Economic and Quality-of-Life Outcomes of Natriuretic Peptide-Guided Therapy for Heart Failure

Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction in Cardiac Surgery: A Narrative Review

Cardiac relaxation is a complex process that involves various interconnected characteristics and, along with contractile properties, determines stroke volume. Perioperative ischemia-reperfusion injury and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (DD) are characterized by the left ventricle's inability to receive a sufficient blood volume under adequate preload. Baseline DD and perioperative DD have an impact on postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and major clinical outcomes in a variety of cardiac pathologies. Several baseline and perioperative factors, such as age, female sex, hypertension, left ventricle hypertrophy, diabetes, and perioperative ischemia-reperfusion injury, contribute to the risk of DD. The recommended diagnostic criteria available in guidelines have not been validated in the perioperative settings and still need clarification. Timely diagnosis of DD might be crucial for effectively treating postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. This implies the need for an individualized approach to fluid infusion strategy, cardiac rate and rhythm control, identification of extrinsic causes, and administration of drugs with lusitropic effects. The purpose of this review is to consolidate scattered information on various aspects of diastolic dysfunction in cardiac surgery and provide readers with well-organized and clinically applicable information.

Disparities in Patient Portal Engagement Among Patients With Hypertension Treated in Primary Care

Importance

Patient portals are increasingly used for patient-clinician communication and to introduce interventions aimed at improving blood pressure control.

Objective

To characterize patient portal use among patients with hypertension managed in primary care.

Design, Settings, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used electronic health records linked with patient portal log file data from a large, diverse Midwestern health care system. Patients with hypertension who had a primary care visit from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021, were included. The first visit in 2021 was considered the baseline visit; patient portal engagement was evaluated during the following year. Multivariate logistic regressions, presented as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs, were used to evaluate associations between patient characteristics and patient portal engagement, adjusting for potential confounders.

Exposures

Primary exposures included 4 sociodemographic factors routinely collected in the electronic health record: race and ethnicity, insurance, preferred language, and smoking status.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Indicators of patient engagement with the patient portal included accessing the patient portal at least once, accessing the portal within 7 days of at least 50.0% of primary care physician (PCP) visits, frequent logins (<28 vs ≥28), messaging (<2 vs ≥2), and sharing home blood pressure readings.

Results

Among 366 871 patients (mean [SD], 63.5 [12.6] years), 52.8% were female, 3.4% were Asian, 7.8% were Hispanic, 19.7% were non-Hispanic Black, 66.9% were non-Hispanic White, and 2.3% were of other race or ethnicity. During the 1-year study period starting in 2021, 70.5% accessed the patient portal at least once, 60.2% accessed around the time of their PCP visits, 35.7% accessed the portal frequently, 28.9% engaged in messaging, and 8.7% shared home blood pressure readings. Compared with White patients, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients had lower odds of any access (Black: OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.52-0.54; Hispanic: OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.64-0.68), access around PCP visit time (Black: OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.48-0.50; Hispanic: OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.60-0.64), frequent access (Black: OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.55-0.57; Hispanic: OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.69-0.73), and messaging (Black: OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.64); Hispanic: OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.69-0.73).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study of patients with hypertension found clear sociodemographic disparities in patient portal engagement among those treated in primary care. Without special efforts to engage patients with portals, interventions that use patient portals to target hypertension may exacerbate disparities.

Utilizing Quality of Life Adjusted Days Alive and Out of Hospital in Heart Failure Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

In heart failure (HF) trials, there has been an emphasis on utilizing more patient-centered outcomes, including quality of life (QoL) and days alive and out of hospital. We aimed to explore the impact of QoL adjusted days alive and out of hospital as an outcome in 2 HF clinical trials.

METHODS

Using data from 2 trials in HF (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure [GUIDE-IT] and Study of Dietary Intervention under 100 mmol in Heart Failure [SODIUM-HF]), we determined treatment differences using percentage days alive and out of hospital (%DAOH) adjusted for QoL at 18 months as the primary outcome. For each participant, %DAOH was calculated as a ratio between days alive and out of hospital/total follow-up. Using a regression model, %DAOH was subsequently adjusted for QoL measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score.

