The Hospitalization Burden and Post-Hospitalization Mortality Risk in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Results From the I-PRESERVE Trial (Irbesartan in Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction)

The Effect of Recurrent Heart Failure Hospitalizations on the Risk of Cardiovascular and all-Cause Mortality: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) is a significant worldwide concern due to its substantial impact on mortality rates and recurrent hospitalizations. The relationship between recurrent hospitalizations and mortality in individuals diagnosed with heart failure has been the subject of conflicting findings in previous studies. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association between recurrent heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) and mortality.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search across various online databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ProQuest, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar, to locate studies that examined the connection between recurrent HFHs and cardiovascular (CV) mortality as well as all-cause mortality until January 2023. To evaluate the heterogeneity among the studies, we employed I2 and Cochran's Q test.

RESULTS

In total, 143,867 participants from seven studies were included in the analysis. Recurrent HFHs were found to be strongly associated with elevated risks of both cardiovascular (CV) mortality and all-cause mortality. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) indicated a non-significant association for CV mortality (HR = 4.28, 95% CI: 0.86-7.71) but a significant association for all-cause mortality (HR = 2.76, 95% CI: 2.05-3.48). Subgroup analyses revealed a reduction in heterogeneity when stratified by factors such as quality score, sample size, hypertension comorbidity, number of recurrent HFHs, and follow-up time. A clear correlation was observed between the frequency of HFH and the mortality risk. Various subgroups, including those with diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease, showed significant associations between recurrent HFHs and all-cause mortality. Additionally, recurrent HFHs were significantly associated with CV mortality in subgroups such as heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), atrial fibrillation, and diabetes.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides evidence of an association between recurrent HFH and elevated risk of both CV mortality and all-cause mortality. The findings consistently indicate that a higher frequency of HFH is strongly associated with an increased likelihood of mortality.

Association between complementary use of Goreisan (a Japanese herbal Kampo medicine) and heart failure readmission: A nationwide propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Goreisan, a Japanese herbal medicine, possesses aquaretic properties to regulate body fluid homeostasis and may therefore be effective as a complement to standard therapy in improving outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF).

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 431,393 patients (mean age 79.2 ± 12.6 years; male 52.3 %) who were admitted for HF for the first time and were discharged alive with standard HF medications between April 2016 and March 2022, using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. We divided patients into two groups according to the prescription of Goreisan at discharge: patients who received standard HF medications plus Goreisan and those who received standard medications alone. We compared the incidence of HF readmission within 1 year after discharge between the groups using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Overall, Goreisan was prescribed in 1957 (0.45 %) patients at discharge. Patients who received Goreisan were older and received diuretics more frequently than those who did not. One-to-four propensity score matching created a cohort of 1957 and 7828 patients treated with and without Goreisan, respectively. No significant difference was found in the incidence of 1-year HF readmission between the groups [22.1 % vs. 21.7 %; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.02, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.92-1.13]. This result was consistent with that from competing risk analysis (subdistribution HR = 1.02, 95 % CI = 0.92-1.13) and across clinically relevant subgroups except for renal disease. Goreisan use was associated with a lower incidence of HF readmission among patients with renal disease (HR = 0.77, 95 % CI = 0.60-0.97), but not among those without (HR = 1.09, 95 % CI = 0.97-1.23; p for interaction = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide propensity score-matched analysis did not demonstrate that complementary Goreisan use at discharge was associated with a lower incidence of 1-year HF readmission in patients with HF receiving standard medications. An ongoing randomized trial is awaited to establish the effectiveness of Goreisan use in patients with HF.

Real world experience in effect of torsemide vs. furosemide after discharge in patients with HFpEF

AIMS

Few studies have focused on the effect of torsemide versus furosemide after discharge on prognosis in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This single-centre retrospective real-world study was conducted to evaluate the effect of torsemide versus furosemide after discharge on all-cause mortality and rehospitalization for heart failure in patients with HFpEF.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who were diagnosis with HFpEF after discharge between January 2015 and April 2018 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University and who had been treated with torsemide or furosemide were included in this study. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The second outcome was rehospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

A total of 445 patients (mean age 68.56 ± 8.07, female 55%) were divided into the torsemide group (N = 258) or furosemide group (N = 187) based on the treatment course at discharge from the hospital. During a mean follow-up of 87.67 ± 11.15 months, death occurred in 68 of 258 patients (26.36%) in the torsemide group and 60 of 187 patients (30.09%) in the furosemide group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-1.15, P = 0.239]. Rehospitalization for heart failure occurred in 111 of 258 patients (43.02%) in the torsemide groups and 110 of 187 patients (58.82%) in the furosemide group (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.85, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with furosemide, torsemide did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality, but there was association between torsemide and reduced rehospitalization for heart failure in patients with HFpEF.

Rates and predictors of cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

The detailed sub-categories of death and hospitalization, and the impact of comorbidities on cause-specific outcomes, remain poorly understood in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We sought to evaluate rates and predictors of cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV outcomes in HFpEF.

METHODS

The Karolinska-Rennes study was a bi-national prospective observational study designed to characterize HFpEF (ejection fraction ≥45%). Patients were followed for cause-specific death and hospitalization. Baseline characteristics were pre-selected based on clinical relevance and potential eligibility criteria for HFpEF trials. The associations between characteristics and cause-specific outcomes were assessed with univariable and multivariable Cox regressions.

RESULTS

Five hundred thirty-nine patients [56% females; median (inter-quartile range) age 79 (72-84) years; NT-proBNP/BNP 2448 (1290-4790)/429 (229-805) ng/L] were included. Over 1196 patient-years follow-up [median (min, max) 744 days (13-1959)], there were 159 (29%) deaths (13 per 100 patient-years: CV 5.1 per 100, dominated by HF 3.9 per 100; and non-CV 5.8 per 100, dominated by cancer, 2.3 per 100). There were 723 hospitalizations in 338 patients (63%; 60 per 100 patient-years: CV 33 per 100, dominated by HF 17 per 100; and non-CV 27 per 100, dominated by lung disease 5 per 100). Higher age and natriuretic peptides, lower serum natraemia and NYHA class III-IV were independent predictors of CV death; lower serum natraemia, anaemia and stroke of non-CV death; and anaemia and lower serum natraemia of non-CV death or hospitalizations. There were no apparent predictors of CV death or hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

In a clinical cohort hospitalized and diagnosed with HFpEF, death and hospitalization rates were roughly similar for CV and non-CV causes. CV deaths were predicted primarily by severity of HF; non-CV deaths primarily by anaemia and prior stroke. Lower serum sodium predicted both. Hospitalizations were difficult to predict.

Insulin Resistance/Hyperinsulinemia, Neglected Risk Factor for the Development and Worsening of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure (HF) has become a subject of continuous interest since it was declared a new pandemic in 1997 because of the exponential increase in hospitalizations for HF in the latest years. HF is the final state to which all heart diseases of different etiologies lead if not adequately treated. It is highly prevalent worldwide, with a progressive increase with age, reaching a prevalence of 10% in subjects over the age of 65 years. During the last two decades, it was possible to see that the prevalence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) was increasing while that of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) was decreasing. HFpEF is typically characterized by concentric remodeling of the left ventricle (LV) with impaired diastolic function and increased filling pressures. Over the years, also the prevalence of insulin resistance (IR)/hyperinsulinemia (Hyperins) in the general adult population has progressively increased, primarily due to lifestyle changes, particularly in developed and developing countries, with a range that globally ranges between 15.5% and 46.5%. Notably, over 50% of patients with HF also have IR/Hyperins, and the percentage is even higher in those with HFpEF. In the scientific literature, it has been well highlighted that the increased circulating levels of insulin, associated with conditions of insulin resistance, are responsible for progressive cardiovascular alterations over the years that could stimulate the development and/or the worsening of HFpEF. The aim of this manuscript was to review the scientific literature that supports a pathophysiologic connection between IR/Hyperins and HFpEF to stimulate the scientific community toward the identification of hyperinsulinemia associated with insulin resistance as an independent cardiovascular risk factor in the development and worsening of HF, believing that its adequate screening in the general population and an appropriate treatment could reduce the prevalence of HFpEF and improve its progression.

