Remote Monitoring for Heart Failure Management at Home

Early telemonitoring of weights and symptoms did not decrease heart failure hospitalizations but helped identify steps toward effective monitoring programs. A signal that is accurate and actionable with response kinetics for early re-assessment is required for the treatment of patients at high risk, while signal specifications differ for surveillance of low-risk patients. Tracking of congestion with cardiac filling pressures or lung water content has shown most impact to decrease hospitalizations, while multiparameter scores from implanted rhythm devices have identified patients at increased risk. Algorithms require better personalization of signal thresholds and interventions. The COVID-19 epidemic accelerated transition to remote care away from clinics, preparing for new digital health care platforms to accommodate multiple technologies and empower patients. Addressing inequities will require bridging the digital divide and the deep gap in access to HF care teams, who will not be replaced by technology but by care teams who can embrace it.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

STRUCTURE

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

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

Remote Hemodynamic-Guided Therapy of Patients With Recurrent Heart Failure Following Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background

Patients with recurring heart failure (HF) following cardiac resynchronization therapy fare poorly. Their management is undecided. We tested remote hemodynamic‐guided pharmacotherapy.

Methods and Results

We evaluated cardiac resynchronization therapy subjects included in the CHAMPION (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in New York Heart Association Class III Heart Failure Patients) trial, which randomized patients with persistent New York Heart Association Class III symptoms and ≥1 HF hospitalization in the previous 12 months to remotely managed pulmonary artery (PA) pressure‐guided management (treatment) or usual HF care (control). Diuretics and/or vasodilators were adjusted conventionally in control and included remote PA pressure information in treatment. Annualized HF hospitalization rates, changes in PA pressures over time (analyzed by area under the curve), changes in medications, and quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores) were assessed. Patients who had cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=190, median implant duration 755 days) at enrollment had poor hemodynamic function (cardiac index 2.00±0.59 L/min per m²), high comorbidity burden (67% had secondary pulmonary hypertension, 61% had estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), and poor Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores (57±24). During 18 months randomized follow‐up, HF hospitalizations were 30% lower in treatment (n=91, 62 events, 0.46 events/patient‐year) versus control patients (n=99, 93 events, 0.68 events/patient‐year) (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51–0.96; P=0.028). Treatment patients had more medication up‐/down‐titrations (847 versus 346 in control, P<0.001), mean PA pressure reduction (area under the curve −413.2±123.5 versus 60.1±88.0 in control, P=0.002), and quality of life improvement (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire decreased −13.5±23 versus −4.9±24.8 in control, P=0.006).

Conclusions

Remote hemodynamic‐guided adjustment of medical therapies decreased PA pressures and the burden of HF symptoms and hospitalizations in patients with recurring Class III HF and hospitalizations, beyond the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00531661.

Expected vs Actual Outcomes of Elective Initiation of Inotropic Therapy During Heart Failure Hospitalization

Objective

To describe the intent and early outcomes of elective inotrope use during heart failure hospitalization.

Patients and Methods

A prospective multisite design was used to collect data for hemodynamically stable patients started electively on inotrope therapy between January 1 and August 31, 2018. We prospectively recorded data when intravenous inotropic therapy was initiated, including survey of the attending cardiologists regarding expectations for the clinical course. Patients were followed up for events through hospital discharge and an additional survey was administered at the end of hospitalization.

Results

For the 92 patients enrolled, average age was 60 years and ejection fraction was 24%±12%. At the time of inotrope initiation, attending heart failure cardiologists predicted that 50% (n=46) of the patients had a “high or very high” likelihood of becoming dependent on intravenous inotropic therapy and 58% (n=53) had a “high” likelihood of death, transplant, or durable ventricular assist device placement within the next 6 months. Provider predictions regarding death/hospice or need for continued home infusions were accurate only 51% (47 of 92) of the time. Only half the patients (n=47) had goals-of-care conversations before inotrope treatment initiation.