RESULTS

In the GUIDE-IT trial, 847 participants had a median baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score of 59.0 (interquartile range, 40.8-74.3), which did not change over 18 months. %DAOH was 90.76%±22.09% in the biomarker-guided arm and 88.56%±25.27% in the usual care arm. No significant difference in QoL adjusted %DAOH was observed (1.09% [95% CI, -1.57% to 3.97%]). In the SODIUM-HF trial, 796 participants had a median baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score of 69.8 (interquartile range, 49.3-84.3), which did not change over 18 months. %DAOH was 95.69%±16.31% in the low-sodium arm and 95.95%±14.76% in the usual care arm. No significant difference was observed (1.91% [95% CI, -0.85% to 4.77%]).

CONCLUSIONS

In 2 large HF clinical trials, adjusting %DAOH for QoL was feasible and may provide complementary information on treatment effects in clinical trials.

Use of patient-reported outcomes in heart failure: from clinical trials to routine practice

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome that affects mortality/morbidity and acts at different levels in the patient's life, resulting in a drastic impairment in multiple aspects of daily activities (e.g. physical, mental/emotional, and social) and leading to a reduction in quality of life. The definition of disease status and symptom severity has been traditionally based on the physician assessment, while the patient's experience of disease has been long overlooked. The active participation of patients in their own care is necessary to better understand the perception of disease and the multiple aspects of life affected, and to improve adherence to treatments. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) aim to switch traditional care to a more patient-centred approach. Although PROs demonstrated precision in the evaluation of disease status and have a good association with prognosis in several randomized controlled trials, their implementation into clinical practice is limited. This review discusses the modalities of use of PROs in HF, summarizes the most largely adopted PROs in HF care, and provides an overview on the application of PROs in trials and the potential for their transition to clinical practice. By discussing the advantages and the disadvantages of their use, the reasons limiting their application in daily clinical routine, and the strategies that may promote their implementation, this review aims to foster the systematic integration of the patient's standpoint in HF care.

Point-of-care heart failure platform: where are we now and where are we going to?

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) remains a leading cause of cardiovascular (CV) mortality in patients with CV disease. The point-of-care (POC) HF platform seems to be an ideal non-invasive workflow-adapted system for personally adjusted management of patients with HF.

AREAS COVERED

In the present manuscript, we reviewed the literature covering some relevant studies regarding the role of point-of care heart failure platform in the risk stratification, earlier diagnosis and prognostically beneficial treatment of patients with different phenotypes of HF.

EXPERT OPINION

POC HF platform including personal consultation, optimization of the comorbidity treatment, step-by-step HF diagnostic algorithm, single biomarker measurements, has also partially been provided in the current guidelines. Although there are several obstacles to implement POC in routine practice, such as education level, aging, affordability of health care, even partial implementation of POC can also improve clinical outcomes. POC seems to be an evolving model, more research studies are required to clearly see whether it helps to make better decisions with diagnosis and care of HF, as well helps to achieve better clinical outcomes.In summary, the POC HF platform is considered to be a more effective tool than conventional algorithm of HF management.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Assessing race and ethnicity differences in outcomes based on GDMT and target NT-proBNP in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: An analysis of the GUIDE-IT study

BACKGROUND

The GUIDE-IT trial was, a multicenter, randomized, parallel group, unblinded study that randomized patients to having heart failure therapy titrated to achieve an NT-proBNP <1000 pg/mL or to usual clinical care.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed pre-specified subgroup analysis to look for the race and ethnicity-based differences in clinical outcomes of patients who were able to achieve GDMT or target NT-proBNP concentration of ≤1000 pg/mL at 90 days of follow-up. There were 894 patients enrolled in GUIDE-IT study. Of these, 733 participants had available data on 90-day guideline directed triple therapy and 616 on NT-proBNP. 35% of the patients were Black and 6% were Hispanic. Black patients were younger, had more comorbidities, lower EF, and higher NYHA class compared with non-Black. Adjusting for 90-day NT-proBNP and important baseline covariates, Black patients were at a higher risk than non-Black patients for HF hospitalization [HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.51-3.17; p < 0.0001], but at a similar risk for mortality [HR, 0.85.; 95% CI, 0.44-1.66; p = 0.64]. Similar results were seen adjusting for 90-day GDMT [HF hospitalization: Black vs non-Black, HR: 1.97; 1.41-2.77, P < 0.0001; mortality: HR: 0.70; 0.39-1.26, p = 0.23]. There were no significant differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with respect to heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Over the study period, Black and Hispanic patients experienced smaller changes in physical function and quality of life as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall score.