Noncardiovascular morbidity and mortality across left ventricular ejection fraction categories following hospitalization for heart failure

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Noncardiovascular events represent a significant proportion of the morbidity and mortality burden in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the risk of these events appears to differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) status. In this study, we sought to evaluate the risk of noncardiovascular death and recurrent noncardiovascular readmission by LVEF status following an admission for acute HF.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed a cohort of 4595 patients discharged after acute HF in a multicenter registry. We evaluated LVEF as a continuum, stratified in 4 categories (LVEF ≤ 40%, 41%-49%, 50%-59%, and ≥ 60%). Study endpoints were the risks of noncardiovascular mortality and recurrent noncardiovascular admissions during follow-up.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 2.2 [interquartile range, 0.76-4.8] years, we registered 646 noncardiovascular deaths and 4014 noncardiovascular readmissions. After multivariable adjustment including cardiovascular events as a competing event, LVEF status was associated with the risk of noncardiovascular mortality and recurrent noncardiovascular admissions. When compared with patients with LVEF ≤ 40%, those with LVEF 51%-59%, and especially those with LVEF ≥ 60%, were at higher risk of noncardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.31; 95%CI, 1.02-1,68; P=.032; and HR, 1.47; 95%CI, 1.15-1.86; P=.002; respectively), and at higher risk of recurrent noncardiovascular admissions (IRR, 1.17; 95%CI, 1.02-1.35; P=.024; and IRR, 1.26; 95%CI, 1.11-1.45; P=.001; respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Following an admission for HF, LVEF status was directly associated with the risk of noncardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Patients with HFpEF were at higher risk of noncardiovascular death and total noncardiovascular readmissions, especially those with LVEF ≥ 60%.

Beta-blocker therapy in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (B-HFpEF): A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

While beta-blockers are considered the cornerstone of treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the same may not apply to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). To date, the benefit of beta-blockers remains uncertain, and there is no current consensus on their effectiveness. This study sought to evaluate the efficacy of beta-blockers on mortality and rehospitalization among patients with HFpEF.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized or observational cohort studies examined the efficacy of beta-blocker therapy in comparison with placebo, control, or standard medical care in patients with HFpEF, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50 %. The main endpoints were mortality (i.e., all-cause and cardiovascular), rehospitalization (i.e., all-cause and for heart failure) and a composite of the two.

RESULTS

Out of the 13,189 records initially identified, 16 full-text records met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed recruiting a total of 27,188 patients. The mean age range was 62-84 years old, predominantly female, with HFpEF in which 63.4 % of patients received a beta-blocker and 36.6 % did not. The pooled analysis of included cohort studies, of variable follow-up durations, showed a significant reduction in all-cause mortality by 19 % (odds ratio (OR) 0.81; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.65-0.99, p = 0.044) whereas rehospitalization for heart failure (OR 1.13; 95 % CI: 0.91-1.41, p = 0.27) or its composite with all-cause mortality (OR 1.01; 95 % CI: 0.78-1.32, p = 0.92) were similar between the beta-blocker and control groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that beta-blocker therapy has the potential to reduce all-cause mortality in patients with HFpEF based on observational studies. Nevertheless, it did not affect rehospitalization for heart failure or its composite with all-cause mortality. Large scale randomized trials are needed to clarify this uncertainty.

Pharmacotherapies in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Various pharmacotherapies exist for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but with unclear comparative efficacy. We searched EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library from inception through August 2021 for all randomized clinical trials in HFpEF (EF >40%) that evaluated beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). Outcomes assessed were cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and HF hospitalization. A frequentist network meta-analysis was performed with a random-effects model. We included 22 randomized clinical trials (30,673 participants; mean age = 71.7 ± 4.2 years; females = 49.3 ± 7.7%; median follow-up = 24.4 ± 11.1 months). Compared with placebo, there was no statistically significant difference in cardiovascular mortality [beta-blockers; odds ratio (OR) 0.79 (0.46-1.34), MRA; OR 0.90 (0.70-1.14), ACE OR 0.95 (0.59-1.53), ARB; OR 1.02 (0.87-1.19), ARNI; OR 0.97 (0.74-1.26) and SGLT2i; OR 1.00 (0.84-1.18)] or all-cause mortality [beta blockers; OR 0.75 (0.54-1.04), MRA; OR 0.90 (0.75-1.08) ACE; OR 1.05 (0.71-1.54), ARB; OR 1.03 (0.91-1.15), ARNI; OR 0.99 (0.82-1.20) and SGLT2i; OR 1.00 (0.89-1.13)]. The certainty in these estimates was low or very low. There was a significantly reduction in HF hospitalization with the use of SGLT2i [OR 0.71 (0.62-0.82), moderate certainty], ARNI [OR 0.77 (0.63-0.94), low certainty], and MRA [OR 0.81 (0.66-0.98), moderate certainty]; with corresponding P scores of 0.84, 0.68, and 0.58, respectively. In HFpEF, the use of beta-blockers, MRA, ACE/ARB/ARNI, or SGLT2i was not associated with improved cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. SGLT2i, ARNI, and MRA reduced the risk of HF hospitalizations.

Revisiting Beta-Blocker Therapy in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogenous disorder and tends to be predominant in elderly, female, and obese patients. HFpEF has been classified using various cut-offs of left ventricular ejection fraction in the published studies with a current cut-off of ≥50%. The evidence of beta-blocker therapy in HFpEF patients showed conflicting findings with variably reported efficacy. This review aims to examine the published studies on the use of beta blockers for the treatment of patients with HFpEF.

Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC)

The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.

Cost-utility analysis of add-on dapagliflozin in heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

The DELIVER study demonstrates a significant improvement in cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure among heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).Cost-utility of the adjunct use of dapagliflozin to standard therapy among patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF remains unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A five-state Markov mode was constructed to project health and clinical outcomes of the adjunct use of dapagliflozin to standard therapy among 65-year-old patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF. A cost-utility analysis was performed based on the DELIVER study and national statistical database. The cost and utility was inflated to 2022 by the usual discount rate of 5%. The primary outcomes were total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patients as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Sensitivity analyses were also applied. Over a 15 year lifetime horizon, the average cost per patient was $7245.77 and $5407.55 in the dapagliflozin group and the standard group, along with an incremental cost of $1838.22. The average QALYs per patient was 6.00 QALYs and 5.84 QALYs in the dapagliflozin group and the standard group, along with an incremental QALYs of 0.15 QALYs, resulting in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $11 865.33/QALY, which was below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $12 652.5/QALY. The univariate sensitivity analysis indicated the cardiovascular death in both group was the most sensitive variable. Probability sensitivity analysis revealed that when the WTP thresholds were $12 652.5/QALY and $37 957.5/QALY, the probabilities of being cost-effective with dapagliflozin as an add-on were 54.6% and 71.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

From a public healthcare system perspective, the adjunct use of dapagliflozin to standard therapy among patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF generated advantages in cost-effectiveness in China at a WTP of $12 652.5/QALY, which promoted the rational use of dapagliflozin for heart failure.

Biventricular longitudinal strain as a predictor of functional improvement after D-shant device implantation in patients with heart failure

Background

The creation of an atrial shunt is a novel approach for the management of heart failure (HF), and there is a need for advanced methods for detection of cardiac function response to an interatrial shunt device. Ventricular longitudinal strain is a more sensitive marker of cardiac function than conventional echocardiographic parameters, but data on the value of longitudinal strain as a predictor of improvement in cardiac function after implantation of an interatrial shunt device are scarce. We aimed to investigate the exploratory efficacy of the D-Shant device for interatrial shunting in treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and to explore the predictive value of biventricular longitudinal strain for functional improvement in such patients.