Conclusion

More than half the patients (51 of 92) electively started on inotrope treatment without present or imminent cardiogenic shock ultimately required home inotrope therapy, died during admission, or were discharged with hospice. Heart failure clinicians could not reliably identify those patients at the time of inotrope therapy initiation and goals-of-care discussions were not frequently performed.

One-Year Mortality After Intensification of Outpatient Diuretic Therapy

Background

Mortality is increased following a hospitalization for decompensated heart failure (HF), during which diuretics are usually intensified. It is unclear how risk is affected after outpatient intensification of diuretic therapy for HF.

Methods and Results

From nationwide administrative registers, we identified all Danish patients who were diagnosed with HF from 2001 to 2016 and received angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and β blocker within 120 days. Subsequent follow‐up tracked progressive events of diuretic intensification and HF hospitalization. Intensification events were defined as new addition or doubling of loop diuretic or addition of thiazide to loop diuretic. These events were included in multivariable Cox regression models, calculating 1‐year mortality hazard after each year since inclusion. Patients with an intensification event or hospitalization were risk set matched to 2 nonworsened HF controls and absolute 1‐year mortality risks were calculated using Kaplan‐Meier estimates. We included 74 990 patients, their median age was 71 years, and 36% were women. Intensification events were associated with significantly increased mortality at all times during follow‐up. One‐year mortality was 18.0% after an intensification event, 22.6% after HF hospitalization, and 10.4% for matched controls with neither. In a multivariable Cox model adjusted for age, sex, ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes mellitus, the hazard ratio for 1‐year death after an intensification event was 1.75 (95% CI, 1.66–1.85), and it was 2.28 (95% CI, 2.16–2.41) after HF hospitalization.

Conclusions

In a nationwide cohort of patients with HF, outpatient intensification events were associated with almost 2‐fold risk of mortality during the next year. Although HF hospitalization was associated with a higher risk, the need to intensify diuretics in the outpatient setting is a signal to review and intensify efforts to improve HF outcomes.

Advancing Research on the Complex Interrelations Between Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: A Report From a US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Virtual Workshop

The interrelationships between atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are complex and poorly understood, yet the number of patients with AF and HF continues to increase worldwide. Thus, there is a need for initiatives that prioritize research on the intersection between AF and HF. This article summarizes the proceedings of a virtual workshop convened by the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to identify important research opportunities in AF and HF. Key knowledge gaps were reviewed and research priorities were proposed for characterizing the pathophysiological overlap and deleterious interactions between AF and HF; preventing HF in people with AF; preventing AF in individuals with HF; and addressing symptom burden and health status outcomes in AF and HF. These research priorities will hopefully help inform, encourage, and stimulate innovative, cost-efficient, and transformative studies to enhance the outcomes of patients with AF and HF.

P765One-year mortality risk after intensification of outpatient diuretics

Background

Mortality is increased following a hospitalization for heart failure (HF). It is not clear whether outpatient intensification of diuretic confers the same increased risk in the general population with heart failure

Purpose

This study sought to assess 1-year mortality risk after worsening HF, defined either as hospitalization due to HF or as intensified diuretic therapy in an outpatient setting, in a complete nationwide cohort of patients with HF on angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/ angiotensin receptor blocker and beta blockers.

Methods

From nationwide administrative registers, we identified all patients in Denmark diagnosed with HF in 2001–2016 and prescribed angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/ angiotensin receptor blocker and beta blocker within 120 days. During follow-up we defined worsening HF by the following events: Inpatient worsening (HF readmission) and outpatient worsening (intensified diuretic therapy, defined as the first event of new addition or doubled dosage of loop diuretic therapy or new onset addition of thiazide to loop diuretic therapy). Patients with a worsening event were risk set matched to two HF controls each at time of the event – based on age, sex and calendar year. One-year mortality risk was estimated with Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression models.