CONCLUSION

Compared to non-Black patients, Black patients in GUIDE-IT study had a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization, but a comparable risk of mortality, despite improved use of GDMT and achievement of similar biomarker targets.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Economic Issues in Heart Failure in the United States

The cost of heart failure care is high owing to the cost of hospitalization and chronic treatments. Heart failure treatments vary in their benefit and cost. The cost effectiveness of therapies can be determined by comparing the cost of treatment required to obtain a certain benefit, often defined as an increase in 1 year of life. This review was sponsored by the Heart Failure Society of America and describes the growing economic burden of heart failure for patients and the health care system in the United States. It also provides a summary of the cost effectiveness of drugs, devices, diagnostic tests, hospital care, and transitions of care for patients with heart failure. Many medications that are no longer under patent are inexpensive and highly cost-effective. These include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. In contrast, more recently developed medications and devices, vary in cost effectiveness, and often have high out-of-pocket costs for patients.

The Impact of Clinical, Biochemical, and Echocardiographic Parameters on the Quality of Life in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Despite significant advances in HF diagnosis and treatment over the recent decades, patients still characterize poor long-term prognosis with many recurrent hospitalizations and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We aimed to check the potential relationship between clinical, biochemical, or echocardiographic parameters and HRQoL in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We included 152 adult patients hospitalized due to chronic HFrEF. We used the WHOQoL-BREF questionnaire to assess HRQoL and GNRI to evaluate nutritional status. We also analyzed several biochemical parameters and left ventricle ejection fraction. Forty (26.3%) patients were hospitalized due to HF exacerbation and 112 (73.7%) due to planned HF evaluation. The median age was 57 (48–62) years. Patients with low somatic HRQoL score had lower transferrin saturation (23.7 ± 11.1 vs. 29.7 ± 12.5%; p = 0.01), LDL (2.40 (1.80–2.92) vs. 2.99 (2.38–3.60) mmol/L; p = 0.001), triglycerides (1.18 (0.91–1.57) vs. 1.48 (1.27–2.13) mmol/L; p = 0.006) and LVEF (20 (15–25) vs. 25 (20–30)%; p = 0.003). TIBC (64.9 (58.5–68.2) vs. 57.7 (52.7–68.6); p = 0.02) was significantly higher in this group. We observed no associations between HRQoL and age or gender. The somatic domain of WHOQoL-BREF in patients with HFrEF correlated with the clinical status as well as biochemical and echocardiographic parameters. Assessment of HRQoL in HFrEF seems important in everyday practice and can identify patients requiring a special intervention

The Impact of Depression on Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated in the GUIDE-IT Trial

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear why depression is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). We examine the relationship between depression and clinical outcomes among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction managed with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using the GUIDE-IT trial, 894 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction were stratified according to a history of depression, and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to examine the association with outcomes. There were 140 patients (16%) in the overall cohort who had depression. They tended to be female (29% vs 46%, P < .001) and White (67% vs 53%, P = .002). There were no differences in GDMT rates at baseline or at 90 days; nor were there differences in target doses of these therapies achieved at 90 days (NS, all). amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels at all time points were similar between the cohorts (P > .05, all). After adjustment, depression was associated with all-cause hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.81, P < .01), cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.07-2.68, P = .025), and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.03-2.32, P = .039).

CONCLUSIONS

Depression impacts clinical outcomes in HF regardless of GDMT intensity and amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. This finding underscores the need for a focus on mental health in parallel to achievement of optimal GDMT in these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01685840, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01685840.