Methods

A total of 34 patients were enrolled (25 with HFrEF and 9 with HFpEF). All patients underwent conventional echocardiography and two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiogram (2D-STE) at baseline and 6 months after implantation of a D-Shant device (WeiKe Medical Inc., WuHan, CN). Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) and right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain (RVFWLS) were evaluated by 2D-STE.

Results

The D-Shant device was successfully implanted in all cases without periprocedural mortality. At 6-month follow-up, an improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class was observed in 20 of 28 patients with HF. Compared with baseline, patients with HFrEF showed significant reduced left atrial volume index (LAVI) and increased right atrial (RA) dimensions, as well as improved LVGLS and RVFWLS, at 6-month follow-up. Despite reduction in LAVI and increase in RA dimensions, improvements in biventricular longitudinal strain did not occur in HFpEF patients. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that LVGLS [odds ratio (OR): 5.930; 95% CI: 1.463-24.038; P = 0.013] and RVFWLS (OR: 4.852; 95% CI: 1.372-17.159; P = 0.014) were predictive of improvement in NYHA functional class after D-Shant device implantation.

Conclusion

Improvements in clinical and functional status are observed in patients with HF 6 months after implantation of a D-Shant device. Preoperative biventricular longitudinal strain is predictive of improvement in NYHA functional class and may be helpful to identify patients who will experience better outcomes following implantation of an interatrial shunt device.

Cost-utility analysis of empagliflozin in heart failure patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction in China

Objective: EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved studies showed the benefits of empagliflozin along with a reduction in cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure (HF). Our aim was to evaluate the economics and effectiveness of adding empagliflozin to the standard therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in China. Methods: A multistate Markov model was constructed to yield the clinical and economic outcomes of adding empagliflozin to the standard therapy for 65-year-old patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. A cost-utility analysis was conducted, mostly derived from the EMPEROR-Reduced study, EMPEROR-Preserved study, and national statistical database. All costs and outcomes were discounted at the rate of 5% per annum. The primary outcomes were total and incremental costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results: In the HFrEF population, the 10-year incremental cost was $827.52 and the 10-year incremental QALY was 0.15 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $5,612.06/QALY, which was below the WTP of $12,652.5/QALY. In the HFpEF population, compared with the control group, the incremental cost was $1,271.27, and the incremental QALY was 0.11 QALYs, yielding an ICER of 11,312.65 $/QALY, which was also below the WTP of $12,652.5/QALY. In the HFrEF and HFpEF populations, the results of a one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the risk of cardiovascular death in both groups was the most influential parameter. In the HFrEF population, a probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) revealed that when the WTP thresholds were $12,652.5/QALY and $37,957.5/QALY, the probabilities of being cost-effective with empagliflozin as an add-on were 59.4% and 72.6%, respectively. In the HFpEF population, the PSA results revealed that the probabilities of being cost-effective with empagliflozin as an add-on were 53.1% and 72.2%, respectively. Conclusion: Considering that the WTP threshold was $12,652.5/QALY, adding empagliflozin to standard therapy was proven to be a slightly more cost-effective option for the treatment of HFrEF and HFpEF from a Chinese healthcare system perspective, which promoted the rational use of empagliflozin for HF.

Cost-effectiveness of adding empagliflozin to the standard therapy for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction from the perspective of healthcare systems in China

Background

The Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) is the first randomized controlled trial to provide promising evidence on the efficacy of adding empagliflozin to the standard therapy in patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF), but the cost-effectiveness of add-on empagliflozin treatment remains unclear.

Method

A Markov model using data from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial and national database was constructed to assess lifetime costs and utility from a China healthcare system perspective. The time horizon was 10 years and a 5% discount rate was applied. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) against willingness to pay (WTP) threshold was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness. A series of sensitivity analyses was applied to ensure the robustness of the results.

Results

Compared to standard therapy, the increased cost of adding empagliflozin from $4,645.23 to $5,916.50 was associated with a quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gain from 4.70 to 4.81, projecting an ICER of $11,292.06, which was lower than a WTP threshold of $12,652.5. Univariate sensitivity analysis revealed that the parameters with the largest impact on ICER were cardiovascular mortality in both groups, followed by the cost of empagliflozin and the cost of hospitalization for heart failure. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that when the WTP threshold was $12,652.5 and $37,957.5, the probability of being cost-effective for adding empagliflozin was 52.7% and 67.6%, respectively. Scenario analysis demonstrated that the cost of empagliflozin, the cost of hospitalization for heart failure, NYHA functional classes, and time horizon had a greater impact on the ICER.

Conclusion

At a WTP threshold of $12,652.5, the add-on empagliflozin treatment for HFpEF was cost-effective in healthcare systems in China, which promoted the rational use of empagliflozin for HFpEF.

Prognostic Impact of Cardiovascular versus Noncardiovascular Hospitalizations in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights from TOPCAT

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are commonly admitted to the hospital for both cardiovascular (CV) and noncardiovascular (non-CV) reasons. The prognostic implications of non-CV hospitalizations in this population are not well understood. In this study, we aimed to examine the prognostic implications of hospitalizations due to CV and non-CV reasons in a HFpEF population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist trial (TOPCAT) randomized 3,445 stable outpatients with chronic HF with left ventricular ejection fraction >=45% and either prior hospitalization for HF or elevated natriuretic peptides to treatment with spironolactone or placebo. Hospitalizations for any cause were reported by investigators during study follow-up and characterized according to prespecified category causes. This analysis focused on the subset of TOPCAT participants enrolled in the Americas (N=1,767), in which 2,973 hospitalizations were observed in 1,062 subjects (60%) over a mean follow-up of 3.3 years of study follow-up, of which 1,474 (49%) were ascribed to CV causes. Among 1,056 first hospitalizations, 478 (45%) were for CV reasons and 578 (55%) for non-CV reasons. Mortality rates were lowest for participants not hospitalized during the trial (3.2 per 100 patient-years (PY)), but similarly elevated following first hospitalization for CV and non-CV reasons (11.0 per 100 PY vs. 12.6 per 100 PY, respectively, p=0.24). Among those hospitalized for CV reasons, mortality rates were similar following hospitalization for HF and non-CV related reasons (15.2 per 100 PY vs. 12.6 per 100 PY, p=0.23). Recurrent hospitalization, whether due to CV or non-CV causes, was associated with heightened risk for subsequent mortality, with similar death rates following hospitalization twice for CV reasons (18.5 per 100 PY), twice for non-CV reasons (21.6 per 100 PY), or once each for CV and non-CV reasons (18.4 per 100 PY).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with HFpEF, hospitalization for any cause is associated with heightened risk for post-discharge mortality, with even higher risk associated with recurrent hospitalization. Given the high burden of non-CV hospitalizations in this population, targeted management of comorbid medical illness may be critical to reducing morbidity and mortality.

Correlation of serum ST2 levels with severity of diastolic dysfunction on echocardiography and findings on cardiac MRI in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to find a correlation of serum Suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (ST2) levels with severity of diastolic dysfunction on echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients.

METHODS

Fifty patients aged ≥18 years fulfilling diagnostic criteria for HFpEF were included. ST2 levels, 2D echocardiography and CMRI were performed. Left ventricular ejection fraction, E/A, Septal E/E', left atrial volume index (LAVI), tricuspid regurgitation (TR), assessment of diastolic dysfunction, T1 mapping in milliseconds and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in percentage were noted. The primary outcome measure was to study correlation of ST2 levels with severity of diastolic dysfunction, whereas the secondary outcome measures were to study correlation of ST2 levels with native T1 mapping and LGE on CMRI.

RESULTS

ST2 levels showed statistically significant and positive correlation with E/E' (r = 0.837), peak TR velocity (r = 0.373), LAVI (r = 0.74), E/A (r = 0.420), and T1 values in milliseconds (r = 0.619). There was no statistically significant correlation between ST2 level and LGE in % (r = 0.145). The median ST2 levels in patients with E/E' > 14 and E/E' ≤ 14 were 110.8 and 36.1 respectively (p-value < 0.05). The mean ST2 levels were significantly higher in patients who had diastolic dysfunction grade III (126.4) and New York Heart Association class IV (133.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of ST2 adds important information to support the diagnosis of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF.

