Optimization of heart rate lowering therapy in hospitalized patients with heart failure: Insights from the Optimize Heart Failure Care Program

Effectiveness and safety of ivabradine in Chinese patients with chronic heart failure: an observational study

AIMS

A therapeutic strategy for chronic heart failure (HF) is to lower resting heart rate (HR). Ivabradine is a well-known HR-lowering agent, but limited prospective data exist regarding its use in Chinese patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ivabradine in Chinese patients with chronic HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This multicentre, single-arm, prospective, observational study enrolled Chinese patients with chronic HF. The primary outcome was change from baseline in HR at 1 and 6 months, measured by pulse counting. Effectiveness was also evaluated using laboratory tests, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) clinical summary score (CSS) and overall summary score (OSS), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed. A post hoc analysis examined the effectiveness and safety of ivabradine combined with an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or beta-blocker. A total of 1003 patients were enrolled [mean age 54.4 ± 15.0 years, 773 male (77.1%), mean baseline HR 88.5 ± 11.3 b.p.m., mean blood pressure 115.7/74.4 ± 17.2/12.3 mmHg, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 30.9 ± 7.6%, NYHA Classes III and IV in 48.8% and 22.0% of patients, respectively]. HR decreased by a mean of 12.9 and 16.1 b.p.m. after 1 and 6 months, respectively (both P < 0.001). At Month 6, improvements in the KCCQ CSS and OSS of ≥5 points were observed in 72.1% and 74.1% of patients, respectively (both P < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction increased by 12.1 ± 11.6 (P < 0.001), and 66.7% of patients showed improvement in NYHA class (P < 0.001). At Month 6, the overall proportion of patients in NYHA Classes III and IV was reduced to 13.5% and 2.1%, respectively. Serum brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP changed by -331.9 ng/L (-1238.6, -134.0) and -1113.8 ng/L (-2202.0, -297.2), respectively (P < 0.001). HR reductions and improvements in NYHA and KCCQ scores with ivabradine were similar with and without use of ARNIs or beta-blockers. Of 498 TEAEs in 296 patients (29.5%), 73 TEAEs in 55 patients (5.5%) were considered related to ivabradine [most frequent sinus bradycardia (n = 7) and photopsia (n = 7)]. TEAEs were reported in a similar number of patients in ARNI and beta-blocker subgroups (21.9-35.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Ivabradine treatment reduced HR and improved cardiac function and health-related quality of life in Chinese patients with chronic HF. Benefits were seen irrespective of whether or not patients were also taking ARNIs or beta-blockers. Treatment was well tolerated with a similar profile to previous ivabradine studies.

Ivabradine in patients with heart failure: a systematic literature review

Background: Heart failure is a chronic disease linked with significant morbidity and mortality, and uncontrolled resting heart rate is a risk factor for adverse outcomes. This systematic literature review aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of ivabradine in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods: We searched electronic databases from their inception to July 2021 to include studies that reported on efficacy, safety, or PROs of ivabradine in patients with HFrEF. Results: Of 1947 records screened, 51 RCTs and 6 observational studies were identified. Ivabradine on top of background therapy demonstrated a significant reduction in composite outcomes including hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. In addition, observational studies suggested that ivabradine was associated with a significant reduction in mortality. Across all studies, ivabradine use on top of background therapy was associated with greater reductions in heart rate, improved EF, and improved health-related quality of life (QoL) and comparable risk of total adverse events compared to those treated with background therapy alone. Conclusions: Ivabradine on top of background therapy is beneficial for heart rate, hospitalization risk for HF, mortality, EF, and patients' QoL. Moreover, these benefits were achieved with no significant increase in the overall risk of total adverse events.

Expert Consensus on Ivabradine-based Therapy for Heart Rate Management in Chronic Coronary Syndrome and Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction in India

