Outcomes among acute heart failure emergency department patients by preserved vs. reduced ejection fraction

Pilot trial of an electronic decision support to improve care for emergency department patients with acute heart failure

AIMS

Emergency department (ED) providers play an important role in the management of patients with acute heart failure (AHF). We present findings from a pilot study of an electronic decision support that includes personalized risk estimates using the STRIDE-HF risk tool and tailored recommendations for initiating guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) among appropriate patients.

METHODS

Among ED patients treated for AHF who were discharged from the ED or the ED-based observation unit in two EDs from 1 January 2023 to 31 July 2023, we assess prescriptions to the four classes of GDMT at two intervals: (1) ED arrival and (2) ED discharge. Specifically, we report active prescriptions for beta-blockers (BBs), renin-angiotensin receptor system inhibitors (RASis), sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) among patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and mildly reduced (HFmrEF). Second, we describe rates of 30-day serious adverse events (SAE) (death, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, balloon-pump insertion, intubation, new dialysis, myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization) among patients predicted to be very low risk by STRIDE-HF and discharged home.

RESULTS

Among 234 discharged patients, 55% were female and 76% were non-White. We found 51 (21.8%), 21 (9.0%) and 126 (53.8%) had HFrEF, HFmEF and HFpEF, respectively, while 36 (15.4%) were missing EF, and 51 (22%) were very low risk, 82 (35%) were low risk, 60 (26%) were medium risk and 41 (18%) were high risk. Among HFrEF patients, 68.6%, 66.7%, 25.5% and 19.6% were on a RASi, BB, SGLT2i and MRA, respectively, at ED arrival, while 42.9%, 66.7%, 14.3% and 4.8% of HFmrEF patients were on a RASi, BB, SGLT2i and MRA, respectively. Among patients with HFpEF, only 6 (4.8%) were on an SGLT2i at ED arrival. The most prescribed new medication at ED discharge was an SGLT2i, with a nearly 10% increase in the proportion of patients with an active prescription for SGLT2i at ED discharge among HFrEF and HFmEF patients. We observed no 30-day SAE among the 51 patients predicted to be very low risk and discharged home.

CONCLUSIONS

Ongoing treatment with GDMT at ED arrival was sub-optimal. Initiation among appropriate patients at discharge may be feasible and safe.

Comparison of Characteristics and Outcomes Between Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients with Different Types of Heart Failure

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) can be complicated by heart failure involving preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and whether or not the prognosis differs between the 2 types of patients remains unclear. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of the 2 types of patients at 3 months after the stroke.We retrospectively analyzed patients who, between 1 January 2018 and 1 January 2021, experienced AIS that was complicated by HFrEF or HFpEF. All patients had been prospectively registered in the Chengdu Stroke Registry. Poor outcome was defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 2-6 at 3 months. Univariate and binary logistic regression was used to assess whether HFpEF was associated with a significantly worse prognosis than HFrEF.Among the final sample of 108 patients (60.2% men; mean age, 73.08 ± 10.82 years), 75 (69.4%) had HFpEF. Compared to HFrEF patients, those with HFpEF were older (P = 0.002), were more likely to have chronic kidney disease (P = 0.033), and were more likely to experience a poor outcome (P = 0.022). After adjustments, HFpEF was associated with significantly greater risk of poor outcome than HFrEF (OR 4.13, 95%CI 1.20-15.79, P = 0.029). However, rates of hemorrhagic transformation or mortality at 3 months after AIS did not differ significantly between the 2 types of heart failure (all P > 0.05).Patients with AIS involving HFpEF experience worse outcomes than those with HFrEF and therefore may require special monitoring and management. Our findings need to be verified in large prospective studies.

Predictors of early heart failure rehospitalization among older adults with preserved and reduced ejection fraction: A review and derivation of a conceptual model

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is prevalent among older adults who suffer with either heart failure preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and have a high rate of early HF rehospitalization. Preventing early rehospitalization is complex because of major differences between the two subtypes of HF as well as inadequate predictive models to identify key contributing factors.

OBJECTIVE

To present research addressing relationships between selected clinical, hemodynamic, social factors, and early (≤ 60-day) HF rehospitalization in older adults with HFpEF and HFrEF, derive a conceptual model of predictors of rehospitalization, and understand to what extent the literature addresses these predictors among older women.

METHODS

Four computerized databases were searched for research addressing clinical, hemodynamic, and social factors relevant to early HF rehospitalization and older adults post index hospitalization for HF.

