Association of Ischemic Evaluation and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients Admitted With New-Onset Heart Failure

Which Test Should I Order for an Inpatient Evaluation of Cardiac Ischemia?

AbstractTesting for cardiac ischemia, or for the obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) that causes cardiac ischemia, is common among hospitalized patients. Many testing options exist. Choosing an appropriate test can be challenging and requires accurate risk stratification. Two major categories of testing are available: stress testing (also known as functional testing) and anatomical testing. Stress testing evaluates specifically for ischemia and can be conducted with or without imaging. Anatomical testing visualizes the obstructive CAD that causes ischemia. This article reviews how to choose an appropriate test for the evaluation of cardiac ischemia in the inpatient setting, using case examples to illustrate the considerations involved.

Association Between Coronary Assessment in Heart Failure and Clinical Outcomes Within a Safety-Net Setting Using a Target Trial Emulation Observational Design

BACKGROUND

Ischemic cardiomyopathy is the leading cause of heart failure (HF). Most patients do not undergo coronary assessment after HF diagnosis. There are no randomized clinical trials of coronary assessment after HF diagnosis.

METHODS

Using an electronic health record cohort of all individuals with HF within the San Francisco Health Network from 2001 to 2019, we identified factors associated with coronary assessment. Then, we studied the association of coronary assessment within 30 days of HF diagnosis with all-cause mortality and a composite of mortality and emergent angiography using a target trial emulation observational comparative-effectiveness approach. Target trial emulation is an approach to causal inference based on creating a hypothetical randomized clinical trial protocol and using observational data to emulate the protocol. We used propensity scores for covariate adjustment. We used national death records to improve the ascertainment of mortality and included falsification end points for the cause of death.

RESULTS

Among 14 829 individuals with HF (median, 62 years old; 5855 [40%] women), 3987 (26.9%) ever completed coronary assessment, with 2467/13 301 (18.5%) with unknown coronary artery disease status at HF diagnosis assessed. Women, older individuals, and people without stable housing were less likely to complete coronary assessment. Among 5972 eligible persons of whom 627 underwent early elective coronary assessment, coronary assessment was associated with lower mortality (hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.72-0.97]; P=0.025), reduced risk of the composite outcome (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.73-1.00]), higher rates of revascularization (odds ratio, 7.6 [95% CI, 5.4-10.6]), and higher use of medical therapy (odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.7-3.6]), but not the falsification end points.

CONCLUSIONS

In a safety-net population, disparities in coronary assessment after HF diagnosis are not fully explained by coronary artery disease risk factors. Early coronary assessment is associated with improved HF outcomes possibly related to higher rates of revascularization and guideline-directed medical therapy but with low certainty that this finding is not attributable to unmeasured confounding.

Medical Decision-Making and Revascularization in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

Ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) is the most common underlying etiology of heart failure in the United States and is a significant contributor to deaths due to cardiovascular disease worldwide. The diagnosis and management of ICM has advanced significantly over the past few decades, and the evidence for medical therapy in ICM is both compelling and robust. This contrasts with evidence for coronary revascularization, which is more controversial and favors surgical approaches. This review will examine landmark clinical trial results in detail as well as provide a comprehensive overview of the current epidemiology, diagnostic approaches, and management strategies of ICM.

Association Between Coronary Artery Disease Testing in Patients with New-Onset Heart Failure and Heart Failure Readmission and Mortality

BACKGROUND

In patients with new-onset heart failure (HF), coronary artery disease (CAD) testing remains underutilized. Whether widespread CAD testing in patients with new-onset HF leads to improved outcomes remains to be determined.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine whether CAD testing, and its timing, among patients hospitalized with new-onset HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), is associated with improved outcomes.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult (≥ 18 years) non-pregnant patients with new-onset HFrEF hospitalized within one of 15 Kaiser Permanente Southern California medical centers between 2016 and 2021. Key exclusion criteria included history of heart transplant, hospice, and a do-not-resuscitate order.