Results

We included 74,990 patients, median age 71 years (interquartile range: 62–79), 36% women. During five years of follow up, 8,727 patients had an inpatient worsening event, and 12,290 had an outpatient worsening event as first event. Absolute risk of 1-year mortality was 22.6% (95%-confidence interval (95%-CI): 21.7%-23.5%) after inpatient worsening, 18.0% (95%-CI: 17.3%-18.7%) after outpatient worsening compared to 9.8% (95%-CI: 9.5%-10.1%) for the matched controls. In a multivariable Cox model adjusted ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes, the hazard ratio for mortality among patients experiencing inpatient worsening was 2.46 (95%-CI: 2.33–2.60) and for outpatient worsening was 1.87 (95%-CI: 1.77–1.97), compared with the matched HF controls as reference (figure 1). Among patients who had an outpatient worsening as first event, 1,245 (10.1%) had a subsequent HF readmission within one year.

Conclusion

In a nationwide cohort of patients with HF, outpatient worsening defined by a diuretic intensification was associated with almost 2-fold risk of mortality during the next year. Although HF hospitalization is associated with a higher risk, the need to intensify diuretics in the outpatient setting is a signal to review and intensify efforts to improve HF outcomes.

Acknowledgement/Funding

The Danish Heart Foundation, (grant number 17-R116-A7610-22048)

2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is a complex valve lesion that can pose significant management challenges for the cardiovascular clinician. This Expert Consensus Document emphasizes that recognition of MR should prompt an assessment of its etiology, mechanism, and severity, as well as indications for treatment. A structured approach to evaluation based on clinical findings, precise echocardiographic imaging, and when necessary, adjunctive testing, can help clarify decision making. Treatment goals include timely intervention by an experienced heart team to prevent left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, reduced quality of life, and premature death.

Pulmonary Artery Pressure-Guided Heart Failure Management Reduces 30-Day Readmissions

BACKGROUND

This study examines the impact of pulmonary artery pressure-guided heart failure (HF) care on 30-day readmissions in Medicare-eligible patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The CardioMicroelectromechanical system (CardioMEMS) Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressures to Improve Outcomes in New York Heart Association Class III Heart Failure Patients (CHAMPION) Trial included 550 patients implanted with a permanent MEMS-based pressure sensor in the pulmonary artery. Subjects were randomized to a treatment group (uploaded pressures were made available to investigators) or a control group (uploaded pressures were not made available to investigators). This analysis focuses on the 245 Medicare-eligible subjects for whom compliance with daily transmissions was 93% compared with 88% for the overall population. Medications were changed more often in the treatment group using pressure information compared with the control group using symptoms and daily weights alone. During the 515 days follow-up after implant, the overall rate of HF hospitalizations was 49% lower in the treatment group (60 HF hospitalizations, 0.34 events/patient-year) compared with control (117 HF hospitalizations, 0.67 events/patient-year; hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.70; P<0.0001). Of the 177 HF hospitalizations, 155 qualified as an index HF hospitalization. All-cause 30-day readmissions were 58% lower in the treatment group (0.07 events/patient-year) compared with 0.18 events/patient-year in the control group (hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.80; P=0.0080).

CONCLUSIONS

Pulmonary artery pressure-guided HF management in Medicare-eligible patients led to a 49% reduction in total HF hospitalizations and a 58% reduction in all-cause 30-day readmissions.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00531661.