Biomarkers for the diagnosis and management of heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Circulating biomarkers reflecting pathophysiological pathways involved in HF development and progression may assist clinicians in early diagnosis and management of HF patients. Natriuretic peptides (NPs) are cardioprotective hormones released by cardiomyocytes in response to pressure or volume overload. The roles of B-type NP (BNP) and N-terminal pro-B-type NP (NT-proBNP) for diagnosis and risk stratification in HF have been extensively demonstrated, and these biomarkers are emerging tools for population screening and as guides to the start of treatment in subclinical HF. On the contrary, conflicting evidence exists on the role of NPs as a guide to HF therapy. Among the other biomarkers, high-sensitivity troponins and soluble suppression of tumorigenesis-2 are the most promising biomarkers for risk stratification, with independent value to NPs. Other biomarkers evaluated as predictors of adverse outcome are galectin-3, growth differentiation factor 15, mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin, and makers of renal dysfunction. Multi-marker scores and genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic analyses could further refine HF management.

Effects of Atrial Fibrillation on Heart Failure Outcomes and NT-proBNP Levels in the GUIDE-IT Trial

Objective

To evaluate effects of atrial fibrillation (AF) on cardiac biomarkers and outcomes in a trial population of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction treated with optimal guideline-directed medical therapy.

Methods

We performed a secondary analysis of 894 patients in the Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker-Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure (GUIDE-IT) trial (January 2013–July 2016). Patients were stratified by AF status and compared with regard to guideline-directed medical therapy use, longitudinal levels of N-terminal pro–B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and outcomes including HF hospitalization and mortality.

Results

After adjustment, AF was associated with a significant increase in the risk of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.61; P=0.04) and HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.68; P=.03) but with no difference in mortality during a median 15 months of follow-up. There were no significant differences in medication treatment between those with and those without AF. At 90 days, a higher proportion of patients with AF (89.4% vs 81.5%; P=.002) had an NT-proBNP level above 1000 pg/mL (to convert NT-proBNP values to pmol/L, multiply by 0.1182), and AF patients had higher NT-proBNP levels at all time points through 2 years of follow-up.

Conclusion

Among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, prevalent AF was associated with higher NT-proBNP concentrations through 2 years of follow-up and higher risk for HF hospitalization despite no substantial differences in medical therapy.

A Systematic Review of Medical Costs Associated with Heart Failure in the USA (2014-2020)

BACKGROUND

Heart failure presents a growing clinical and economic burden in the USA. Robust cost data on the burden of illness are critical to inform economic evaluations of new therapeutic interventions.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic literature review of heart failure-related costs in the USA aimed to assess the quality of the published evidence and provide a narrative synthesis of current data.

METHODS

Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination York Database, including the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment Database) were searched for journal articles published between January 2014 and March 2020. The review, registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019134201), was restricted to cost-of-illness studies in adults with heart failure events in the USA.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven studies were included, 41 of which allowed a comparison of cost estimates across studies. The annual median total medical costs for heart failure care were estimated at $24,383 per patient, with heart failure-specific hospitalizations driving costs (median $15,879 per patient). Analyses of subgroups revealed that heart failure-related costs are highly sensitive to individual patient characteristics (such as the presence of comorbidities and age) with large variations even within a subgroup. Additionally, differences in study design and a lack of standardized reporting limited the ability to compare cost estimates. The finding that costs are higher for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction compared with patients with preserved ejection fraction highlights the need for differentiating among different heart failure types.

CONCLUSIONS

The review underpins the conclusion drawn in earlier reviews, namely that hospitalization costs are the key driver of heart failure-related costs. Analyses of subgroups provide a clearer understanding of sources of heterogeneity in cost data. While current cost estimates provide useful indications of economic burden, understanding the nuances of the data is critical to support its application.

A Multibiomarker Latent Class Analysis in Moderate to Advanced Heart Failure: Differentiating Factors

BACKGROUND

Biomarker science in heart failure (HF) is advancing quickly in our ability to diagnosis and treat patients with this complex syndrome. Researchers are urged to not use single-marker strategies, but instead evaluate biomarkers in patterns to better understand their relationship to one another, as well as disease progression. Latent class mixture modeling allows researchers to determine novel associations between biomarkers.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to identify and compare latent classes of cardiovascular biomarkers among patients with moderate to advanced HF.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of 96 participants with moderate to advanced HF. Latent class mixture modeling was used to identify unique classes of biomarkers and their associations to sociodemographic and clinical variables.

