Catheter Ablation for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: Insights from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

AIMS

To investigate the association between catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) and mortality as well as hospitalization for heart failure (HF) in patients with HF across the ejection fraction (EF) spectrum.

METHODS

Patients with first-time catheter ablation for AF (ablation group) compared to only medical treated AF patients (no ablation group) were identified from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry between 2005 and 2019. The primary outcome (all-cause mortality/first HF hospitalization) was assessed by Cox regression models in a 1:2 propensity score (PS) matched cohort and pre-specified EF subgroups (preserved EF [HFpEF] [EF≥50%], mildly reduced EF [HFmrEF] [EF 40% to 49%], reduced EF [HFrEF] [EF<40%]) of this cohort.

RESULTS

452 patients in the ablation and 43766 patients in the no ablation group were identified. After PS matching, 434 patients in the ablation group were compared to 868 patients in the no ablation group. Over a median follow-up of 2.6 years (min. 0.0 years - max. 14.1 years), catheter ablation was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (all-cause mortality/first HF hospitalization) (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95%CI,0.65-0.94]). Results were consistent across all EF subgroups. In HFpEF, catheter ablation was also associated with a lower risk of recurrent HF hospitalization (Incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.17 [95%CI,0.07-0.42]).

CONCLUSION

In HF patients across the EF spectrum, catheter ablation for AF was associated with lower risk of the primary outcome (all-cause mortality/first HF hospitalization). This study supports catheter ablation as a treatment option for AF in HF patients, including those with HFpEF. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Biomarkers for the prediction of heart failure and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes: a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

Knowledge on risk predictors of incident heart failure (HF) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is crucial given the frequent coexistence of the two conditions and the fact that T2D doubles the risk of incident HF. In addition, HF is increasingly being recognized as an important endpoint in trials in T2D. On the other hand, the diagnostic and prognostic performance of established cardiovascular biomarkers may be modified by the presence of T2D. The present position paper, derived by an expert panel workshop organized by the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, summarizes the current knowledge and gaps in evidence regarding the use of a series of different biomarkers, reflecting various pathogenic pathways, for the prediction of incident HF and cardiovascular events in patients with T2D and in those with established HF and T2D.

Impact of progressive aortic regurgitation on outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation

Aortic regurgitation (AR) following continuous flow left ventricular assist device implantation (cf-LVAD) may adversely impact outcomes. We aimed to assess the incidence and impact of progressive AR after cf-LVAD on prognosis, biomarkers, functional capacity and echocardiographic findings. In an analysis of the PCHF-VAD database encompassing 12 European heart failure centers, patients were dichotomized according to the progression of AR following LVAD implantation. Patients with de-novo AR or AR progression (AR_1) were compared to patients without worsening AR (AR_0). Among 396 patients (mean age 53 ± 12 years, 82% male), 153 (39%) experienced progression of AR over a median of 1.4 years on LVAD support. Before LVAD implantation, AR_1 patients were less frequently diabetic, had lower body mass indices and higher baseline NT-proBNP values. Progressive AR did not adversely impact mortality (26% in both groups, HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.61-1.36]; P = 0.65). No intergroup variability was observed in NT-proBNP values and 6-minute walk test results at index hospitalization discharge and at 6-month follow-up. However, AR_1 patients were more likely to remain in NYHA class III and had worse right ventricular function at 6-month follow-up. Lack of aortic valve opening was related to de-novo or worsening AR (P < 0.001), irrespective of systolic blood pressure (P = 0.67). Patients commonly experience de-novo or worsening AR when exposed to continuous flow of contemporary LVADs. While reducing effective forward flow, worsening AR did not influence survival. However, less complete functional recovery and worse RV performance among AR_1 patients were observed. Lack of aortic valve opening was associated with progressive AR.