Heart rate is an important indicator of health and disease and the modulation of heart rate can help to improve cardiovascular outcomes. Besides β-blockers, Ivabradine is a wellestablished heart rate modulating drug that reduces heart rate without any hemodynamic effects. This consensus document was developed with the help of expert opinions from cardiologists across India on effective heart rate management in routine clinical practice and choosing an appropriate Ivabradine-based therapy considering the available scientific data and guideline recommendations. Based on the discussion during the meetings, increased heart rate was recognized as a significant predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes among patients with chronic coronary syndromes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction making heart rate modulation important in these subsets. Ivabradine is indicated in the management of chronic coronary syndromes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction for patients in whom heart rate targets cannot be achieved despite guideline-directed β-blocker dosing or having contraindication/intolerance to β-blockers. A prolonged release once-daily dosage of Ivabradine can be considered in patients already stabilized on Ivabradine twice-daily. Ivabradine/β-blocker fixed-dose combination can also be considered to reduce pill burden. Two consensus algorithms have been developed for further guidance on the appropriate usage of Ivabradine-based therapies. Ivabradine and β-blockers can provide more pronounced clinical improvement in most chronic coronary syndromes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients with a fixed-dose combination providing an opportunity to improve adherence.

Early administration of ivabradine in patients admitted for acute decompensated heart failure

BACKGROUND

Heart rate (HR) control is important in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction, and ivabradine is indicated for patients with chronic HF and sinus rhythm. However, ivabradine is limited in initiation of ivabradine at acute stage of HF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multi-institutional retrospective study enrolled 30,639 patients who were admitted for HF from January 01, 2013 to December 31, 2018 at Chang Gung Memorial Hospitals. After applying selection criteria, the eligible patients were divided into ivabradine and non-ivabradine groups according to the initiation of ivabradine at the index hospitalization. HR, clinical outcomes including HF hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, mortality, the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization and newly developed atrial fibrillation, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left atrium size were compared between the ivabradine and non-ivabradine groups after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis after 12 months.

RESULTS

The HR at admission in the ivabradine group (n = 433) was 99.04 ± 20.69/min, compared to 86.99 ± 20.34/min in the non-ivabradine group (n = 9,601). After IPTW, HR was lower in the ivabradine group than that in the non-ivabradine group after 12 months (74.14 ± 8.53 vs. 81.23 ± 16.79 bpm, p = 0.079). However, there were no significant differences in HF hospitalization (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.38-2.79), all-cause hospitalization (HR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.54-1.68), mortality (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.08), the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.08) and newly developed AF between the two groups. In addition, LVEF increased with time in both groups, but there were no significant differences during the observation period.

CONCLUSION

Ivabradine was beneficial in controlling HR when initiated in patients with acute stage of HF, but it did not seem to provide any benefits in reducing HF hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, and mortality in 1 year after discharge.

Initiating ivabradine during hospitalization in patients with acute heart failure: A real‐world experience in China

Background

Initiating ivabradine in acute heart failure (HF) is still controversial.

Hypothesis

Ivabradine might be effective to be added in acute but hemodynamically stable HF.

Methods

A retrospective cohort of hemodynamically stable acute HF patients was enrolled from January 2018 to January 2020 and followed until July 2020. The primary endpoints were all‐cause mortality and rehospitalization for HF. Secondary endpoints included heart rate (HR), cardiac function measured by New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and adverse events, which were compared between patients with or without ivabradine.

Results

A total of 126 patients were enrolled (50 males, median age 54 years, 81% with decompensated HF, median follow‐up of 9 months). In patients treated with ivabradine, although baseline HRs were higher than the reference group (96 vs. 80 bpm), they were comparable after 3 months; more patients tolerated high doses of β‐blockers (27% vs. 7.9%), improved to NYHA class I function (55.6% vs. 23.8%) and exhibited normal LVEFs (37.8% vs. 14.3%) than the reference group (all p < .05). Ivabradine was associated with a significant reduction of rehospitalization for HF than the reference group (25.4% vs.61.9%), with longer event‐free survival times (hazard ratio: 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25–0.79), and was related with primary endpoints negatively (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% CI: 0.28–0.91) (all p < .05).

Conclusion

In patients with acute but hemodynamically stable HF, ivabradine may significantly reduce HR, improve cardiac function, and reduce HF rehospitalization.

Real-World Effectiveness of Ivabradine in Chinese Patients with Chronic Heart Failure: Interim Analysis of the POSITIVE Study

Background

Ivabradine improves cardiac function and clinical outcomes in chronic heart failure (HF) by reducing heart rate (HR), but there is a lack of real-world data on its effectiveness and safety in Chinese patients.

Methods

We designed a prospective, multicenter, observational study of Chinese adults with HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction, resting HR ≥ 75 beats per minute (bpm), and an indication for ivabradine treatment. An interim analysis was performed using a cut-off date of 31 October 2019. The primary outcome was change in HR at 6 months after the initiation of ivabradine. Secondary endpoints included change in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class; quality of life (QoL), measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ); and adverse events (AEs).