MAIN MEASURES

Primary outcome was a composite of HF readmission or all-cause mortality through end of follow-up on 12/31/2022.

KEY RESULTS

Among 2729 patients hospitalized with new-onset HFrEF, 1487 (54.5%) received CAD testing. The median age was 66 (56-76) years old, 1722 (63.1%) were male, and 1074 (39.4%) were White. After a median of 1.8 (0.6-3.4) years, the testing group had a reduced risk of HF readmission or all-cause mortality (aHR [95%CI], 0.71 [0.63-0.79]). These results were consistent across subgroups by history of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, renal disease, myocardial infarction, and elevated troponin during hospitalization. In a secondary analysis where CAD testing was further divided to early (received testing before discharge) and late testing (up to 90 days after discharge), there was no difference in late vs early testing (0.97 [0.81-1.16]).

CONCLUSIONS

In a contemporary and diverse cohort of patients hospitalized with new-onset HFrEF, CAD testing within 90 days of hospitalization was associated with a lower risk of HF readmission or all-cause mortality. Testing within 90 days after discharge was not associated with worse outcomes.

Coronary Assessment in Heart Failure within a Safety-Net Setting: Disparities and Outcomes

Background

Though ischemic cardiomyopathy is the leading cause of heart failure (HF), most patients do not undergo coronary assessment after heart failure diagnosis. In a safety-net population, referral patterns have not been studied, and it is unknown whether coronary assessment is associated with improved HF outcomes.

Methods

Using an electronic health record cohort of all individuals with HF within San Francisco Health Network from 2001-2019, we identified factors associated with completion of coronary assessment (invasive coronary angiography, nuclear stress, or coronary computed tomographic angiography). Then we emulated a randomized clinical trial of elective coronary assessment with outcomes of all-cause mortality and a composite outcome of mortality and emergent angiography. We used propensity scores to account for differences between groups. We used national death records to improve ascertainment of mortality.

Results

Among 14,829 individuals with HF (median 62 years old, 5,855 [40%] women), 3,987 (26.9%) ever completed coronary assessment, with 2,467 (18.5%) assessed out of 13,301 with unknown CAD status at HF diagnosis. Women and older individuals were less likely to complete coronary assessment, with differences by race/ethnicity, medical history, substance use, housing, and echocardiographic findings. Among 5,972 eligible for inclusion in the "target trial," 627 underwent early elective coronary assessment and 5,345 did not. Coronary assessment was associated with lower mortality (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72-0.97; p=0.025), reduced risk of the composite outcome, higher rates of revascularization, and higher use of medical therapy.

Conclusions

In a safety-net population, disparities in coronary assessment after HF diagnosis are not fully explained by CAD risk factors. Our target trial emulation suggests coronary assessment is associated with improved HF outcomes possibly related to higher rates of revascularization and GDMT use, but with low certainty that this is finding is not attributable to unmeasured confounding.

Treatment response in recent-onset heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: non-ischaemic vs. ischaemic aetiology