Data standards for heart failure: the European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomized Trials (EuroHeart)

Standardized data definitions are essential for assessing the quality of care and patient outcomes in observational studies and randomized controlled trials. The European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomized Trials (EuroHeart) project of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) aims to create contemporary pan-European data standards for cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure (HF). We followed the EuroHeart methodology for cardiovascular data standard development. A Working Group including experts in HF registries, representatives from the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, and the EuroHeart was formed. Using Embase and Medline (2016-21), we conducted a systematic review of the literature on data standards, registries, and trials to identify variables pertinent to HF. A modified Delphi method was used to reach a consensus on the final set of variables. For each variable, the Working Group developed data definitions and agreed on whether it was mandatory (Level 1) or additional (Level 2). In total, 84 Level 1 and 79 Level 2 variables were selected for nine domains of HF care. These variables were reviewed by an international Reference Group with the Level 1 variables providing the dataset for registration of patients with HF on the EuroHeart IT platform. By means of a structured process and interaction with international stakeholders, harmonized data standards for HF have been developed. In the context of the EuroHeart, this will facilitate quality improvement, international observational research, registry-based randomized trials, and post-marketing surveillance of devices and pharmacotherapies across Europe.

Apparent Treatment-Resistant Hypertension Across the Spectrum of Heart Failure Phenotypes in the Swedish HF Registry

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is common in patients with heart failure (HF), but less is known about resistant hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (aTRH) in patients with HF in the SwedeHF (Swedish Heart Failure Registry), across the spectrum of HF phenotypes (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF], heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction [HFmrEF], and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]).

METHODS

aTRH was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg (≥135 mm Hg in diabetes) despite treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, or sacubitril-valsartan, as well as a calcium-channel blocker and a diuretic; non-treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH) was defined as systolic blood pressure above these thresholds but not on the 3-drug combination; and normal blood pressure was defined as under these thresholds. In each left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) category, patient factors associated with aTRH and non-TRH and outcomes (HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death composite, its components, and all-cause death) according to hypertension category were examined.

RESULTS

Among 46,597 patients, aTRH was present in 2,693 (10%), 1,514 (14%), and 1,450 (17%) patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, respectively. Older age, obesity, diabetes, and kidney disease were associated with a greater likelihood of aTRH and non-TRH (vs normal blood pressure). Associations were generally similar irrespective of LVEF category. Compared with normal blood pressure, aTRH was associated with a lower adjusted risk of the composite outcome in HFrEF and HFmrEF (HR: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.74-0.85] and HR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.77-0.96]) but not in HFpEF (HR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.84-1.04]).

CONCLUSIONS

aTRH was most common in HFpEF and least common in HFrEF. Associated patient characteristics were similar irrespective of LVEF category. aTRH (vs normal blood pressure) was associated with a lower risk of first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death in HFrEF and HFmrEF but not in HFpEF.

Cardiac remodelling - Part 1: From cells and tissues to circulating biomarkers. A review from the Study Group on Biomarkers of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

Cardiac remodelling refers to changes in left ventricular structure and function over time, with a progressive deterioration that may lead to heart failure (HF) development (adverse remodelling) or vice versa a recovery (reverse remodelling) in response to HF treatment. Adverse remodelling predicts a worse outcome, whilst reverse remodelling predicts a better prognosis. The geometry, systolic and diastolic function and electric activity of the left ventricle are affected, as well as the left atrium and on the long term even right heart chambers. At a cellular and molecular level, remodelling involves all components of cardiac tissue: cardiomyocytes, fibroblasts, endothelial cells and leucocytes. The molecular, cellular and histological signatures of remodelling may differ according to the cause and severity of cardiac damage, and clearly to the global trend toward worsening or recovery. These processes cannot be routinely evaluated through endomyocardial biopsies, but may be reflected by circulating levels of several biomarkers. Different classes of biomarkers (e.g. proteins, non-coding RNAs, metabolites and/or epigenetic modifications) and several biomarkers of each class might inform on some aspects on HF development, progression and long-term outcomes, but most have failed to enter clinical practice. This may be due to the biological complexity of remodelling, so that no single biomarker could provide great insight on remodelling when assessed alone. Another possible reason is a still incomplete understanding of the role of biomarkers in the pathophysiology of cardiac remodelling. Such role will be investigated in the first part of this review paper on biomarkers of cardiac remodelling.