Results

Overall, 655 subjects were included in the interim analysis. Mean reduction in HR from baseline was 13.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.2–15.2) bpm at Month 1, and 14.5 (95% CI 11.8–17.2) bpm at Month 6 (p < 0.001 for both changes). NYHA functional class and KCCQ scores improved significantly over time (p < 0.001 for all comparisons with baseline), indicating amelioration of symptoms and better QoL, respectively. Forty-four subjects (6.7%) reported a total of 60 ivabradine-related AEs, most frequently phosphenes and bradycardia (both n = 6, 0.9%).

Conclusion

Treatment with ivabradine for 6 months effectively reduced HR and improved functional class and QoL in Chinese patients with chronic HF. Treatment was well tolerated.

Clinical Trial Registration

ISRCTN11703380; registered on 8 November 2016.

Management of hypertension associated with cardiovascular failure

Hypertension (HT) treatment should focus on the prevention of new-onset heart failure (HF) or its exacerbation due to the increasing trend of HF incidence in Japan. According to the SPRINT trial, strict control of blood pressure (BP) of approximately 120 mmHg suppresses the progression of HF stages A and B to a more severe stage. However, in stages C and D, the target value for BP reduction differs depending on whether HF is HF reduced ejection fraction (EF) (HFrEF) or HF preserved EF (HFpEF). Additionally, the relationship between BP control and the prognosis of HF mostly showed the J-curve phenomenon in both HFrEF and HFpEF; however, patients with HFpEF need a lower target BP value than those with HFrEF. One reason is that vascular failure is associated with the pathophysiology of HF. Therefore, it is important to utilize an antihypertensive treatment strategy that considers vascular insufficiency. In addition, the presence or absence of compelling indications is important for the selection of antihypertensive (with cardioprotective effects for HF) medications. The uptitration of cardioprotective medications such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II type 1a receptor blockers and beta-blockers is recommended in patients with HFrEF; however, it is often not practically possible to increase the dosage. In these cases, the use of medications in combination with other medication classes is also useful. Moreover, it is also useful to properly use medications of the same class considering their onset of action and half-life in the blood. It is still unclear how cardioprotective medications are used in patients with HFrEF, especially on certain age groups. The optimal initiation and continuation of cardioprotective medications should be carefully determined.

The association between ivabradine and adverse cardiovascular events in acute decompensated HFrEF patients

AIMS

Ivabradine has been used in patients who have chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and concomitant sinus heart rate ≥70 bpm. This administration for acute HFrEF remains a concern. This study used a real-world multicentre database to investigate the effects of ivabradine among patients with acute decompensated HFrEF before discharge.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study retrospectively identified patients with acute decompensated HFrEF who were administered ivabradine at discharge from two multicentre HF databases. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders. Cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and recurrent HF rehospitalization risks were then compared between those with and without ivabradine treatment. After 1:2 propensity score matching, 876 patients (age, 60.7 ± 14.6 years; female, 23.2%; left ventricular ejection fraction, 28.2% ± 7.8%; and heart rate at discharge, 84.3 ± 13.8 bpm) were included in the final analysis, including 292 and 584 patients with and without ivabradine treatment at discharge, respectively. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between the two groups. At 1 year follow-up, patients in the ivabradine group had significantly lower heart rates (77.6 ± 14.7 vs. 81.1 ± 16.3 bpm; P = 0.005) and lower HF severity symptoms (New York Heart Association Functional class, 2.1 ± 0.7 vs. 2.3 ± 0.9; P < 0.001) than those from the non-ivabradine group. Ivabradine users had significantly lower risks of 1 year cardiovascular mortality (5.8 vs. 12.2 per 100-person year; P = 0.003), all-cause mortality (7.2 vs. 14.0 per 100-person year; P = 0.003), and total HF rehospitalization (42.3 vs. 72.6 per 100-person year; P < 0.001) than non-ivabradine users. Following multivariate analysis, the predischarge prescription of ivabradine remained independently associated with lower 1 year all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.74; P = 0.002) and cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.72; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study findings suggest that ivabradine treatment is associated with reduced risks of cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and HF rehospitalization within 1 year among patients with acute decompensated HFrEF in real-world populations.