RESULTS

21 full-text articles were included in the final review and organized thematically. Most studies focused on early (≤ 30-day) HF rehospitalizations, with limited attention given to the 31 to 60-day period. Specific clinical, hemodynamic, and social factors which influenced early HF rehospitalization were identified. The existing literature confirms that risk predictors or their combinations which influence early (≤ 60-day) HF rehospitalization after an index HF hospitalization remains inconsistent. Further, the literature fails to capture the influence of these predictors solely among older women. A conceptual model of risk predictors is proposed for clinical intervention.

CONCLUSION

Further evaluation to understand risk predictors of early (31 to 60-day) HF rehospitalizations among older women is needed.

Cardiac metabolism in HFpEF: from fuel to signalling

Heart failure (HF) is marked by distinctive changes in myocardial uptake and utilization of energy substrates. Among the different types of HF, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a highly prevalent, complex, and heterogeneous condition for which metabolic derangements seem to dictate disease progression. Changes in intermediate metabolism in cardiometabolic HFpEF-among the most prevalent forms of HFpEF-have a large impact both on energy provision and on a number of signalling pathways in the heart. This dual, metabolic vs. signalling, role is played in particular by long-chain fatty acids (LCFAs) and short-chain carbon sources [namely, short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and ketone bodies (KBs)]. LCFAs are key fuels for the heart, but their excess can be harmful, as in the case of toxic accumulation of lipid by-products (i.e. lipotoxicity). SCFAs and KBs have been proposed as a potential major, alternative source of energy in HFpEF. At the same time, both LCFAs and short-chain carbon sources are substrate for protein post-translational modifications and other forms of direct and indirect signalling of pivotal importance in HFpEF pathogenesis. An in-depth molecular understanding of the biological functions of energy substrates and their signalling role will be instrumental in the development of novel therapeutic approaches to HFpEF. Here, we summarize the current evidence on changes in energy metabolism in HFpEF, discuss the signalling role of intermediate metabolites through, at least in part, their fate as substrates for post-translational modifications, and highlight clinical and translational challenges around metabolic therapy in HFpEF.

Point-of-care echocardiography of the right heart improves acute heart failure risk stratification for low-risk patients: The REED-AHF prospective study

OBJECTIVES

Validated acute heart failure (AHF) clinical decision instruments (CDI) insufficiently identify low-risk patients meriting consideration of outpatient treatment. While pilot data show that tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) is associated with adverse events, no AHF CDI currently incorporates point-of-care echocardiography (POCecho). We evaluated whether TAPSE adds incremental risk stratification value to an existing CDI.

METHODS

Prospectively enrolled patients at two urban-academic EDs had POCechos obtained before or <1 h after first intravenous diuresis, positive pressure ventilation, and/or nitroglycerin. STEMI and cardiogenic shock were excluded. AHF diagnosis was adjudicated by double-blind expert review. TAPSE, with an a priori cutoff of ≥17 mm, was our primary measure. Secondary measures included eight additional right heart and six left heart POCecho parameters. STRATIFY is a validated CDI predicting 30-day death/cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical cardiac support, intubation, new/emergent dialysis, and acute myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization in ED AHF patients. Full (STRATIFY + POCecho variable) and reduced (STRATIFY alone) logistic regression models were fit to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aOR), category-free net reclassification index (NRI_cont ), ΔSensitivity (NRI_events ), and ΔSpecificity (NRI_nonevents ). Random forest assessed variable importance. To benchmark risk prediction to standard of care, ΔSensitivity and ΔSpecificity were evaluated at risk thresholds more conservative/lower than the actual outcome rate in discharged patients.

RESULTS

A total of 84/120 enrolled patients met inclusion and diagnostic adjudication criteria. Nineteen percent experiencing the primary outcome had higher STRATIFY scores compared to those event free (233 vs. 212, p = 0.009). Five right heart (TAPSE, TAPSE/PASP, TAPSE/RVDD, RV-FAC, fwRVLS) and no left heart measures improved prediction (p < 0.05) adjusted for STRATIFY. Right heart measures also had higher variable importance. TAPSE ≥ 17 mm plus STRATIFY improved prediction versus STRATIFY alone (aOR 0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.91; NRI_cont  0.71, 95% CI 0.22-1.19), and specificity improved by 6%-32% (p < 0.05) at risk thresholds more conservative than the standard-of-care benchmark without missing any additional events.

