Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Compared to Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights From the VCOR Heart Failure Snapshot

Comparison of Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Admitted Under General Medicine and Cardiology Units

BACKGROUND

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease hospitalisations associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In hospitals, HF patients are typically managed by cardiology or physician teams, with differences in patient demographics and clinical outcomes. This study utilises contemporary HF registry data to compare patient characteristics and outcomes in those with ADHF admitted into General Medicine and Cardiology units.

METHODS

The Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry was utilised to identify patients hospitalised with ADHF 30-day period in each of four consecutive years. We compared patient characteristics, pharmacological management and outpatient follow-up of patients admitted to General Medicine and Cardiology units. Primary outcome measures included in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Between 2014 and 2017, a total of 1,253 patients with ADHF admissions were registered, with 53% admitted in General Medicine units and 47% in Cardiology units. General Medicine patients were more likely to be older (82 vs 71 years; p<0.001), female (51% vs 34%; p<0.001), and have higher prevalence of comorbidities and preserved left ventricular function (p<0.001). There were no differences in primary outcome measures between General Medicine and Cardiology in terms of: in-hospital mortality (5.0% vs 3.9%; p=0.35), 30-day readmission (23.4% vs 23.6%; p=0.93), and 30-day mortality (10.0% vs 8.0%; p=0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalised patients with HF continue to have high mortality and rehospitalisation rates. The choice of treatment by General Medicine or Cardiology units, based on the particular medical profile and individual needs of the patients, provides equivalent outcomes.

Non-eligibility for pivotal HFpEF/HFmrEF outcome trials and mortality in a contemporary heart failure cohort

Pivotal outcome trials targeting heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and mildly-reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) may have excluded patients at highest risk of poor outcomes. We aimed to assess eligibility for HFpEF/HFmrEF outcome trials in an unselected heart failure cohort and its association with all-cause mortality. Among 32.028 patients presenting to a tertiary care center emergency unit for any reason between August 2018 and July 2019, we identified 407 admissions with evident HFpEF and HFmrEF. Eligibility criteria for pivotal trials CHARM-Preserved, I-PRESERVE, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER were assessed by chart review. The proportions of admissions fulfilling HFpEF/HFmrEF trial eligibility criteria were 88% for CHARM-Preserved, 40% for I-PRESERVE, 35% for TOPCAT, 28% for PARAGON-HF, 51% for EMPEROR-Preserved, and 49% for DELIVER. During a median follow-up of 1.9 years, death-from-any-cause occurred in 121 cases (30%). Twenty-four-month overall survival estimates for non-eligible and eligible admissions were 53% vs. 76% for CHARM-Preserved (HR=2.32, 95% CI: 1.47-3.67, p<0.001), 62% vs. 87% for I-PRESERVE (HR=2.97, 1.85-4.77, p<0.001), 67% vs. 84% for TOPCAT (HR=2.04, 1.29-3.24, p = 0.002), 68% vs. 85% for PARAGONHF (HR=2.28, 1.33-3.90, p = 0.003), 64% vs. 81% for EMPEROR-Preserved (HR=1.90, 1.27-2.84, p = 0.002), and 65% vs. 80% for DELIVER (HR=1.71, 1.14-2.57, p = 0.010). Exclusion criteria independently predicting death were eGFR <20 ml/min/1.73 m2, COPD with home oxygen therapy, and severe valvular heart disease. Conclusively, in a contemporary HFpEF/HFmrEF cohort, non-eligibility for outcome trials predicted for strongly increased mortality. HFpEF/HFmrEF patients at highest mortality risk were likely underrepresented in previous outcome trials and their treatment remains an unmet medical need.

Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics and Cause-specific Outcomes in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure (HF) is a global pandemic affecting 64 million people worldwide. HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has traditionally received less attention than its main counterpart, HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The incidence and prevalence of HFpEF show geographic variation and are increasing over time, soon expected to surpass those of HFrEF. Morbidity and mortality rates of HFpEF are considerable, albeit lower than those of HFrEF. This review focuses on the burden of HFpEF, providing contemporary data on epidemiology, clinical characteristics and comorbidities, cause-specific outcomes, costs and pharmacotherapy.

Outcomes and factors associated with mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: FARAONIC study

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are common and coexistent conditions.