Ivabradine: A Potential Therapeutic for Children With Refractory SVT

Background: In April 2015, ivabradine was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure (HF). The use of this medication has been linked with improved clinical outcomes and reduced rates of hospitalization in patients with symptomatic HF and a baseline heart rate of 70 bpm and above. Nonetheless, little is known about the use of ivabradine in pediatric patients with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). This use is not well-studied and is only endorsed by a few case reports and case series.

Aim: This study discusses the off-label utilization of ivabradine in pediatric patients with SVT, and highlights its efficacy in treating treatment-resistant (refractory) SVT.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-center observational study involving pediatric patients with SVT treated at our center between January 2016 and October 2020. We identified the total number of patients with SVT, and the number of patients with refractory SVT treated with Ivabradine. Similarly, we performed a thorough review of the databases of PubMed, Medline and Google Scholar to compare the clinical course of our patients to those described in the literature.

Results: Between January 2016 and October 2020, 79 pediatric patients with SVT were seen and treated at our center. A treatment-resistant SVT was noted only in three patients (4%). Ivabradine was used in these patients as a single or combined therapy. The rest (96%) were successfully treated with conventional anti-arrhythmics such as β-blockers, flecainide, and other approved medications. In the ivabradine group, successful reversal to sinus rhythm was achieved in two of the three patients (66%), one patient was treated with a combination therapy of amiodarone and ivabradine, and the other patient was treated only with ivabradine.

Conclusion: Overall, promissory results are associated with the use of ivabradine in pediatric patients with refractory SVT. Ivabradine appears to be a safe and well-tolerated medication that can induce adequate suppression of SVT, complete reversal to sinus rhythm, and effective enhancement of left ventricular function.

Resting heart rate and real-life treatment modalities in outpatients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction study: A multicenter, prospective, observational, and national registry

OBJECTIVE

Heart rate (HR) reduction is associated with improved outcomes in heart failure (HF). This multicenter, prospective, observational, and national registry aimed to evaluate resting HR and the impacts of HR-related medications in real-life clinical practice in patients with HF.

METHODS

The Resting HR and Real-Life Treatment Modalities in Outpatients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (REALITY HF) study enrolled 1054 patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of <40% from 16 centers. Clinical characteristics, HR, and medications were noted (enrollment phase). A total of 487 patients with sinus rhythm and HR of ≥70 bpm were included in a further 4-month follow-up (FU) program (V0). Changes in HR and medications were reevaluated at 1-month (V1) and 4-month (V2) FU visits. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) was used to assess the quality of life (QoL) of 320 patients in a 4-month FU program.

RESULTS

During enrollment, 794 patients (75.3%) were in sinus rhythm, in whom resting HR was 76.7±14 bpm, 69.1% had a resting HR of ≥70 bpm, 79.1% were receiving beta blocker (BB), and 6.1% were receiving ivabradine. Resting HR was lower in patients receiving BB (75.8±13 vs. 80.4±16 bpm; p=0.001); however, 65.8% of those still had a resting HR of ≥70 bpm. A significant association was found between elevated HR and worse New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, worse QoL, or lower LVEF. During the 4-month FU, adjustment of HR-lowering therapy was left to the physician's discretion. Resting HR significantly reduced from 83.6±12 (80) bpm at V0 to 78.6±13 (77) bpm at V1 (p=0.001) and further decreased to 73.0±11 (73) bpm at V2 (p=0.001). Patients achieving a resting HR of <70 bpm were 21.7% at V1 (p=0.001) and 39.9% at V2 (p=0.001). KCCQ significantly increased from 59.7±23 (62.7) at V0 to 73.1±18 (78.5) at V2 (p=0.001). In addition, patients with NYHA I increased from 22.2% at V0 to 29.2% at V1 and 39.4% at V2 (p=0.01).