Cardiac remodelling - Part 2: Clinical, imaging and laboratory findings. A review from the Study Group on Biomarkers of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

In patients with heart failure, the beneficial effects of drug and device therapies counteract to some extent ongoing cardiac damage. According to the net balance between these two factors, cardiac geometry and function may improve (reverse remodelling, RR) and even completely normalize (remission), or vice versa progressively deteriorate (adverse remodelling, AR). RR or remission predict a better prognosis, while AR has been associated with worsening clinical status and outcomes. The remodelling process ultimately involves all cardiac chambers, but has been traditionally evaluated in terms of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction. This is the second part of a review paper by the Study Group on Biomarkers of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology dedicated to ventricular remodelling. This document examines the proposed criteria to diagnose RR and AR, their prevalence and prognostic value, and the variables predicting remodelling in patients managed according to current guidelines. Much attention will be devoted to RR in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction because most studies on cardiac remodelling focused on this setting.

Right Heart Failure Following Left Ventricular Device Implantation: Natural History, Risk Factors, and Outcomes: An Analysis of the STS INTERMACS Database

BACKGROUND

Our current understanding of right heart failure (RHF) post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is lacking. Recently, a new Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support definition of RHF was introduced. Based on this definition, we investigated natural history, risk factors, and outcomes of post-LVAD RHF.

METHODS

Patients implanted with continuous flow LVAD between June 2, 2014, and June 30, 2016 and registered in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support/Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database were included. RHF incidence and predictors, and survival after RHF were assessed. The manifestations of RHF which were separately analyzed were elevated central venous pressure, peripheral edema, ascites, and use of inotropes.

RESULTS

Among 5537 LVAD recipients (mean 57±13 years, 49% destination therapy, support 18.9 months) prevalence of 1-month RHF was 24%. Of these, RHF persisted at 12 months in 5.3%. In contrast, de novo RHF, first identified at 3 months, occurred in 5.1% and persisted at 12 months in 17% of these, and at 6 months occurred in 4.8% and persisted at 12 months in 25%. Higher preimplant blood urea nitrogen (ORs,1.03-1.09 per 5 mg/dL increase; P<0.0001), previous tricuspid valve repair/replacement (ORs, 2.01-10.09; P<0.001), severely depressed right ventricular systolic function (ORs,1.17-2.20; P=0.004); and centrifugal versus axial LVAD (ORs,1.15-1.78; P=0.001) represented risk factors for RHC incidence at 3 months. Patients with persistent RHF at 3 months had the lowest 2-year survival (57%) while patients with de novo RHF or RHF which resolved by 3 months had more favorable survival outcomes (75% and 78% at 2 years, respectively; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RHF at 1 or 3 months post-LVAD was a common and frequently transient condition, which, if resolved, was associated with relatively favorable prognosis. Conversely, de novo, late RHF post-LVAD (>6 months) was more frequently a persistent disorder and associated with increased mortality. The 1-, 3-, and 6-month time points may be used for RHF assessment and risk stratification in LVAD recipients.

Eligibility for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in a real-world heart failure population

BACKGROUND

We investigated eligibility for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in a real-world heart failure (HF) cohort based on selection criteria of DAPA-HF, DELIVER, and EMPEROR trials.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Selection criteria were applied to the Swedish HF registry out-patient population according to three scenarios: (i) a "trial scenario" applying all selection criteria; (ii) a "pragmatic scenario" applying the most clinically relevant criteria; (iii) a "label scenario" following the regulatory agencies labels. Of 49,317 patients, 55% had ejection fraction (EF)<40% and were assessed for eligibility based on DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced, 45% had EF≥40% and were assessed based on EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER. Eligibility using trial, pragmatic and label scenarios was: 35%, 61% and 80% for DAPA-HF; 31%, 55% and 81% for EMPEROR-Reduced; 30%, 61% and 74% for DELIVER; 32%, 59% and 75% for EMPEROR-Preserved. Main selection criteria limiting eligibility were HF duration and NT-proBNP. Eligible patients had more severe HF, more comorbidities, higher use of HF treatments and higher mortality/morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world HF setting, eligibility for SGLT2i was similar whether selection criteria from DAPA-HF or EMPEROR-Reduced were applied in HFrEF, or EMPEROR-Preserved or DELIVER in HFpEF. These data might help stakeholders assessing the consequences of future trial eligibility.