Intracardiac Pressures Measured Using an Implantable Hemodynamic Monitor: Relationship to Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this analysis was to examine whether implantable hemodynamic monitor-derived baseline estimated pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (ePAD) and change from baseline ePAD were independent predictors of all-cause mortality in patients with chronic heart failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Retrospective analysis used data from 3 studies (n=790 patients; 216 deaths). Baseline ePAD was related to mortality using a multivariable model including baseline and demographic data. Changes in ePAD defined as change from baseline to 6 months and from baseline to 14 days before death or exit from study were related to subsequent mortality, and analysis was adjusted for baseline ePAD. Area under the pressure versus time curve during 180 days before death or exit from study was related to mortality. Baseline ePAD, independent of other covariates, was a significant predictor of mortality (hazard ratio=1.07; 95% confidence interval=1.05-1.09; P<0.0001). Change in ePAD was an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio=1.07; 95% confidence interval=1.05-1.100; P=0.0008). Increased ePAD of 3, 4, or 5 mm Hg from baseline to 6 months was associated with increased mortality risk of 23.8%, 32.9%, or 42.8%. Change in ePAD from baseline to 14 days before death or exit from study was higher in patients who died (3.0±8 versus 1.7±10 mm Hg; P=0.003). Area under the pressure versus time curve in the final 180 days before death or exit from study was higher in patients who died versus those alive at end of study (185±668 versus 17±482 mm Hg.days; P=0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Implantable hemodynamic monitor-derived baseline ePAD and change from baseline ePAD were independent predictors of mortality in chronic heart failure patients.

The State of the Science on Integrating Palliative Care in Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is a chronic progressive illness associated with physical and psychological burdens, high morbidity, mortality, and healthcare utilization. Palliative care is interdisciplinary care that aims to relieve suffering and improve quality of life for persons with serious illness and their families. It is offered simultaneously with disease-oriented care, unlike hospice or end-of-life care. Despite the demonstrated benefits of palliative care in other populations, evidence for palliative care in the HF population is limited.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to describe the current evidence and the gaps in the evidence that will need to be improved to demonstrate the benefits of integrating palliative care into the care of patients with advanced HF and their family caregivers.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature to examine the state of the science and to identify gaps in palliative care integration for persons with HF and their families. We then convened an interdisciplinary working group at an NIH/NPCRC sponsored workshop to review the evidence base and develop a research agenda to address these gaps.

RESULTS

We identified four key research priorities to improve palliative care for patients with HF and their families: (1) to better understand patients' uncontrolled symptoms, (2) to better characterize and address the needs of the caregivers of advanced HF patients, (3) to improve patient and family understanding of HF disease trajectory and the importance of advance care planning, and (4) to determine the best models of palliative care, including models for those who want to continue life-prolonging therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

The goal of this research agenda is to motivate patient, provider, policy, and payor stakeholders, including funders, to identify the key research topics that have the potential to improve the quality of care for patients with HF and their families.

Randomized, Controlled Trial of an Advance Care Planning Video Decision Support Tool for Patients With Advanced Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Conversations about goals of care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)/intubation for patients with advanced heart failure can be difficult. This study examined the impact of a video decision support tool and patient checklist on advance care planning for patients with heart failure.

METHODS

This was a multisite, randomized, controlled trial of a video-assisted intervention and advance care planning checklist versus a verbal description in 246 patients ≥64 years of age with heart failure and an estimated likelihood of death of >50% within 2 years. Intervention participants received a verbal description for goals of care (life-prolonging care, limited care, and comfort care) and CPR/intubation plus a 6-minute video depicting the 3 levels of care, CPR/intubation, and an advance care planning checklist. Control subjects received only the verbal description. The primary analysis compared the proportion of patients preferring comfort care between study arms immediately after the intervention. Secondary outcomes were CPR/intubation preferences and knowledge (6-item test; range, 0-6) after intervention.

RESULTS

In the intervention group, 27 (22%) chose life-prolonging care, 31 (25%) chose limited care, 63 (51%) selected comfort care, and 2 (2%) were uncertain. In the control group, 50 (41%) chose life-prolonging care, 27 (22%) selected limited care, 37 (30%) chose comfort care, and 8 (7%) were uncertain (P<0.001). Intervention participants (compared with control subjects) were more likely to forgo CPR (68% versus 35%; P<0.001) and intubation (77% versus 48%; P<0.001) and had higher mean knowledge scores (4.1 versus 3.0; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with heart failure who viewed a video were more informed, more likely to select a focus on comfort, and less likely to desire CPR/intubation compared with patients receiving verbal information only.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01589120.