CONCLUSION

In real-life clinical practice, elevated HR is highly prevalent in HF despite widely used BB therapy and is associated with worse clinical picture. Therapeutic interventions targeting HR significantly reduce HR, and HR lowering is associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Combination of ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

Ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan are second-line therapies for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on guideline recommendations. We aimed to evaluate the synergistic effects of these two medications.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients' data were extracted from a multicentre database between 2016 and 2018. Patients were classified into (1) Simultaneous group: simultaneous prescription of ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan within 6 weeks; (2A) Sequential group, ivabradine-first: ivabradine was prescribed first, followed by sacubitril/valsartan; and (2B) Sequential group, sacubitril/valsartan-first: sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed first, followed by ivabradine. A total of 464 patients with HFrEF were enrolled. Cardiovascular death and/or unplanned re-hospitalizations for HF were less frequent (28.6% vs. 44.8%, P = 0.01), and the improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly greater in patients from the Simultaneous group than those from the Sequential group (∆LVEF 12.8 ± 12.9% vs. 9.3 ± 12.6%, P = 0.007). Among Sequential subgroups, the ivabradine-first treatment decreased heart rate and increased systolic blood pressure (SBP) compared with sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment (∆heart rate -9.1 ± 12.9 b.p.m. vs. 2.6 ± 16.0 b.p.m., P < 0.001; ∆SBP 4.6 ± 16.5 mmHg vs. -4.8 ± 17.2 mmHg, P < 0.001), whereas sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment showed a higher degree of LVEF improvement (∆LVEF 3.6 ± 7.8% vs. 0.7 ± 7.7%, P = 0.002) than ivabradine-first treatment. At the end of follow-up, SBP, LVEF, and left ventricular volume were comparable between two Sequential subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with HFrEF, simultaneous rather than sequential treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine was a better strategy to reduce adverse events and achieve left ventricular reverse remodelling. Ivabradine treatment had a more significant benefit on improving haemodynamic stability, whereas sacubitril/valsartan treatment showed a more significant effect on improving LVEF.

Blood Pressure Reduction in Hypertensive Acute Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the key clinical and research questions regarding blood pressure (BP) reduction with vasodilators in the early management of hypertensive acute heart failure (H-AHF).

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite numerous AHF vasodilator clinical trials in the past two decades, virtually none has studied a population where vasoconstriction is the predominant physiology, and with the agents and doses most commonly used in contemporary practice. AHF patients are remarkably heterogenous by vascular tone, and this heterogeneity is not always discernible through BP or clinical exam. Emerging data suggest that diastolic BP may be a stronger correlate of vascular tone in AHF than systolic BP, despite the latter historically serving as a key inclusion criterion for vasodilator clinical trials. Existing data are limited. A clinical trial that evaluates vasodilators in a manner of use consistent with contemporary practice, specifically within the subpopulation of patients with true H-AHF, is greatly needed. Until then, observational data supports long-standing vasodilators such as nitroglycerin, administered by IV bolus, and with goal reduction of SBP ≤25% as a safe first-line approach for patients with severe H-AHF presentations.

A Novel Approach to Medical Management of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

The advent of newly available medical therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has resulted in many potential therapeutic combinations, increasing treatment complexity. Publication of expert consensus guidelines and initiatives aimed to improve implementation of treatment has emphasized sequential stepwise initiation and titration of medical therapy, which is labour intensive. Data taken from heart failure registries show suboptimal use of medications, prolonged titration times, and consequently little change in dose intensity, all of which indicate therapeutic inertia. Recently published evidence indicates that 4 medication classes-renin-angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors, β-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors-which we refer to as Foundational Therapy, confer rapid and robust reduction in both morbidity and mortality in most patients with HFrEF and that they work in additive fashion. Additional morbidity and mortality may be observed following addition of several personalized therapies in specific subgroups of patients. In this review, we discuss mechanisms of action of these therapies and propose a framework for their implementation, based on several principles. These include the critical importance of rapid initiation of all 4 Foundational Therapies followed by their titration to target doses, emphasis on multiple simultaneous drug changes with each patient encounter, attention to patient-specific factors in choice of medication class, leveraging inpatient care, use of the entire health care team, and alternative (ie, virtual visits) modes of care. We have incorporated these principles into a Cluster Scheme designed to facilitate timely and optimal medical treatment for patients with HFrEF.