Improved survival of left ventricular assist device carriers in Europe according to implantation eras - results from the PCHF-VAD registry

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Temporal changes in patient selection and major technological developments in have occurred in the field of LVADs, yet analyses depicting this trend are lacking for Europe. We describe the advances of European LVAD programmes from the PCHF-VAD registry across device implantation eras.

METHODS

Of 583 patients from 13 European centres in the registry, 556 patients (mean age 53 ± 12 years, 82% male) were eligible for this analysis. Patients were divided to eras (E) by date of LVAD implantation: E1 from December 2006 to and including December 2012 (6 years), E2 from January 2013 to January 2020 (7 years).

RESULTS

Patients implanted more recently were older with more comorbidities, but less acutely ill. Receiving an LVAD in E2 was associated with improved 1-year survival in adjusted analysis (HR 0.58 [0.35-0.98] p = 0.043). LVAD implantation in E2 was associated with a significantly lower chance of heart transplantation (adjusted HR 0.40 [0.23-0.67], p = 0.001), and lower risk of LVAD-related infections (adjusted HR 0.64, [0.43-0.95], p = 0.027), both in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. The adjusted risk of haemocompatibility-related events decreased (HR 0.60 [0.39-0.91], p = 0.016), while the heart failure-related events increased in E2 (HR 1.67 [1.02-2.75], p = 0.043).

CONCLUSION

In an analysis depicting the evolving landscape of cf-LVAD carriers in Europe over 13 years, a trend towards better survival is seen in the recent years, despite older recipients with more comorbidities, potentially attributable to increasing expertise of LVAD centres, improved patient selection and pump technology. However, a smaller chance of undergoing heart transplantation was noted in the second era, underscoring the relevance of improved outcomes on LVAD support.

Predictors of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator use in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Impact of the predicted risk of sudden cardiac death and all-cause mortality

Aims

Use of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is limited. We aimed to investigate barriers to ICD use in HFrEF while considering the predicted risk of mortality and SCD.

Method and results

Patients from the SwedeHF registered in 2011–2018 and with an indication for primary prevention ICD were analysed. The Seattle Proportional Risk and Seattle Heart Failure Models were used to predict the proportional SCD and all‐cause mortality risk, respectively. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to identify independent predictors of ICD use/non‐use; Cox regression models to evaluate the interaction between predicted SCD/mortality risk and ICD use for mortality. Of 13 475 patients, only 15.5% had an ICD. Those with higher predicted proportional SCD risk (>45%) had an ∼80% higher likelihood to have an ICD. Other predictors of non‐use were follow‐up in primary versus specialty care, higher comorbidity burden and lower socioeconomic status. ICD use was associated with lower mortality only in patients with higher predicted SCD and lower mortality risk (34% and 37% relative risk reduction for 3‐year all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality, respectively). In this subgroup of patients, underuse of ICD was 81.8%.

Conclusion

In a contemporary registry, only 15.5% of patients with an indication for primary prevention ICD received the device. While a high predicted proportional SCD risk was appropriately linked to ICD use, the lack of specialized follow‐up, higher comorbidity burden, and lower socioeconomic status were major unjustified impediments to implementation. Our findings suggest areas for improving ICD use for primary prevention of SCD in clinical practice.

Association between dosing and combination use of medications and outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

AIMS

To assess the association between combination, dose and use of current guideline-recommended target doses (TD) of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi) and β-blockers, and outcomes in a large and unselected contemporary cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Overall, 17 809 outpatients registered in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) from May 2000 to December 2018, with ejection fraction <40% and duration of HF ≥90 days were selected. Primary outcome was a composite of time to cardiovascular death and first HF hospitalization. Compared with no use of RASi or ARNi, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.83 (0.76-0.91) with <50% of TD, 0.78 (0.71-0.86) with 50%-99%, and 0.73 (0.67-0.80) with ≥100% of TD. Compared with no use of β-blockers, the adjusted HR (95% CI) was 0.86 (0.76-0.91), 0.81 (0.74-0.89) and 0.74 (0.68-0.82) with <50%, 50%-99% and ≥100% of TD, respectively. Patients receiving both an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/ARNi and a β-blocker at 50%-99% of TD had a lower adjusted risk of the primary outcome compared with patients only receiving one drug, i.e. ACEi/ARB/ARNi or β-blocker, even if this was at ≥100% of TD.