Major advantages and critical challenge for the proposed United States heart allocation system

The proposed new United States allocation system incorporates extensive research into an elegant plan designed to reduce wait list mortality while preserving post-transplant outcomes. All architects are to be congratulated. However, the future cannot be reliably modeled from the past as listing practices will evolve in response to new criteria. The new system should provide a major advance if and only if it is combined with a commitment to limit the number of listed patients overall and within each high priority status to the number that could reasonably undergo timely transplantation.

Treatment Failure With Rhythm and Rate Control Strategies in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure: An AF-CHF Substudy

INTRODUCTION

Rate and rhythm control strategies for atrial fibrillation (AF) are not always effective or well tolerated in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). We assessed reasons for treatment failure, associated characteristics, and effects on survival.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1,376 patients enrolled in the AF-CHF trial were followed for 37  ±  19 months, 206 (15.0%) of whom failed initial therapy leading to crossover. Rhythm control was abandoned more frequently than rate control (21.0% vs. 9.1%, P < 0.0001). Crossovers from rhythm to rate control were driven by inefficacy, whereas worsening heart failure was the most common reason to crossover from rate to rhythm control. In multivariate analyses, failure of rhythm control was associated with female sex, higher serum creatinine, functional class III or IV symptoms, lack of digoxin, and oral anticoagulation. Factors independently associated with failure of rate control were paroxysmal (vs. persistent) AF, statin therapy, and presence of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Crossovers were not associated with cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11 from rhythm to rate control; 95% confidence interval [95% CI, 0.73-1.73]; P = 0.6069; HR 1.29 from rate to rhythm control; 95% CI, 0.73-2.25; P = 0.3793) or all-cause mortality (HR 1.16 from rhythm to rate control, 95% CI [0.79-1.72], P = 0.4444; HR 1.15 from rate to rhythm control, 95% [0.69, 1.91], P = 0.5873).

CONCLUSIONS

Rhythm control is abandoned more frequently than rate control in patients with AF and CHF. The most common reasons for treatment failure are inefficacy for rhythm control and worsening heart failure for rate control. Changing strategies does not impact survival.

Crisis Awaiting Heart Transplantation: Sinking the Lifeboat

The number of heart transplants performed in the United States was 2177 in 1994 and 2166 in 2014. However, the number of transplant centers has increased, and the criteria for transplants have broadened to include patients 65 years or older, those with a body mass index greater than 30, and more comorbid conditions, such as diabetes mellitus and a history of smoking. As the transplant waiting list has become longer and waiting times have increased, the major route to heart transplants has become deterioration to the most urgent priority status, which accounts for 10% of patients on the waiting list but two-thirds of transplants. Many heart transplant candidates develop life-threatening complications of a ventricular assist device implanted to avert death while waiting. Some affluent patients, however, can afford to temporarily relocate and obtain a transplant in regions where the waiting times are shorter without prior surgery to implant a ventricular assist device. The ethics of allocating hearts for transplant have always recalled the classic lifeboat dilemma of how many people can be allowed to board an already overcrowded lifeboat without sinking the ship and everyone on board. As transplant physicians, we advocate with the best intentions on behalf of our own patients rather than denying transplants to those less likely to benefit. In recognizing our responsibilities as stewards of scarce donor hearts, we should reduce new listings for heart transplants, thus restoring balance to the waiting list and keeping the lifeboat afloat.

Real world effectiveness of primary implantable cardioverter defibrillators implanted during hospital admissions for exacerbation of heart failure or other acute co-morbidities: cohort study of older patients with heart failure

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of primary implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in elderly patients receiving the device during a hospital admission for exacerbation of heart failure or other acute co-morbidities, with an emphasis on adjustment for early mortality and other factors reflecting healthy candidate bias rather than the effect of the ICD.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Linked data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD registry, nationwide heart failure registry, and Medicare claims data 2004-09.