Heart Failure Prescribing Quality at Discharge from a Critical Care Unit in Egypt: The Impact of Multidisciplinary Care

Discharge prescriptions for heart failure (HF) patients may not adhere to the clinical practice guidelines. This study aimed to assess the impact of the clinical pharmacist as a member of a multidisciplinary team on the quality of prescribing to HF patients at discharge from a Critical Care Unit (CCU) in Egypt. This was a retrospective cohort study of HF patients discharged from the CCU between January 2013 and December 2017. Guideline Adherence Index (GAI-3) was used to assess guideline-directed prescribing at discharge. Multidisciplinary care was introduced to the CCU on 1 January 2016. The study included 284 HF patients, mean (±SD) age 66.7 ± 11.5 years, 53.2% male. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction affected 100 patients (35.2%). At discharge, loop diuretics were prescribed to 85.2% of patients; mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists to 54.9%; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers to 51.4%; and β-blockers to 29.9%. Population Guideline Adherence Index (GAI-3) was 45.5%. High-GAI was prescribed to 136 patients (47.9%). Patients with High-GAI were younger; less affected by chronic kidney disease and had fewer comorbidities than those without High-GAI. Prescription of β-blocker increased (24.1% vs. 38.6%, p < 0.001) and digoxin utilization decreased (34.7% vs. 23.7%, p < 0.049) after the introduction of the multidisciplinary care. The inclusion of a clinical pharmacist in the multidisciplinary care team may have a role in optimizing the prescribing of HF guideline-directed therapies at discharge from this setting.

Usefulness of systolic blood pressure combined with heart rate measured on admission to identify 1-year all-cause mortality risk in elderly patients firstly hospitalized due to acute heart failure

BACKGROUND

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR) are well-known prognostic factors in heart failure (HF).

AIMS

Our objective was to assess the value of the combination of admission SBP and HR to estimate 1-year mortality risks in elderly patients admitted due to a first episode of acute HF (AHF).

METHODS

During a 36-month period, we retrospectively reviewed 901 consecutive patients aged ≥ 75 admitted because of a first episode of AHF. According to admission SBP-HR combinations, three groups were defined: "low-risk" (HR < 70 bpm and SBP ≥ 140 mmHg), "moderate-risk" (HR < 70 bpm and SBP < 140 mmHg or HR ≥ 70 bmp and SBP ≥ 120 mmHg), and "high-risk" (HR ≥ 70 bpm and SBP < 120 mmHg). We analyzed all-cause mortality using Cox mortality analysis.

RESULTS

One-year mortality ranged from 16.5% for patients in the low-risk group to 50% for those in the high-risk group (p < 0.0001). Multivariate Cox regression for 1-year mortality showed hazard risk (HzR) ratios, compared to that (HzR 1) of the low-risk reference group, of 1.759 (95% CI 1.035-2.988, p = 0.037) for moderate-risk, and 3.171 (95% CI 1.799-5.589, p = 0.0001) for high-risk group. Prior use of a high number of chronic therapies (HzR 1.045), lower admission diastolic BP (HzR 0.986) and higher admission serum potassium values (HzR 1.534) were also significantly associated with mortality.

CONCLUSION

In elderly population firstly hospitalized due to AHF, the simple combined admission measurement of SBP and HR predicts higher risk for 1-year all-cause mortality.

Effect of the Optimize Heart Failure Care Program on clinical and patient outcomes - The pilot implementation in Vietnam

BACKGROUND

The Ho-Chi-Minh-city Heart Institute in Vietnam took part in the Optimize Heart Failure (OHF) Care Program, designed to improve outcomes following heart failure (HF) hospitalization by increasing patient awareness and optimizing HF treatment.

METHODS

HF patients hospitalized with left ventricular ejection-fraction (LVEF) <50% were included. Patients received guideline-recommended HF treatment and education. Clinical signs, treatments and outcomes were assessed at admission, discharge, 2 and 6 months (M2, M6). Patients' knowledge and practice were assessed at M6 by telephone survey.

RESULTS

257 patients were included. Between admission and M2 and M6, heart rate decreased significantly, and clinical symptoms improved significantly. LVEF increased significantly from admission to M6. 85% to 99% of patients received education. At M6, 45% to 78% of patients acquired knowledge and adhered to practice regarding diet, exercise, weight control, and detection of worsening symptoms. High use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitors (91%), mineralocorticoid-receptor-antagonists (77%) and diuretics (85%) was noted at discharge. Beta-blocker and ivabradine use was less frequent at discharge but increased significantly at M6 (from 33% to 51% and from 9% to 20%, respectively, p < 0.001). There were no in-hospital deaths. Readmission rates at 30 and 60 days after discharge were 8.3% and 12.5%, respectively. Mortality rates at 30 days, 60 days and 6 months were 1.2%, 2.5% and 6.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The OHF Care Program could be implemented in Vietnam without difficulty and was associated with high usage of guideline-recommended drug therapy. Although education was delivered, patient knowledge and practice could be further improved at M6 after discharge.