AIMS

In heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF), the prognosis appears better in non-ischaemic than in ischaemic aetiology. Infrequent diagnostic work-up for ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in HF is reported. In this study, we compared short-term response to initiated guideline-directed medical treatment (GDMT) in recent-onset HFrEF of non-ischaemic (non-IHF) vs. ischaemic (IHF) aetiology and evaluated the frequency of coronary investigation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients hospitalized with recent-onset HFrEF [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40%] between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2019 were included. Treatment response was determined by use of a hierarchical clinical composite outcome classifying each patient as worsened, improved, or unchanged based on hard outcomes (mortality, heart transplantation, and HF hospitalization) and soft outcomes (± ≥10 unit change in LVEF, ± ≥30% change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and ± ≥1 point change in New York Heart Association functional class) during 28 weeks of follow-up. The associations between baseline characteristics and composite changes were analysed with multiple logistic regression. Among the 364 patients analysed, 47 were not investigated for IHD. Comparing non-IHF (n = 203) vs. IHF (n = 114), patients were younger (mean age 61.0 vs. 69.4 years, P < 0.001) with lower mean LVEF (26% vs. 31%, P < 0.001), but with similar male predominance (70.4% vs. 75.4%, P = 0.363). For non-IHF vs. IHF, the composite outcomes were worsened (19.1% vs. 43.9%, P < 0.001) and improved (74.2% vs. 43.9%, P < 0.001). After multivariable adjustments, IHF was associated with increased odds for worsening [odds ratio (OR) 2.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51-5.74; P = 0.002] and decreased odds for improvement (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.18-0.65; P < 0.001). In cases without previous IHD or new-onset myocardial infarction (n = 261), a decision for coronary investigation was made in 69.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent-onset HFrEF, patients with non-IHF responded better to GDMT than patients with IHF. Almost one-third of patients selected for follow-up at HF clinics were never investigated for IHD.

Evolving therapeutic strategies for patients hospitalized with new or worsening heart failure across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction

Heart failure (HF) is a chronic, progressive, and increasingly prevalent syndrome characterized by stepwise declines in health status and residual lifespan. Despite significant advancements in both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management approaches for chronic HF, the burden of HF hospitalization-whether attributable to new-onset (de novo) HF or worsening of established HF-remains high and contributes to excess HF-related morbidity, mortality, and healthcare expenditures. Owing to a paucity of evidence to guide tailored interventions in this heterogeneous group, management of acute HF events remains largely subject to clinician discretion, relying principally on alleviation of clinical congestion, as-needed correction of hemodynamic perturbations, and concomitant reversal of underlying trigger(s). Following acute stabilization, the subsequent phase of care primarily involves interventions known to improve long-term outcomes and rehospitalization risk, including initiation and optimization of disease-modifying pharmacotherapy, targeted use of adjunctive therapies, and attention to contributing comorbid conditions. However, even with current standards of care many patients experience recurrent HF hospitalization, or after admission incur worsening clinical trajectories. These patterns highlight a persistent unmet need for evidence-based approaches to inform in-hospital HF care and call for renewed focus on urgent implementation of interventions capable of ameliorating risk of worsening HF. In this review, we discuss key contemporary and emerging therapeutic strategies for patients hospitalized with de novo or worsening HF.

Association of Ischemic Evaluation and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients Admitted With New-Onset Heart Failure

Background

The significant morbidity associated with systolic heart failure makes it imperative to identify patients with a reversible cause. We thus sought to evaluate the proportion of patients who received an ischemic evaluation after a hospitalization for new‐onset systolic heart failure.

Methods and Results

Patients admitted with a new diagnosis of heart failure and a reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (≤40%) were identified in the VA Healthcare System from January 2006 to August 2017. Among those who survived 90 days without a readmission, we evaluated the proportion of patients who underwent an ischemic evaluation. We identified 9625 patients who were admitted with a new diagnosis of systolic heart failure with a concomitant reduction in ejection fraction. A minority of patients (3859, 40%) underwent an ischemic evaluation, with significant variation across high‐performing (90th percentile) and low‐performing (10th percentile) sites (odds ratio, 3.79; 95% CI, 2.90–4.31). Patients who underwent an evaluation were more likely to be treated with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (75% versus 64%, P<0.001) or beta blockers (92% versus 82%, P<0.001) and subsequently undergo percutaneous (8% versus 0%, P<0.001) or surgical (2% versus 0%, P<0.001) revascularization. Patients with an ischemic evaluation also had a significantly lower adjusted hazard of all‐cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47–0.61) compared with those without an evaluation.

Conclusions

Ischemic evaluations are underutilized in patients admitted with heart failure and a new reduction in left ventricular systolic function. A focused intervention to increase guideline‐concordant care could lead to an improvement in clinical outcomes.