RESULTS

The average age of the sample was 54 years, with most of the sample being men (77%) and having an average ejection fraction of 23%. Two unique classes of biomarkers were identified. Latent class 1 had higher levels of all biomarkers, whereas latent class 2 had lower levels. The higher biomarker class had, on average, more neurohormonal activation and fluid retention; however, the higher levels of biomarker class were not more likely to be diagnosed with advanced HF or have more comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

By identifying classes of biomarkers, providers may be better able to identify patients who are at risk of progressing into advanced HF quicker or those who are more likely to have more severe complications, such as fluid overload or renal disease.

Targeting Natriuretic Peptide Levels in Heart Failure with Therapy: Does "X" Really Mark the Spot?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Explore controversial biomarker-guided management of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction.

RECENT FINDINGS

Natriuretic peptides (e.g., BNP, NT-proBNP) are elevated in HF as a result of end-diastolic stress and are used in the diagnosis and prognosis of heart failure. Natriuretic peptide levels decrease with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). Multiple small studies examined whether the use of biomarker-guided therapy would be beneficial to guide HF care and potentially improve outcomes. Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure (GUIDE-IT), the largest randomized control study seeking to answer that question, did not find biomarker guided therapy to be more effective than usual care in improving the primary endpoints of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality in HF patients. Natriuretic peptides are important for diagnosis and prognosis in HF. GUIDE-IT showed that patients with HF and reduced ejection did not benefit from biomarker-guided strategy in terms of clinical outcomes. Future studies could focus on additional routine clinical care settings and take into account other HF phenotypes including preserved ejection fraction.

Prognostic Implications of Congestion on Physical Examination Among Contemporary Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background:

The contemporary prognostic value of the physical examination— beyond traditional risk factors including natriuretic peptides, risk scores, and symptoms—in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is unknown. We aimed to determine the association between physical signs of congestion at baseline and during study follow-up with quality of life and clinical outcomes and to assess the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on congestion.

Methods:

We analyzed participants from PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in HF) with an available physical examination at baseline. We examined the association of the number of signs of congestion (jugular venous distention, edema, rales, and third heart sound) with the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization), its individual components, and all-cause mortality using time-updated, multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. We further evaluated whether sacubitril/valsartan reduced congestion during follow-up and whether improvement in congestion is related to changes in clinical outcomes and quality of life, assessed by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores.

Results:

Among 8380 participants, 0, 1, 2, and 3+ signs of congestion were present in 70%, 21%, 7%, and 2% of patients, respectively. Patients with baseline congestion were older, more often female, had higher MAGGIC risk scores (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) and lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores ( P <0.05). After adjusting for baseline natriuretic peptides, time-updated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score, and time-updated New York Heart Association class, increasing time-updated congestion was associated with all outcomes ( P <0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of the primary outcome irrespective of clinical signs of congestion at baseline ( P =0.16 for interaction), and treatment with the drug improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril ( P =0.011). Each 1-sign reduction was independently associated with a 5.1 (95% CI, 4.7–5.5) point improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores. Change in congestion strongly predicted outcomes even after adjusting for baseline congestion ( P <0.001).

Conclusions:

In HF with reduced ejection fraction, the physical exam continues to provide significant independent prognostic value even beyond symptoms, natriuretic peptides, and Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score. Sacubitril/valsartan improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril. Reducing congestion in the outpatient setting is independently associated with improved quality of life and reduced cardiovascular events, including mortality.

Clinical Trial Registration:

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Novel approaches to the management of chronic systolic heart failure: future directions and unanswered questions

Despite improvements in outcomes in the last few decades for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), there still remains a need for novel therapies as many patients incompletely recover with existing therapies and progress to advanced HF. In this review, we will discuss recent advances in the management of HFrEF with a focus on upcoming therapies that hold the greatest promise for clinical use. We will discuss novel pharmacological therapies and areas of uncertainty with existing therapies. We will also discuss the potential utility and controversy surrounding novel interventions for HF such as percutaneous mitral valve repair, atrial fibrillation ablation, and other emerging interventions with positive signals for benefit in HFrEF. Finally, we will summarize the current state of stem cell and gene therapy for HFrEF and future directions.

Collapse