CONCLUSIONS

TAPSE increased detection of low-risk AHF patients, after use of a validated CDI, at risk thresholds more conservative than standard of care.

Emergency Department Visits Versus Hospital Readmissions Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Worsening heart failure (HF) often requires hospitalization but in some cases may be managed in the outpatient or emergency department (ED) settings. The predictors and clinical significance of ED visits without admission vs hospitalization are unclear.

METHODS

The ASCEND-HF trial included 2661 US patients hospitalized for HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Clinical characteristics were compared between patients with a subsequent all-cause ED visit (with ED discharge) within 30 days vs all-cause readmission within 30 days. Factors associated with each type of care were assessed in multivariable models. Multivariable models landmarked at 30 days evaluated associations between each type of care and subsequent 150-day mortality.

RESULTS

Through 30-day follow-up, 193 patients (7%) had ED discharge, 459 (17%) had readmission, and 2009 (76%) had neither urgent visit. Patients with ED discharge vs readmission were similar with respect to age, sex, systolic blood pressure, ejection fraction, and coronary artery disease, whereas ED discharge patients had a modestly lower creatinine (P < .01). Among patients with either event within 30 days, a higher creatinine and prior HF hospitalization were associated with a higher likelihood of readmission, as compared with ED discharge (P < .02). Landmarked at 30 days, rates of death during the subsequent 150 days were 21.0% for patients who were readmitted and 11.4% for patients discharged from the ED. Compared with patients who were readmitted, ED discharge was independently associated with lower 150-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.36-0.92, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of US patients hospitalized for HF, worse renal function and prior HF hospitalization were associated with a higher likelihood of early postdischarge readmission, as compared with ED discharge. Although subsequent mortality was high after discharge from the ED, this risk of mortality was significantly lower than patients who were readmitted to the hospital.

Outcomes among acute heart failure emergency department patients by preserved vs. reduced ejection fraction

Aims

This study aimed to assess short‐term outcomes among emergency department (ED) patients with acute heart failure (AHF) by preserved (≥50%) vs. reduced (<50%) ejection fraction (EF).

Methods and results

We conducted a retrospective, multicentre study of adult ED patients with AHF from 2017 to 2018 in an integrated healthcare system with 21 hospitals. Among patients with known EF, our primary outcome was 30 day all‐cause mortality, comparing patients with heart failure with preserved EF (HFpEF) and heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF), adjusted for known risk factors. We ran separate multivariate regression models to compare 30 day mortality between HFpEF and HFrEF patients stratified by ED disposition (admit, observe, and discharge). Our secondary outcomes were adjusted 30 day all‐cause return hospital admission and rates of non‐fatal serious adverse events, including new intra‐aorta balloon pump, endotracheal intubation, renal failure requiring dialysis, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. We conducted a sensitivity analysis among patients with EF ≤ 40% and compared our primary and secondary outcomes among patients with EF ≤ 40% with those with EF ≥ 50%. Among the 26 050 total ED encounters for AHF, 15 275 (58.6%) had known EF and 62.4% had HFpEF. The mean age was 76, 49.6% were women, and 60.5% were white. We found that 62.4% of patients were admitted, 18.3% were observed, and 19.3% were discharged from the ED. The 30 day all‐cause mortality rate was lowest among discharged patients (3.9%), intermediate among observed patients (5.9%), and highest among admitted patients (13.9%). Overall, the adjusted 30 day mortality rate was significantly higher among HFpEF patients compared with HFrEF patients (10.2% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.0004). HFpEF patients had higher mortality regardless of ED disposition, although the difference was only significant among admitted patients. The adjusted 30 day return hospital admission rates were not significantly different between HFpEF and HFrEF patients (17.9% vs. 17.8%, P = 0.89). The adjusted 30 day non‐fatal serious adverse event rates were significantly higher among HFrEF patients compared with HFpEF patients (13.7% vs. 11.1%, P < 0.0001), driven by myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization. We found that 3692 patients had EF ≤ 40%. Patients with EF ≥ 50% had significantly higher adjusted 30 day mortality rates compared with those with EF ≤ 40% (10.2% vs. 8.4%, P < 0.05).

Conclusion

In a contemporary population, almost three quarters of ED patients with AHF and known EF have HFpEF. These patients have higher 30 day adjusted mortality compared with those with HFrEF. Further studies might evaluate the underlying factors associated with this difference and target interventions to improve outcomes.