Incidence and Outcomes of Acute Heart Failure With Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction in SPRINT

BACKGROUND

In the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), intensive BP treatment reduced acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) events. Here, we report the effect on HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) and their subsequent outcomes.

METHODS

Incident ADHF was defined as hospitalization or emergency department visit, confirmed, and formally adjudicated by a blinded events committee using standardized protocols. HFpEF was defined as EF ≥45%, and HFrEF was EF <45%.

RESULTS

Among the 133 participants with incident ADHF who had EF assessment, 69 (52%) had HFpEF and 64 (48%) had HFrEF (P value: 0.73). During average 3.3 years follow-up in those who developed incident ADHF, rates of subsequent all-cause and HF hospital readmission and mortality were high, but there were no significant differences between those who developed HFpEF versus HFrEF. Randomization to the intensive arm had no effect on subsequent mortality or readmissions after the initial ADHF event, irrespective of EF subtype. During follow-up among participants who developed HFpEF, although relatively modest number of events limited statistical power, age was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality, and Black race independently predicted all-cause and HF hospital readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

In SPRINT, intensive BP reduction decreased both acute decompensated HFpEF and HFrEF events. After initial incident ADHF, rates of subsequent hospital admission and mortality were high and were similar for those who developed HFpEF or HFrEF. Randomization to the intensive arm did not alter the risks for subsequent all-cause, or HF events in either HFpEF or HFrEF. Among those who developed HFpEF, age and Black race were independent predictors of clinical outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Usefulness of Diastolic Function Score as a Predictor of Long-Term Prognosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background: Left ventricular diastolic function (LVDF) evaluation using a combination of several echocardiographic parameters is an important predictor of adverse events in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). To date, the clinical impact of each individual LVDF marker is well-known, but the clinical significance of the sum of the abnormal diastolic function markers and the long-term clinical outcome are not well-known. This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of LVDF score in predicting clinical outcomes of patients with AMI. Methods: LVDF scores were measured in a 2,030 patients with AMI who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention from 2012 to 2015. Four LVDF parameters (septal e' ≥ 7 cm/s, septal E/e' ≤ 15, TR velocity ≤ 2.8 m/s, and LAVI ≤ 34 ml/m²) were used for LVDF scoring. The presence of each abnormal LVDF parameter was scored as 1, and the total LVDF score ranged from 0 to 4. Mortality and hospitalization due to heart failure (HHF) in relation to LVDF score were evaluated. To compare the predictive ability of LVDF scores and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) for mortality and HHF, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and landmark analyses were performed. Results: Over the 3-year clinical follow-up, all-cause mortality occurred in 278 patients (13.7%), while 91 patients (4.5%) developed HHF. All-cause mortality and HHF significantly increased as LVDF scores increased (all-cause mortality-LVDF score 0: 2.3%, score 1: 8.8%, score 2: 16.7%, score 3: 31.8%, and score 4: 44.5%, p < 0.001; HHF-LVDF score 0: 0.6%, score 1: 1.8%, score 2: 6.3%, score 3: 10.3%, and score 4: 18.2%, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, a higher LVDF score was associated with significantly higher adjusted hazard ratios for all-cause mortality and HHF. In landmark analysis, LVDF score was a better predictor of long-term mortality than LVEF (area under the ROC curve: 0.739 vs. 0.640, p < 0.001). Conclusion: The present study demonstrated that LVDF score was a significant predictor of mortality and HHF in patients with AMI. LVDF scores are useful for risk stratification of patients with AMI; therefore, careful monitoring and management should be performed for patients with AMI with higher LVDF scores.

Prognostic association of medication trajectories with 3-year mortality in heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: findings from the EPICAL2 cohort study

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to describe combinations of beta-blockers (BB), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) prescriptions and their trajectories in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients, and to assess their effect on the three-year all-cause and cardiovascular (CV)-mortality.

METHODS

We used data from the EPICAL2 cohort of 689 hospitalized HFpEF patients. Medication prescriptions were collected at hospital discharge and at 6, 12, and 24 months after discharge. A multi-trajectory approach was used to conjointly model groups of individuals following similar trajectories over medications prescriptions. We used Cox and Fine-Gray models, to evaluate respectively the associations between 3-year all-cause mortality and CV-mortality and the trajectory groups.

RESULTS

Multi-trajectory modelling revealed five distinct trajectory groups: group1 (N = 232, 33.6%) stable ACEI/ARB and BB prescriptions, group 2 (N = 199, 28.8%) stable ACEI/ARB prescription, group 3 (N = 133, 19.3%) stable BB prescriptions, group 4 (N = 78, 11.3%) stable prescriptions of none of the medications, and group 5 (N = 47, 6.8%) stable ACEI/ARB, BB, and MRA prescriptions. As compared to the group 4 of patients receiving none of the three medications, patients receiving a stable prescription of one or a combination of two or the three medications over 2 years) had a lower overall mortality over 3-year follow-up, i.e., group 1 (HR = 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.8), group 2 (HR = 0.6, 95% CI:0.4-0.8), group 3 (HR = 0.5, 95% CI:0.4-0.7), and group 5 (HR = 0.5, 95% CI:0.3-0.9). However, none of these trajectory groups was associated with a lower CV-mortality over 3 years.

CONCLUSION

In an unselected population-based sample of HFpEF patients, the long-term stable use of the combination ACEI/ARB and BB, BB exclusively, ACEI/ARB exclusively, or the combination ACEI/ARB and BB and MRAs was associated with reduced three-year all-cause mortality.

Good performance in the management of acute heart failure in cardiogeriatric departments: the ICREX-94 experience

CONTEXT

A growing number of elderly patients hospitalized for Acute Heart Failure (AHF) are being managed in cardiogeriatrics departments, but their characteristics and prognosis are poorly known. This study aimed to investigate the profile and outcome (rehospitalization at 90 days) of patients hospitalized for AHF in cardiogeriatrics departments in the Val-de-Marne area in the suburbs of Paris, and to compare them to AHF patients hospitalized in cardiology departments in the same area.

METHODS

Observational study, ICREX-94, conducted in seven cardiology departments in France and three specific cardiogeriatrics departments in Val-de-Marne.

RESULTS

A total of 308 patients were hospitalized for AHF between October 2017 and January 2019. During the 90 days following discharge, 29.6% patients were readmitted to the hospital. Compared with patients hospitalized in cardiology departments, patients in cardiogeriatrics departments were older (p < 0.001), less independent (living more often alone or in an institution) (p < 0.001), more often depressed (p < 0.001), had more often major neurocognitive disorder (p < 0.001), had a higher Human Development Index (HDI, p < 0.001), and were less often diagnosed with amyloidosis (p < 0.001). There was no difference in outcome whether patients were discharged from cardiology or cardiogeriatrics departments. The most frequent precipitating factors underlying AHF decompensation between the first and second hospitalization were arrhythmia and infection.

CONCLUSION

AHF patients discharged from cardiogeriatrics departments, compared to cardiology departments, showed clinical differences but had the same prognosis regarding AHF rehospitalization at 90 days.

Catheter Ablation Compared with Medical Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: The optimal strategy for patients with coexisting atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) was not settled. Our purpose was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of catheter ablation compared with medical therapy for AF on mortality, HF hospitalization, left ventricular (LV) function, and quality of life among patients with HF and AF. Materials and Methods: We searched Pubmed (1966 to September 20, 2019), EMBASE (1966 to September 20, 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials with a comparison of catheter ablation for AF with medical therapy among patients with coexisting AF and HF. Risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as a measure of the effect of catheter ablation versus medical therapy on endpoints. Our final analysis included 6 randomized control trials with 775 patients. Results: Pooled results from the random-effects model showed that compared with medical therapy for AF, catheter ablation was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.52, 95%Cl, 0.35 to 0.76) and HF hospitalization (RR 0.56, 95%Cl, 0.44 to 0.71), as well as increased LV ejection fraction (LVEF), distance walked in six minutes, and improvements in quality of life. Conclusions: This updated meta-analysis showed that compared to medical therapy, catheter ablation for AF was associated with significant benefits in several key clinical and biomarker endpoints, including reductions in all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization.