CONCLUSION

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients using higher doses of RASi or ARNi and β-blockers had lower risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Use of two drug classes at 50%-99% of TD dose was associated with lower risk than one drug class at 100% of TD.

Transient versus persistent improved ejection fraction in non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy

AIMS

The recent definition of heart failure with improved ejection fraction outlined the importance of the longitudinal assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, long-term progression and outcomes of this subgroup are poorly explored. We sought to assess the LVEF trajectories and their correlations with outcome in non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NICM) with improved ejection fraction (impEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive NICM patients with baseline LVEF ≤40% enrolled in the Trieste Heart Muscle Disease Registry with ≥1 LVEF assessment after baseline were included. ImpEF was defined as a baseline LVEF ≤40%, and second evaluation showing both a ≥10% point increase from baseline LVEF and LVEF >40%. Transient impEF was defined by the documentation of recurrent LVEF ≤40% during follow-up. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, heart transplantation and left ventricular assist device (D/HT/LVAD). Among 800 patients, 460 (57%) had impEF (median time to improvement 13 months). Transient impEF was observed in 189 patients (41% of the overall impEF group) and was associated with higher risk of D/HT/LVAD compared with persistent impEF at multivariable analysis (hazard ratio 2.54; 95% confidence interval 1.60-4.04). The association of declining LVEF with the risk of D/HT/LVAD was non-linear, with a steep increase up to 8% points reduction, then remaining stable.

CONCLUSIONS

In NICM, a 57% rate of impEF was observed. However, recurrent decline in LVEF was observed in ≈40% of impEF patients and it was associated with an increased risk of D/HT/LVAD.

Baseline characteristics of 547 new onset heart failure patients in the PREFERS heart failure study

Aim

Methods and results

Conclusions

Biomarker changes as surrogate endpoints in early-phase trials in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

No biomarker has achieved widespread acceptance as a surrogate endpoint for early-phase heart failure (HF) trials. We assessed whether changes over time in a panel of plasma biomarkers were associated with subsequent morbidity/mortality in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 1040 patients with HFrEF from the BIOSTAT-CHF cohort, we investigated the associations between changes in the plasma concentrations of 30 biomarkers, before (baseline) and after (9 months) attempted optimization of guideline-recommended therapy, on top of the BIOSTAT risk score and the subsequent risk of HF hospitalization/all-cause mortality using Cox regression models. C-statistics were calculated to assess discriminatory power of biomarker changes/month-nine assessment. Changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and WAP four-disulphide core domain protein HE4 (WAP-4C) were the only independent predictors of the outcome after adjusting for their baseline plasma concentration, 28 other biomarkers (both baseline and changes), and BIOSTAT risk score at baseline. When adjusting for month-nine rather than baseline biomarkers concentrations, only changes in NT-proBNP were independently associated with the outcome. The C-statistic of the model including the BIOSTAT risk score and NT-proBNP increased by 4% when changes were considered on top of baseline concentrations and by 1% when changes in NT-proBNP were considered on top of its month-nine concentrations and the BIOSTAT risk score.

CONCLUSIONS

Among 30 relevant biomarkers, a change over time was significantly and independently associated with HF hospitalization/all-cause death only for NT-proBNP. Changes over time were modestly more prognostic than baseline or end-values alone. Changes in biomarkers should be further explored as potential surrogate endpoints in early phase HF trials.