HYPOTHESIS

To investigate the adverse events and mortality risk factors in patients with AF and HF treated with rivaroxaban in Spain.

METHODS

Multicenter, prospective and observational study with a follow-up of 2 years, that included adults, with a diagnosis of nonvalvular AF and chronic HF, anticoagulated with rivaroxaban at least 4 months before being enrolled.

RESULTS

A total of 672 patients from 71 Spanish centers were recruited, of whom 658 (97.9%) were included in the safety analysis and 552 (82.1%) in the per protocol analysis. At baseline, the mean age was 73.7 ± 10.9 years, 65.9% were male, 51.3% had HF with preserved ejection fraction and 58.7% were on New York Heart Association functional class II. CHA2 DS2 -VASc was 4.1 ± 1.5. During the follow-up, 11.6% of patients died and around one-quarter of patients were hospitalized or visited the emergency department, being HF worsening/progression the main cause (51.1%), with a 2.9% of thromboembolic events and 2.0% of acute coronary syndromes. Major bleeding occurred in 3.1% of patients, with 0.5% experiencing intracranial bleeding but no fatalities. Compliance with HF treatment was associated with a lower risk of death (hazard ratio: 0.092; 95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with HF and AF anticoagulated with rivaroxaban, incidences of thromboembolic or hemorrhagic complications were low. The most important factor for improving survival was compliance with HF drugs, what strengths the need for early treatment with HF disease-modifying therapy and anticoagulation.

Impact of heart failure on the clinical profile and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with rivaroxaban. Data from the EMIR study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of the presence of heart failure (HF) on the clinical profile and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) anticoagulated with rivaroxaban.

METHODS

Observational and non-interventional study that included AF adults recruited from 79 Spanish centers, anticoagulated with rivaroxaban ≥ 6 months before inclusion. Data were analyzed according to baseline HF status.

RESULTS

Out of 1,433 patients, 326 (22.7%) had HF at baseline. Compared to patients without HF, HF patients were older (75.3 ± 9.9 vs. 73.8 ± 9.6 years; p = 0.01), had more diabetes (36.5% vs. 24.3%; p < 0.01), coronary artery disease (28.2% vs. 12.9%; p < 0.01), renal insufficiency (31.7% vs. 22.6%; p = 0.01), higher CHA2DS2-VASc (4.5 ± 1.6 vs. 3.2 ± 1.4; p < 0.01) and HAS-BLED (1.8 ± 1.1 vs. 1.5 ± 1.0; p < 0.01). After a median follow-up of 2.5 years, among HF patients, annual rates of stroke/systemic embolism/transient ischemic attack, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (non-fatal myocardial infarction, revascularization and cardiovascular death), cardiovascular death, and major bleeding were 1.2%, 3.0%, 2.0%, and 1.4%, respectively. Compared to those patients without HF, HF patients had greater annual rates of MACE (3.0% vs. 0.5%; p < 0.01) and cardiovascular death (2.0% vs. 0.2%; p < 0.01), without significant differences regarding other outcomes, including thromboembolic or bleeding events. Previous HF was an independent predictor of MACE (odds ratio 3.4; 95% confidence interval 1.6-7.3; p = 0.002) but not for thromboembolic events or major bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Among AF patients anticoagulated with rivaroxaban, HF patients had a worse clinical profile and a higher MACE risk and cardiovascular mortality. HF was independently associated with the development of MACE, but not with thromboembolic events or major bleeding.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with heart failure with preserved, mildly reduced, and reduced ejection fraction in Spain

AIMS

To describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) of patients with heart failure with preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in Spain.  METHODS: Adults with ≥ 1 HF diagnosis and ≥ 1 year of continuous enrolment before the corresponding index date (1/January/2016) were identified through the BIG-PAC database. Rate per 100 person-years of all-cause and HF-related HCRU during the year after the index date were estimated using bootstrapping with replacement.