Developing and validating models to predict sudden death and pump failure death in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Sudden death (SD) and pump failure death (PFD) are leading modes of death in heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Risk stratification for mode-specific death may aid in patient enrichment for new device trials in HFpEF.

METHODS

Models were derived in 4116 patients in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction trial (I-Preserve), using competing risks regression analysis. A series of models were built in a stepwise manner, and were validated in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Preserved and Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trials.

RESULTS

The clinical model for SD included older age, men, lower LVEF, higher heart rate, history of diabetes or myocardial infarction, and HF hospitalization within previous 6 months, all of which were associated with a higher SD risk. The clinical model predicting PFD included older age, men, lower LVEF or diastolic blood pressure, higher heart rate, and history of diabetes or atrial fibrillation, all for a higher PFD risk, and dyslipidaemia for a lower risk of PFD. In each model, the observed and predicted incidences were similar in each risk subgroup, suggesting good calibration. Model discrimination was good for SD and excellent for PFD with Harrell's C of 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.75) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.75-0.82), respectively. Both models were robust in external validation. Adding ECG and biochemical parameters, model performance improved little in the derivation cohort but decreased in validation. Including NT-proBNP substantially increased discrimination of the SD model, and simplified the PFD model with marginal increase in discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical models can predict risks for SD and PFD separately with good discrimination and calibration in HFpEF and are robust in external validation. Adding NT-proBNP further improved model performance. These models may help to identify high-risk individuals for device intervention in future trials.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

I-Preserve: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00095238; TOPCAT: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00094302; CHARM-Preserved: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00634712.

Standardized definitions for evaluation of heart failure therapies: scientific expert panel from the Heart Failure Collaboratory and Academic Research Consortium

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and Academic Research Consortium (ARC), comprised of leading heart failure (HF) academic research investigators, patients, United States (US) Food and Drug Administration representatives, and industry members from the US and Europe. A series of meetings were convened to establish definitions and key concepts for the evaluation of HF therapies including optimal medical and device background therapy, clinical trial design elements and statistical concepts, and study endpoints. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel discussions as consensus recommendations focused on populations and endpoint definitions; it is not exhaustive or restrictive, but designed to stimulate HF clinical trial innovation.

Characterization of the Progression From Ambulatory to Hospitalized Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome. Some patients develop elevated filling pressures exclusively during exercise and never require hospitalization, whereas others periodically develop congestion that requires inpatient treatment. The features differentiating these cohorts are unclear.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of 7 National Institutes of Health-sponsored multicenter trials of HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%, N = 727). Patients were stratified by history of hospitalization because of HF, comparing patients never hospitalized (HFpEF_NH) to those with a prior hospitalization (HFpEF_PH). Currently hospitalized (HFpEF_CH) patients were included to fill the spectrum. Clinical characteristics, cardiac structure, biomarkers, quality of life, functional capacity, activity levels, and outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

As expected, HFpEF_CH (n = 338) displayed the greatest severity of congestion, as assessed by N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide levels, edema and orthopnea. As compared to HFpEF_NH (n = 109), HFpEF_PH (n = 280) displayed greater comorbidity burden, with more lung disease, renal dysfunction and anemia, along with lower activity levels (accelerometry), poorer exercise capacity (6-minute walk distance and peak exercise capacity), and more orthopnea. Patients with current or prior hospitalization displayed higher rates of future HF hospitalization, but quality of life was similarly impaired in all patients with HFpEF, regardless of hospitalization history.

CONCLUSIONS

A greater burden of noncardiac organ dysfunction, sedentariness, functional impairment, and higher event rates distinguish patients with HFpEF and prior HF hospitalization from those never hospitalized. Despite lower event rates, quality of life is severely and similarly limited in patients with no history of hospitalization. These data suggest that the 2 clinical profiles of HFpEF may require different treatment strategies.

Optimal timing of echocardiography for heart failure inpatients in Japanese institutions: OPTIMAL Study

AIMS

Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure (HF) provided by the European Society of Cardiology state that echocardiography is recommended for the assessment of the myocardial structure and function of subjects with suspected HF including HF with reduced (HFrEF), mid-range (HFmrEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) as class I of recommendation and level C of evidence. However, the impact of timing of echocardiography on survival for hospitalized HF patients or the prevalence of echocardiography during their stay has not yet been fully investigated. Therefore, we designed and conducted a prospective multicentre study, Optimal Timing of Echocardiography for Heart Failure Inpatients in Japanese Institutions (OPTIMAL) study, to investigate and evaluate the prevalence of echocardiography during the in-hospital stay of HF patients, and the impact of timing of echocardiography on their survival.

METHODS AND RESULTS

OPTIMAL was based on a nationwide, prospective, multicentre registry at 10 institutions in Japan endorsed by the Japanese Society of Echocardiography. A total of 601 patients hospitalized with HF were enrolled between August 2016 and July 2018 at the participating centres. Their mean age was 73.9 ± 13.0 years, left ventricular ejection fraction was 37.0% (26.0-50.0), and 256 patients (42.6%) were female. Admission echocardiography (admission echo) was categorized as either standard or point-of-care echocardiography performed within 3 days of admission, as was pre-discharge echocardiography (pre-discharge echo) within 3 days of discharge. The primary endpoint was defined as cardiovascular death over a median follow-up period of 18.9 months (9.3-26.5 months). Admission echo was performed for 476 patients (79.2%) and pre-discharge echo for 216 patients (35.9%). The primary endpoint of cardiovascular death occurred in 65 patients (10.8%). Kaplan-Meier curve findings indicated that survival of patients with pre-discharge echo was significantly better than that of patients without it (log-rank P < 0.001), and the same findings were obtained for patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF. However, survival of patients with and without admission echo was similar (log-rank P = 0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

This OPTIMAL study prospectively showed the importance of pre-discharge echo for hospitalized HF patients. Careful attention is needed regarding the haemodynamic status of HF patients by administering pre-discharge echo to avoid HF re-hospitalization after discharge, and pre-discharge echo may provide additional information for deciding the appropriate discharge time. Our findings may thus offer a new insight into the management of hospitalized HF patients.

On the search for the right definition of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

The definition of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has evolved from a clinically based "diagnosis of exclusion" to definitions focused on objective evidence of diastolic dysfunction and/or elevated left ventricular filling pressures. Despite advances in our understanding of HFpEF pathophysiology and the development of more sophisticated imaging modalities, the diagnosis of HFpEF remains challenging, especially in the chronic setting, given that symptoms are provoked by exertion and diagnostic evaluation is largely conducted at rest. Invasive hemodynamic study, and in particular - invasive exercise testing, is considered the reference method for HFpEF diagnosis. However, its use is limited as opposed to the high number of patients with suspected HFpEF. Thus, diagnostic criteria for HFpEF should be principally based on non-invasive measurements. As no single non-invasive variable can adequately corroborate or refute the diagnosis, different combinations of clinical, echocardiographic, and/or biochemical parameters have been introduced. Recent years have brought an abundance of HFpEF definitions. Here, we present and compare four of them: 1) the 2016 European Society of Cardiology criteria for HFpEF; 2) the 2016 echocardiographic algorithm for diagnosing diastolic dysfunction; 3) the 2018 evidence-based H2FPEF score; and 4) the most recent, 2019 Heart Failure Association HFA-PEFF algorithm. These definitions vary in their approach to diagnosis, as well as sensitivity and specificity. Further studies to validate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of HFpEF definitions are warranted. Nevertheless, it seems that the best HFpEF definition would originate from a randomized clinical trial showing a favorable effect of an intervention on prognosis in HFpEF.