Patient profile and outcomes associated with follow-up in specialty vs. primary care in heart failure

AIMS

Factors influencing follow-up referral decisions and their prognostic implications are poorly investigated in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction (EF). We assessed (i) the proportion of, (ii) independent predictors of, and (iii) outcomes associated with follow-up in specialty vs. primary care across the EF spectrum.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed 75 518 patients from the large and nationwide Swedish HF registry between 2000-2018. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to identify the independent predictors of planned follow-up in specialty vs. primary care, and multivariable Cox models to assess the association between follow-up type and outcomes. In this nationwide registry, 48 115 (64%) patients were planned for follow-up in specialty and 27 403 (36%) in primary care. The median age was 76 [interquartile range (IQR) 67-83] years and 27 546 (36.5%) patients were female. Key independent predictors of planned follow-up in specialty care included optimized HF care, that is follow-up in a nurse-led HF clinic [odds ratio (OR) 4.60, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 4.41-4.79], use of HF devices (OR 3.99, 95% CI 3.62-4.40), beta-blockers (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.32-1.47), renin-angiotensin system/angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.15-1.27), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.26-1.37); and more severe HF, that is higher NT-proBNP (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20) and NYHA class (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.19). Factors associated with lower likelihood of follow-up in specialty care included older age (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.28-0.30), female sex (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.86-0.93), lower income (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.76-0.82) and educational level (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.73-0.81), higher EF [HFmrEF (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.62-0.68) and HFpEF (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.53-0.58) vs. HFrEF], and higher comorbidity burden, such as presence of kidney disease (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95), atrial fibrillation (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.89), and diabetes mellitus (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.96). A planned follow-up in specialty care was independently associated with lower risk of all-cause [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.76-0.80] and cardiovascular death (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) across the EF spectrum, but not of HF hospitalization (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.10).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large nationwide HF population, referral to specialty care was linked with male sex, younger age, lower EF, lower comorbidity burden, better socioeconomic environment and optimized HF care, and associated with better survival across the EF spectrum. Our findings highlight the need for greater and more equal access to HF specialty care and improved quality of primary care.

Left atrial reservoir strain improves diagnostic accuracy of the 2016 ASE/EACVI diastolic algorithm in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: insights from the KARUM haemodynamic database

Aims

This study aimed to investigate the incremental value offered by left atrial reservoir strain (LAS_r) to the 2016 American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (ASE/EACVI) diastolic algorithm to identify elevated left ventricular (LV) filling pressure in patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF).

Methods and results

Near-simultaneous echocardiography and right heart catheterization were performed in 210 patients with EF ≥50% in a large, dual-centre study. Elevated filling pressure was defined as invasive pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≥15 mmHg. LAS_r was evaluated using speckle-tracking echocardiography. Diagnostic performance of the ASE/EACVI diastolic algorithm was validated against invasive reference and compared with modified algorithms incorporating LAS_r. Modest correlation was observed between E/e′, E/A ratio, and LA volume index with PCWP (r = 0.46, 0.46, and 0.36, respectively; P < 0.001 for all). Mitral e′ and TR peak velocity showed no association. The ASE/EACVI algorithm (89% feasibility, 71% sensitivity, 68% specificity) demonstrated reasonable ability (AUC = 0.69) and 68% accuracy to identify elevated LV filling pressure. LAS_r displayed strong ability to identify elevated PCWP (AUC = 0.76). Substituting TR peak velocity for LAS_r in the algorithm (69% sensitivity, 84% specificity) resulted in 91% feasibility, 81% accuracy, and stronger agreement with invasive measurements. Employing LAS_r as per expert consensus (71% sensitivity, 70% specificity) and adding LAS_r to conventional parameters (67% sensitivity, 84% specificity) also demonstrated greater feasibility (98% and 90%, respectively) and overall accuracy (70% and 80%, respectively) to estimate elevated PCWP.

Conclusions

LAS_r improves feasibility and overall accuracy of the ASE/EACVI algorithm to discern elevated filling pressures in patients with preserved EF.

A comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure with preserved versus mildly reduced versus reduced ejection fraction - insights from the ESC-HFA EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