POPULATION

23,111 patients aged ≥ 66 who were admitted to hospital for exacerbation of heart failure or other acute co-morbidities and eligible for primary ICDs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All cause mortality and sudden cardiac death. Latency analyses with Cox regression were used to derive crude hazard ratios and hazard ratios adjusted for high dimension propensity score for outcomes after 180 days from index implantation or discharge.

RESULTS

Patients who received an ICD during a hospital admission had lower crude mortality risk than patients who did not receive an ICD (40% v 60% at three years); however, with conditioning on 180 day survival and with adjustment for high dimension propensity score, the apparent benefit with ICD was no longer evident for sudden cardiac death (adjusted hazard ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.17) and had a diminished impact on total mortality (0.91, 0.82 to 1.00). There were trends towards a benefit with ICD in reducing mortality or sudden cardiac death in patients who had had a myocardial infarction more than 40 days previously, left bundle branch block, or low serum B type natriuretic peptide; however, these trends did not reach significance.

CONCLUSION

After adjustment for healthy candidate bias and confounding, the benefits of primary ICD therapy seen in pivotal trials were not apparent in patients aged 66 or over who received ICDs during a hospital admission for exacerbation of heart failure or other acute co-morbidities. Future research is warranted to further identify subgroups of elderly patients who are more likely to benefit from ICDs. Recognition of those patients whose dominant risk factors are from decompensated heart failure and non-cardiac co-morbidities will allow better focus on ICDs in those patients for whom the device offers the most benefit and provides meaningful prolonging of life.

Water and sodium in heart failure: a spotlight on congestion

Despite all available therapies, the rates of hospitalization and death from heart failure (HF) remain unacceptably high. The most common reasons for hospital admission are symptoms related to congestion. During hospitalization, most patients respond well to standard therapy and are discharged with significantly improved symptoms. Post-discharge, many patients receive diligent and frequent follow-up. However, rehospitalization rates remain high. One potential explanation is a persistent failure by clinicians to adequately manage congestion in the outpatient setting. The failure to successfully manage these patients post-discharge may represent an unmet need to improve the way congestion is both recognized and treated. A primary aim of future HF management may be to improve clinical surveillance to prevent and manage chronic fluid overload while simultaneously maximizing the use of evidence-based therapies with proven long-term benefit. Improvement in cardiac function is the ultimate goal and maintenance of a "dry" clinical profile is important to prevent hospital admission and improve prognosis. This paper focuses on methods for monitoring congestion, and strategies for water and sodium management in the context of the complex interplay between the cardiac and renal systems. A rationale for improving recognition and treatment of congestion is also proposed.

Wireless pulmonary artery pressure monitoring guides management to reduce decompensation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

No treatment strategies have been demonstrated to be beneficial for the population for patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (EF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients (CHAMPION) trial was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial testing the hypothesis that hemodynamically guided HF management decreases decompensation leading to hospitalization. Of the 550 patients enrolled in the study, 119 had left ventricular EF ≥40% (average, 50.6%), 430 patients had low left ventricular EF (<40%; average, 23.3%), and 1 patient had no documented left ventricular EF. A microelectromechanical system pressure sensor was permanently implanted in all participants during right heart catheterization. After implant, subjects were randomly assigned in single-blind fashion to a treatment group in whom daily uploaded pressures were used in a treatment strategy for HF management or to a control group in whom standard HF management included weight-monitoring, and pressures were uploaded but not available for investigator use. The primary efficacy end point of HF hospitalization rate >6 months for preserved EF patients was 46% lower in the treatment group compared with control (incidence rate ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.70; P<0.0001). After an average of 17.6 months of blinded follow-up, the hospitalization rate was 50% lower (incidence rate ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.70; P<0.0001). In response to pulmonary artery pressure information, more changes in diuretic and vasodilator therapies were made in the treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemodynamically guided management of patients with HF with preserved EF reduced decompensation leading to hospitalization compared with standard HF management strategies.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00531661.