Clinical implication of pulmonary hospitalization in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: from the TOPCAT

Aims

The aim of the study was to explore the risk factors and evaluate the prognostic implication of pulmonary hospitalization on heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Methods and results

We performed a secondary analysis of the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist Trial (TOPCAT). A total of 1714 patients with HFpEF were analysed in our study. In the multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), smoking, bone fracture after the age of 45, and previous HF hospitalization were identified as independent risk factors for pulmonary hospitalization. To evaluate the prognostic significance of pulmonary hospitalization, patients were categorized into five groups according to the causes of their first hospitalization. The all‐cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality risks in these five groups were compared using time‐varying Cox proportional hazards model. Compared with patients without hospitalization during follow‐up, those with pulmonary hospitalization were associated with a 204% increase [hazard ratio (HR) 3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.07–4.47, P < 0.001] and 164% increase (HR 2.64, 95% CI 1.60–4.36, P < 0.001) in risks of all‐cause and CV mortality, respectively, while the corresponding risk increases associated with HF hospitalization were 146% (HR 2.46, 95% CI 1.74–3.48, P < 0.001) for all‐cause mortality and 186% (HR 2.86, 95% CI 1.87–4.36, P < 0.001) for CV mortality.

Conclusions

Pulmonary hospitalization was associated with a significant increase in risks of all‐cause and CV mortality, which was comparable with that associated with HF hospitalization. The results suggested that pulmonary hospitalization could be another important clinical endpoint of HFpEF.

Transcatheter InterAtrial Shunt Device for the treatment of heart failure: Rationale and design of the pivotal randomized trial to REDUCE Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients with Heart Failure II (REDUCE LAP-HF II)

BACKGROUND

A randomized, sham-controlled trial in patients with heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40% demonstrated reductions in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) with a novel transcatheter InterAtrial Shunt Device (IASD). Whether this hemodynamic effect will translate to an improvement in cardiovascular outcomes and symptoms requires additional study.

STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES

REDUCE Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients with Heart Failure II (REDUCE LAP HF-II) is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, sham-controlled, blinded trial designed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the IASD in symptomatic HF and elevated left atrial pressures. Up to 608 HF patients age ≥ 40 years with LVEF ≥40%, PCWP ≥25 mm Hg during supine ergometer exercise, and PCWP ≥5 mm Hg higher than right atrial pressure will be randomized 1:1 to the IASD versus sham control. Key exclusion criteria include hemodynamically significant valvular disease, evidence of pulmonary arterial hypertension, and right heart dysfunction. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical composite, analyzed by the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld methodology, that includes (1) cardiovascular mortality or first nonfatal ischemic stroke through 12 months; (2) total (first plus recurrent) HF hospitalizations or healthcare facility visits for intravenous diuretics up to 24 months, analyzed when the last randomized patient completes 12 months of follow-up; and (3) change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score from baseline to 12 months. Follow-up echocardiography will be performed at 6, 12, and 24 months to evaluate shunt flow and cardiac chamber size/function. Patients will be followed for a total of 5 years after the index procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

REDUCE LAP-HF II is designed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the IASD device in patients with symptomatic HF with elevated left atrial pressure and LVEF ≥40%.

Gender Differences in Hispanic Patients of Mexican Origin Hospitalized with Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

More than 3 million women in the United States die of heart failure (HF) annually. Women are significantly underrepresented in studies that inform practice guidelines, especially women hospitalized for HF despite the associated negative outcomes. HF is common in Hispanic people, the largest ethnic minority group in the United States, who are mostly of Mexican origin. There are no studies of gender differences in Mexican-Hispanic persons hospitalized for HF. We sought to describe gender differences in demographic and clinical characteristics, clinical presentation, treatment, in-hospital outcomes, and discharge status in Mexican-Hispanic patients hospitalized for HF.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected for a study examining readmission in patients hospitalized with HF in a 107-bed community; hospital near the U.S.-Mexico border.

RESULTS

Of 155 self-identified Hispanic patients, 43.2% (n = 67) were women. Compared with men, women were equally affected by obesity, on average 6 years older (p < .01), and more likely to be widowed (31% vs 6%; p < .001). Women had significantly higher ejection fractions, more total comorbid conditions, more hyperlipidemia, more arthritis, more anxiety, and were less likely to be treated with digoxin and more likely to be treated with calcium channel blockers. At discharge, women were significantly less likely to receive an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an aldosterone receptor blocker and had a higher systolic blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

Key gender differences in chronic illness burden, treatment, and discharge status were found, highlighting the heterogeneity of women with HF and the need for further gender-specific research to develop care strategies specific to women of all races and ethnicities.

Is heart failure misdiagnosed in hospitalized patients with preserved ejection fraction? From the European Society of Cardiology - Heart Failure Association EURObservational Research Programme Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

Aims

In hospitalized patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the aims of this study were (i) to assess the proportion meeting the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HFpEF criteria and (ii) to compare patients with restrictive/pseudonormal mitral inflow pattern (MIP) vs. patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal.

Methods and results

We included hospitalized participants of the ESC‐Heart Failure Association (HFA) EURObservational Research Programme (EORP) HF Long‐Term Registry who had echocardiogram with ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 50% during index hospitalization. As no data on e', E/e' and left ventricular (LV) mass index were gathered in the registry, the 2016 ESC HFpEF definition was modified as follows: elevated B‐type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (≥100 pg/mL for acute HF) and/or N‐terminal pro‐BNP (≥300 pg/mL) and at least one of the echocardiographic criteria: (i) presence of LV hypertrophy (yes/no), (ii) left atrial volume index (LAVI) of >34 mL/m²), or (iii) restrictive/pseudonormal MIP. Next, all patients were divided into four groups: (i) patients with restrictive/pseudonormal MIP on echocardiography [i.e. with presumably elevated left atrial (LA) pressure], (ii) patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (i.e. with presumably normal LA pressure), (iii) atrial fibrillation (AF) group, and (iv) ‘grey area’ (no consistent description of MIP despite no report of AF). Of 6365 hospitalized patients, 1848 (29%) had EF ≥ 50%. Natriuretic peptides were assessed in 28%, LV hypertrophy in 92%, LAVI in 13%, and MIP in 67%. The 2016 ESC HFpEF criteria could be assessed in 27% of the 1848 patients and, if assessed, were met in 52%. Of the 1848 patients, 19% had restrictive/pseudonormal MIP, 43% had MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal, 18% had AF and 20% were grey area. There were no differences in long‐term all‐cause or cardiovascular mortality, or all‐cause hospitalizations or HF rehospitalizations between the four groups. Despite fewer non‐cardiac comorbidities reported at baseline, patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (i.e. with presumably normal LA pressure) had more non‐cardiovascular (14.0 vs. 6.7 per 100 patient‐years, P < 0.001) and cardiovascular non‐HF (13.2 vs. 8.0 per 100 patient‐years, P = 0.016) hospitalizations in long‐term follow‐up than patients with restrictive/pseudonormal MIP.

Conclusions

Acute HFpEF diagnosis could be assessed (based on the 2016 ESC criteria) in only a quarter of patients and confirmed in half of these. When assessed, only one in three patients had restrictive/pseudonormal MIP suggestive of elevated LA pressure. Patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (suggestive of normal LA pressure) could have been misdiagnosed with acute HFpEF or had echocardiography performed after normalization of LA pressure. They were more often hospitalized for non‐HF reasons during follow‐up. Symptoms suggestive of acute HFpEF may in some patients represent non‐HF comorbidities.