RESULTS

Twenty-one thousand two hundred ninety-seven patients were included, of whom 48.5% had HFrEF, 38.6% HFpEF and 4.2% HFmrEF, with the rest being of unknown EF. Mean age was 78.8 ± 11.8 years, 53.0% were men and 83.0% were in NYHA functional class II/III. At index, 67.3% of patients were taking renin angiotensin system inhibitors, 61.2% beta blockers, 23.4% aldosterone antagonists and 5.2% SGLT2 inhibitors. Rates of HF-related outpatient visits and hospitalization were 968.8 and 51.6 per 100 person-years, respectively. Overall, 31.23% of patients were hospitalized, mainly because of HF (87.88% of total hospitalizations); HF hospitalization length 21.06 ± 17.49 days (median 16; 25th, 75th percentile 9-27). HF hospitalizations were the main cost component: inpatient 73.64%, pharmacy 9.67%, outpatient 9.43%, and indirect cost 7.25%. Rates of all-cause and HF-related HCRU and healthcare cost were substantial across all HF subgroups, being higher among HFrEF compared to HFmrEF and HFpEF patients.

CONCLUSIONS

HCRU and cost associated with HF are high in Spain, HF hospitalizations being the main determinant. Medication cost represented only a small proportion of total costs, suggesting that an optimization of HF therapy may reduce HF burden.

Prevalence, Characteristics, Management and Outcomes of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved, Mildly Reduced, and Reduced Ejection Fraction in Spain

Objective: To estimate the prevalence, incidence, and describe the characteristics and management of patients with heart failure with preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in Spain. Methods: Adults with ≥1 inpatient or outpatient HF diagnosis between 1 January 2013 and 30 September 2019 were identified through the BIG-PAC database. Annual incidence and prevalence by EF phenotype were estimated. Characteristics by EF phenotype were described in the 2016 and 2019 HF prevalent cohorts and outcomes in the 2016 HF prevalent cohort. Results: Overall, HF incidence and prevalence were 0.32/100 person-years and 2.34%, respectively, but increased every year. In 2019, 49.3% had HFrEF, 38.1% had HFpEF, and 4.3% had HFmrEF (in 8.3%, EF was not available). Compared with HFrEF, patients with HFpEF were largely female, older, and had more atrial fibrillation but less atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Among patients with HFrEF, 76.3% were taking renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, 69.5% beta-blockers, 36.8% aldosterone antagonists, 12.5% sacubitril/valsartan and 6.7% SGLT2 inhibitors. Patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF took fewer HF drugs compared to HFrEF. Overall, the event rates of HF hospitalization were 231.6/1000 person-years, which is more common in HFrEF patients. No clinically relevant differences were found in patients with HFpEF, regardless EF (50- < 60% vs. ≥60%). Conclusions: >2% of patients have HF, of which around 50% have HFrEF and 40% have HFpEF. The prevalence of HF is increasing over time. Clinical characteristics by EF phenotype are consistent with previous studies. The risk of outcomes, particularly HF hospitalization, remains high, likely related to insufficient HF treatment.

Clinical risk prediction model for 30-day all-cause re-hospitalisation or mortality in patients hospitalised with heart failure

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to develop a risk prediction model (AUS-HF model) for 30-day all-cause re-hospitalisation or death among patients admitted with acute heart failure (HF) to inform follow-up after hospitalisation. The model uses routinely collected measures at point of care.

METHODS

We analyzed pooled individual-level data from two cohort studies on acute HF patients followed for 30-days after discharge in 17 hospitals in Victoria, Australia (2014-2017). A set of 58 candidate predictors, commonly recorded in electronic medical records (EMR) including demographic, medical and social measures were considered. We used backward stepwise selection and LASSO for model development, bootstrap for internal validation, C-statistic for discrimination, and calibration slopes and plots for model calibration.

RESULTS

The analysis included 1380 patients, 42.1% female, median age 78.7 years (interquartile range = 16.2), 60.0% experienced previous hospitalisation for HF and 333 (24.1%) were re-hospitalised or died within 30 days post-discharge. The final risk model included 10 variables (admission: eGFR, and prescription of anticoagulants and thiazide diuretics; discharge: length of stay>3 days, systolic BP, heart rate, sodium level (<135 mmol/L), >10 prescribed medications, prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and anticoagulants prescription. The discrimination of the model was moderate (C-statistic = 0.684, 95%CI 0.653, 0.716; optimism estimate = 0.062) with good calibration.

CONCLUSIONS

The AUS-HF model incorporating routinely collected point-of-care data from EMRs enables real-time risk estimation and can be easily implemented by clinicians. It can predict with moderate accuracy risk of 30-day hospitalisation or mortality and inform decisions around the intensity of follow-up after hospital discharge.