AIMS

To perform a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure (AHF) with preserved (HFpEF), versus mildly reduced (HFmrEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Of 5951 participants in the ESC HF Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF (acute coronary syndromes excluded), 29% had HFpEF, 18% HFmrEF, and 53% HFrEF. Hospitalization reasons were most commonly atrial fibrillation (more in HFmrEF and HFpEF), followed by ischaemia (HFmrEF), infection (HFmrEF and HFpEF), worsening renal function (HFrEF), and uncontrolled hypertension (HFmrEF and HFpEF). Hospitalization characteristics included lower blood pressure, more oedema and higher natriuretic peptides with lower ejection fraction, similar pulmonary congestion, more mitral regurgitation in HFrEF and HFmrEF and more tricuspid regurgitation in HFrEF. In-hospital mortality was 3.4% in HFrEF, 2.1% in HFmrEF and 2.2% in HFpEF. Intravenous diuretic (∼80%) and nitrate (∼15%) use was similar but inotrope use greater in HFrEF (16%, vs. HFmrEF 7.4% vs. HFpEF 5.3%). Weight loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate improvement were greater in HFrEF, whereas reduction in natriuretic peptides was similar. Over 1 year post-discharge, events per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) in HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF were: all-cause death 22 (20-24) versus 17 (14-20) versus 17 (15-20); cardiovascular (CV) death 12 (10-13) versus 8.6 (6.6-11) versus 8.4 (6.9-10); non-CV death 2.4 (1.8-3.1) versus 3.3 (2.1-4.8) versus 4.5 (3.5-5.9); all-cause hospitalization 48 (45-51) versus 35 (31-40) versus 42 (39-46); HF hospitalization 29 (27-32) versus 19 (16-22) versus 17 (15-20); and non-CV hospitalization 7.7 (6.6-8.9) versus 9.6 (7.5-12) versus 15 (13-17).

CONCLUSION

In AHF, HFrEF is more severe and has greater in-hospital mortality. Post-discharge, HFrEF has greater CV risk, HFpEF greater non-CV risk, and HFmrEF lower overall risk.

Heart failure with mid-range or mildly reduced ejection fraction

Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) remains the major parameter for diagnosis, phenotyping, prognosis and treatment decisions in heart failure. The 2016 ESC heart failure guidelines introduced a third EF category for an EF of 40-49%, defined as heart failure with mid-range EF (HFmrEF). This category has been largely unexplored compared with heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF; defined as EF <40% in this Review) and heart failure with preserved EF (HFpEF; defined as EF ≥50%). The prevalence of HFmrEF within the overall population of patients with HF is 10-25%. HFmrEF seems to be an intermediate clinical entity between HFrEF and HFpEF in some respects, but more similar to HFrEF in others, in particular with regard to the high prevalence of ischaemic heart disease in these patients. HFmrEF is milder than HFrEF, and the risk of cardiovascular events is lower in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF than in those with HFrEF. By contrast, the risk of non-cardiovascular adverse events is similar or greater in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF than in those with HFrEF. Evidence from post hoc and subgroup analyses of randomized clinical trials and a trial of an SGLT1-SGLT2 inhibitor suggests that drugs that are effective in patients with HFrEF might also be effective in patients with HFmrEF. Although the EF is a continuous measure with considerable variability, in this comprehensive Review we suggest that HFmrEF is a useful categorization of patients with HF and shares the most important clinical features with HFrEF, which supports the renaming of HFmrEF to HF with mildly reduced EF.

European Society of Cardiology quality indicators for the care and outcomes of adults with heart failure. Developed by the Working Group for Heart Failure Quality Indicators in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

AIMS

To develop a suite of quality indicators (QIs) for the evaluation of the quality of care for adults with heart failure (HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We followed the ESC methodology for QI development, which involved (i) the identification of the key domains of care for the management of HF by constructing a conceptual framework of HF care, (ii) the development of candidate QIs by conducting a systematic review of the literature, (iii) the selection of the final set of QIs using a modified Delphi method, and (iv) the evaluation of the feasibility of the developed QIs. The Working Group comprised experts in HF management including Task Force members of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Clinical Practice Guidelines for HF, members of the Heart Failure Association (HFA), Quality Indicator Committee and a patient representative. In total, 12 main and 4 secondary QIs were selected across five domains of care for the management of HF: (1) structural framework, (2) patient assessment, (3) initial treatment, (4) therapy optimization, and (5) assessment of patient health-related quality of life.

CONCLUSION

We present the ESC HFA QIs for HF, describe their development process and provide the scientific rationale for their selection. The indicators may be used to quantify and improve adherence to guideline-recommended clinical practice and thus improve patient outcomes.