A narrative review on the management of Acute Heart Failure in Emergency Medicine Department

The main urgent symptom presented to an emergency department is acute heart failure (AHF). In that considerable risksof morbidity and mortality, it is important to plan precision medicine to achieve the most suitable outcomes. The object of this review is to provide a summary of contemporary management procedures of emergency medicine in a department of acute heart failure. Heart failure could be presented with a broad range of symptoms, in particular a sudden worsening of those of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. The treatment should focus on acute and chronic underlying disorders with instructions focusing on haemodynamics and blood pressure status. Treatment of patients suffering with worsening symptoms of AHF mainly focuses on intravenous diuretics. In emergency situations, patients suffering with AHF with low blood pressure must receive emergency consultation and a primary fluid bolus therapy (range 250-500 mL) followed by inotropic therapy with or without antihypotensive agents. For treatment of severe heart failure and cardiogenic shock in patients treated with noradrenalin, when blood pressure support is required, a direct-acting inotropic agent, dobutamine, could be applied effectively. When non-invasive positive pressure ventilation is needed, suppliers must track for any possibility of sudden worsening, i.e., for acute decompensated heart failure. When cardiac output is high the disorder could be treated with vasopressors.

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I2 = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I2 = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I2 = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.

Understanding the early mortality benefit observed in the PARADIGM-HF trial: considerations for the management of heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan

This review aims to elucidate the optimal dosing of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy in the heart failure (HF) treatment paradigm through examination of the trial population characteristics and the mortality benefit observed in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF; NCT01035255) trial. Considerations regarding the initiation and titration of sacubitril/valsartan, a first-in-class ARNI, will also be addressed. The approval of sacubitril/valsartan heralded the first novel pharmacological class in over a decade for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The PARADIGM-HF trial showed that treatment with valsartan/valsartan reduced the risk of first occurrence of either cardiovascular death or HF-related hospitalization (composite primary endpoint) by 20% compared with enalapril in patients with HFrEF. The incremental benefits of treatment with valsartan/valsartan over enalapril demonstrated in the PARADIGM-HF trial led to strong recommendations for its use over ACEIs or angiotensin receptor blockers to further reduce morbidity and mortality in the 2016 and 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America updates to the guidelines for the management of HF. Although the optimal timing for the initiation of valsartan/valsartan has yet to be determined, its early use is likely to have a positive impact on patient outcomes.

Body mass index and all-cause readmissions following acute heart failure hospitalization

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Obesity is associated with a lower mortality risk among patients with heart failure (HF). Whether this obesity paradox applies to all-cause hospitalizations is unknown. We aimed to investigate the association between body mass index (BMI) and 30-day all-cause readmissions following HF hospitalization.

SUBJECTS/METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 2252 HF hospital admissions of Centers of Medicare Services beneficiaries from an academic medical center. We classified obesity using established BMI categories. All 30-day postdischarge readmission to all hospitals and mortality events were documented. We evaluated 30-day postdischarge unplanned, all-cause readmission and death in the total cohort, propensity-matched cohort, and by ejection fraction (EF).

RESULTS

An Overweight-Obese BMI (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) was paradoxically associated with a lower mortality rate than a Normal BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m²) (5.0% vs 8.5%, p = 0.0018). In contrast, an Overweight-Obese BMI was associated with a 29% (95% CI: 1.03-1.63) increased relative risk of all-cause readmission compared with a Normal BMI (23.2% vs 18.9%, p = 0.0288), which was consistent across obesity severity subgroups. Among 966 matched admissions, an Overweight-Obese BMI retained higher readmission risk compared with a Normal BMI (25.1% vs 17.2%, p = 0.003). After matching, readmissions remained higher for Overweight-Obese vs Normal BMI in admissions with reduced EF (25.7% vs 17.8%, p = 0.032) and preserved EF (23.0% vs 15.0%, p = 0.048). No difference in the percentage of readmissions for HF (40%) or noncardiovascular causes (45%) existed between Overweight-Obese and Normal BMI groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a lower mortality risk, increased BMI is associated with increased all-cause hospital readmission rates in an elderly HF population which persists after propensity matching.

Patients' Willingness to Accept Mitral Valve Procedure-Associated Risks Varies Across Severity of Heart Failure Symptoms

BACKGROUND

The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Drugs and Radiological Health issued Guidance in 2016 on generating patient preference information to aid evaluation of medical devices. Consistent with this guidance, we aimed to provide quantitative patient preference evidence on benefit-risk tradeoffs relevant to transcatheter mitral valve repair versus medical therapy for patients with heart failure and symptomatic secondary mitral regurgitation.

METHODS

A discrete-choice experiment survey was designed to quantify patients' tolerance for 30-day mortality or serious bleeding risks to achieve improvements in physical functioning or reductions in heart failure hospitalizations. Two samples were recruited: an online US panel of individuals reporting a diagnosis of heart failure (n=244) and patients with heart failure treated at Duke University Health System (n=175). Random-effects logit regression was used to model treatment choices as a function of benefit and risk levels.

RESULTS

Across both samples, approximately one-quarter (23.5%) consistently chose device profiles offering the higher level of physical functioning despite mortality and bleeding risks as high as 10%. Among respondents who at least once chose a device profile offering a lower level of functioning, improvement in physical functioning equivalent to a change from New York Heart Association class IV to III was ≈6 times more preferred than a change from New York Heart Association class III to II. Estimated discrete-choice experiment utility gains and losses revealed that respondents would accept up to a 9.7 percentage-point (95% CI, 8.2%-13.3%) increase in risk of 30-day mortality with devices that could improve functioning from New York Heart Association class IV to III, or up to 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.7%) for an improvement from New York Heart Association class III to II.

CONCLUSIONS

Severity of heart failure symptoms influences patients' willingness to accept risks associated with mitral valve medical devices. These findings can inform shared decision-making discussions with patients who are being evaluated for transcatheter mitral valve repair.

What Next After Metformin? Thinking Beyond Glycaemia: Are SGLT2 Inhibitors the Answer?

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes continues to increase, along with a proliferation of glucose-lowering treatment options. There is universal agreement in the clinical community for the use of metformin as the first-line glucose-lowering therapy for the majority of patients. However, controversy exists regarding the choice of second-line therapy once metformin is no longer effective. The most recent treatment consensus focuses on the presence of cardiovascular disease, heart failure or kidney disease as a determinant of therapy choice. The majority of patients in routine practice, however, do not fall into such categories. Heart failure and kidney disease represent significant clinical and cost considerations in patients with type 2 diabetes and have a close pathophysiological association. Recent data has illustrated that sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor therapy can reduce the burden of heart failure and the progression of renal disease across a wide range of patients including those with and without established disease, supported by an increased understanding of the mechanistic effects of these agents. Furthermore, there is growing evidence to illustrate the overall safety profile of this class of agents and support the benefit-risk profile of SGLT2 inhibitors as a preferred option following metformin monotherapy failure, with respect to both kidney disease progression and heart failure outcomes.

Cardiac Microvascular Endothelial Enhancement of Cardiomyocyte Function Is Impaired by Inflammation and Restored by Empagliflozin

The positive findings of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Cardiovascular Outcome Trial of Empagliflozin) on heart failure (HF) outcome in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus suggest a direct effect of empagliflozin on the heart. These patients frequently have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), in which a metabolic risk-related pro-inflammatory state induces cardiac microvascular endothelial cell (CMEC) dysfunction with subsequent cardiomyocyte (CM) contractility impairment. This study showed that CMECs confer a direct positive effect on contraction and relaxation of CMs, an effect that requires nitric oxide, is diminished after CMEC stimulation with tumor necrosis factor-α, and is restored by empagliflozin. Our findings on the effect of empagliflozin on CMEC-mediated preservation of CM function suggests that empagliflozin can be used to treat the cardiac mechanical implications of microvascular dysfunction in HFpEF.

