rehabilitation may translate into an improvement in long-term clinical outcomes among these patients.