Setting Up a Heart Failure Program in 2018: Moving Towards New Paradigm(s)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heart failure (HF) is the first cause of hospitalization in the elderly in Western countries, generating tremendous healthcare costs. Despite the spread of multidisciplinary post-discharge programs, readmission rates have remained unchanged over time. We review the recent developments in this setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent data plead for global reorganization of HF care, specifically targeting patients at high risk for further readmission, as well as a stronger involvement of primary care providers (PCP) in patients' care plan. Besides, tools, devices, and new interdisciplinary expertise have emerged to support and be integrated into those programs; they have been greeted with great enthusiasm, but their routine applicability remains to be determined. HF programs in 2018 should focus on pragmatic assessments of patients that will benefit the most from the multidisciplinary care; delegating the management of low-risk patients to trained PCP and empowering the patient himself, using the newly available tools as needed.

Trabecular cutting: a novel surgical therapy to increase diastolic compliance

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a common cause of hospital admission in patients over 65 yr old and has high mortality. HFpEF is characterized by left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy that reduces compliance. Current HFpEF therapies control symptoms, but no existing medications or therapies can sustainably increase LV compliance. LV trabeculae develop hypertrophy and fibrosis that contribute to reduced LV compliance. This study expands our previous results in ex vivo human hearts to show that severing LV trabeculae increases diastolic compliance in an ex vivo working rabbit heart model. Trabecular cutting was performed in ex vivo rabbit hearts set up in a working heart perfusion system perfused with oxygenated Krebs-Henseleit buffer. A hook was inserted in the LV to cut trabeculae. End-systolic and end-diastolic pressure-volume relationships during transient preload reduction were recorded using an admittance catheter in the following three groups: control (no cutting; n = 9), mild cutting (15 cuts; n = 5), and aggressive cutting (30 cuts; n = 5). In a second experiment, each heart served as its own control. Hemodynamic data were recorded before and after trabecular cutting (n = 10) or sham cutting (n = 5) within the same heart. In the first experiments, trabecular cutting did not affect systolic function (P > 0.05) but significantly increased overall diastolic compliance (P = 0.009). Greater compliance was seen as trabecular cutting increased (P = 0.002, r² = 0.435). In the second experiment, significant increases in systolic function (P = 0.048) and diastolic compliance (P = 0.002) were seen after trabecular cutting compared with baseline. In conclusion, trabecular cutting significantly increases diastolic compliance without reducing systolic function.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We postulate that, in mammalian hearts, free-running trabeculae carneae exist to provide tensile support to the left ventricle and minimize diastolic wall stress. Because of hypertrophy and fibrosis of trabeculae in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, this supportive role can become pathologic, worsening diastolic compliance. We demonstrate a novel operation involving cutting trabeculae as a method to acutely increase diastolic compliance in patients presenting with heart failure and diastolic dysfunction to improve their left ventricle compliance.

Frailty and co-morbidity predict first hospitalisation after heart failure diagnosis in primary care: population-based observational study in England

BACKGROUND

frailty has only recently been recognised as important in patients with heart failure (HF), but little has been done to predict the first hospitalisation after diagnosis in unselected primary care populations.

OBJECTIVES

to predict the first unplanned HF or all-cause admission after diagnosis, comparing the effects of co-morbidity and frailty, the latter measured by the recently validated electronic frailty index (eFI).

DESIGN

observational study.

SETTING

primary care in England.

SUBJECTS

all adult patients diagnosed with HF in primary care between 2010 and 2013.

METHODS

we used electronic health records of patients registered with primary care practices sending records to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in England with linkage to national hospital admissions and death data. Competing-risk time-to-event analyses identified predictors of first unplanned hospitalisation for HF or for any condition after diagnosis.

RESULTS

of 6,360 patients, 9% had an emergency hospitalisation for their HF, and 39% had one for any cause within a year of diagnosis; 578 (9.1%) died within a year without having any emergency admission. The main predictors of HF admission were older age, elevated serum creatinine and not being on a beta-blocker. The main predictors of all-cause admission were age, co-morbidity, frailty, prior admission, not being on a beta-blocker, low haematocrit and living alone. Frailty effects were largest in patients aged under 85.

CONCLUSIONS

this study suggests that frailty has predictive power beyond its co-morbidity components. HF patients in the community should be assessed for frailty, which should be reflected in future HF guidelines.

[Heart failure in patients over 80 years old]

Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome that associates clinical signs in people over 80 years of age, an increase in natriuretic peptides and abnormal cardiac structures that result from cardiac aging in many cases. The most common symptoms are grouped according to the acronym "EPOF" (shortness of breath, weight gain, edema, fatigue). Over the age of 80, comorbidities must be taken into account. The incidence and prevalence of HF significantly increases with age and makes HF the most common reason for hospitalization for people over 80, and an important health expense. The management of HF, necessarily multidisciplinary with a geriatric evaluation, has improved over time due to effective targeted treatment, but mortality, hospitalization and readmission rates remain high. Therapeutic education and patient follow-up for treatment optimization are needed.

Predictors of Recurrent Hospitalizations and the Importance of These Hospitalizations for Subsequent Mortality After Incident Transient Ischemic Attack

BACKGROUND

We examined predictors of recurrent hospitalizations and the importance of these hospitalizations for subsequent mortality after incident transient ischemic attacks (TIA) that have not yet been investigated.

METHODS

Adults hospitalized for TIA from 2000 through 2017 were examined for recurrent hospitalizations, days, and percentage of time spent hospitalized and long-term mortality.

RESULTS

Of 266 patients hospitalized for TIA, 122 died, 212 had 826 anycondition hospitalization (59 from TIA-related conditions) corresponding to 3384 inpatient days during 1693 person-years of follow-up. Of 42 patient-level characteristics, age greater than or equal to 65 years (Incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-2.55), current smoking (IRR 2.15, 95% CI 1.39-3.33), concurrent heart failure (IRR 1.81, 95% CI 1.17-2.80) or anemia (IRR 1.90, 95% CI 1.40-2.48), and no prescription statin (IRR 1.45, 95% CI 1.04-2.03, P = .0289) emerged as significant predictors of anycondition rehospitalization. All these variables except heart failure remained significant predictors of TIA-related rehospitalizations. All-cause mortality was significantly increased after each hospitalization from anycondition (hazard ratio [HR] 1.32, 95% CI 1.26-1.39), TIA-related condition (HR 1.72; 95% CI 1.28-2.30), and per each day (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.05) and per 1% of follow-up time spent hospitalized from anycondition (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.34-1.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Older age, current tobacco smoking, concurrent heart failure or anemia, and no prescription statin, easily measured patient-level characteristics, identifies patients with TIA at high risk for recurrent hospitalizations and the burden of these hospitalizations predicts subsequent mortality.

Diastolic dysfunction evaluated by cardiac magnetic resonance: the value of the combined assessment of atrial and ventricular function

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the role of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in the evaluation of diastolic function by a combined assessment of left ventricular (LV) and left atrial (LA) function in a cohort of subjects with various degrees of diastolic dysfunction (DD) detected by echocardiography.

METHODS

Forty patients with different stages of DD and 18 healthy controls underwent CMR. Short-axis cine steady-state free precession images covering the entire LA and LV were acquired. Parameters of diastolic function were measured by the analysis of the LV and LA volume/time (V/t) curves and the respective derivative dV/dt curves.

RESULTS

At receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the peak of emptying rate A indexed by the LV filling volume with a cut-off of 3.8 was able to detect patients with grade I DD from other groups (area under the curve [AUC] 0.975, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1). ROC analysis showed that LA ejection fraction with a cut-off of ≤36% was able to distinguish controls and grade I DD patients from those with grade II and grade III DD (AUC 0.996, 95% CI 0.92-1, p < 0.001). The isovolumetric pulmonary vein transit ratio with a cut-off of 2.4 allowed class III DD to be distinguished from other groups (AUC 1.0, 95%CI 0.93-1, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of LV and LA V/t curves by CMR may be useful for the evaluation of DD.

KEY POINTS

• Combined atrial and ventricular volume/time curves allow evaluation of diastolic function. • Atrial emptying fraction allows distinction between impaired relaxation and restrictive/pseudo-normal filling. • Isovolumetric pulmonary vein transit ratio allows distinction between restrictive and pseudo-normal filling.