Patient-Centered Adult Cardiovascular Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Patient-centered care is gaining widespread acceptance by the medical and lay communities and is increasingly recognized as a goal of high-quality health care delivery. Patient-centered care is based on ethical principles and aims at establishing a partnership between the health care team and patient, family member, or both in the care planning and decision-making process. Patient-centered care involves providing respectful care by tailoring management decisions to patients' beliefs, preferences, and values. A collaborative care approach can enhance patient engagement, foster shared decision-making that aligns with patient values and goals, promote more personalized and effective cardiovascular care, and potentially improve patient outcomes. The objective of this scientific statement is to inform health care professionals and stakeholders about the role and impact of patient-centered care in adult cardiovascular medicine. This scientific statement describes the background and rationale for patient-centered care in cardiovascular medicine, provides insight into patient-oriented medication management and patient-reported outcome measures, highlights opportunities and strategies to overcome challenges in patient-centered care, and outlines knowledge gaps and future directions.

Artificial intelligence predictive analytics in heart failure: results of the pilot phase of a pragmatic randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

We conducted an implementation planning process during the pilot phase of a pragmatic trial, which tests an intervention guided by artificial intelligence (AI) analytics sourced from noninvasive monitoring data in heart failure patients (LINK-HF2).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mixed-method analysis was conducted at 2 pilot sites. Interviews were conducted with 12 of 27 enrolled patients and with 13 participating clinicians. iPARIHS constructs were used for interview construction to identify workflow, communication patterns, and clinician's beliefs. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using inductive coding protocols to identify key themes. Behavioral response data from the AI-generated notifications were collected.

RESULTS

Clinicians responded to notifications within 24 hours in 95% of instances, with 26.7% resulting in clinical action. Four implementation themes emerged: (1) High anticipatory expectations for reliable patient communications, reduced patient burden, and less proactive provider monitoring. (2) The AI notifications required a differential and tailored balance of trust and action advice related to role. (3) Clinic experience with other home-based programs influenced utilization. (4) Responding to notifications involved significant effort, including electronic health record (EHR) review, patient contact, and consultation with other clinicians.

DISCUSSION

Clinician's use of AI data is a function of beliefs regarding the trustworthiness and usefulness of the data, the degree of autonomy in professional roles, and the cognitive effort involved.

CONCLUSION

The implementation planning analysis guided development of strategies that addressed communication technology, patient education, and EHR integration to reduce clinician and patient burden in the subsequent main randomized phase of the trial. Our results provide important insights into the unique implications of implementing AI analytics into clinical workflow.

Contemporary pharmacological treatment and management of heart failure

The prevention and treatment strategies for heart failure (HF) have evolved in the past two decades. The stages of HF have been redefined, with recognition of the pre-HF state, which encompasses asymptomatic patients who have developed either structural or functional cardiac abnormalities or have elevated plasma levels of natriuretic peptides or cardiac troponin. The first-line treatment of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction includes foundational therapies with angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, β-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and diuretics. The first-line treatment of patients with HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction or with HF with preserved ejection fraction includes SGLT2 inhibitors and diuretics. The timely initiation of these disease-modifying therapies and the optimization of treatment are crucial in all patients with HF. Reassessment after initiation of these therapies is recommended to evaluate patient symptoms, health status and left ventricular function, and timely referral to a HF specialist is necessary if a patient has persistent advanced HF symptoms or worsening HF. Lifestyle modification and treatment of comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, ischaemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation are crucial through each stage of HF. This Review provides an overview of the management strategies for HF according to disease stages that are derived from the recommendations in the latest US and European HF guidelines.

Contemporary American and European Guidelines for Heart Failure Management: JACC: Heart Failure Guideline Comparison

This review serves to compare contemporary clinical practice recommendations for the management of heart failure (HF), as codified in the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline, the 2022 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA)/Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) guideline, and the 2023 focused update of the 2021 ESC document. Overall, these guidelines aim to solidify significant advances throughout the HF continuum since the publication of previous full guideline iterations (2013 and 2016 for the ACC/AHA and ESC, respectively). All guidelines provide new recommendations for an increasingly complex landscape of HF care, with focus on primary HF prevention, HF stages, rapid initiation and optimization of evidence-based pharmacotherapies, overlapping cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, device-based therapies, and management pathways for special groups of patients, including those with cardiac amyloidosis. Importantly, the ACC/AHA/HFSA document features special emphasis on HF risk prediction and screening, cost/value, social determinants of health, and health care disparities. The review discusses major similarities and differences between these recent guidelines and guideline updates, as well as their potential downstream implications for clinical care.

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and the Future of Heart Failure Phenotyping

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome traditionally classified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) cutpoints. Although LVEF is prognostic for risk of events and predictive of response to some HF therapies, LVEF is a continuous variable and cutpoints are arbitrary, often based on historical clinical trial enrichment decisions rather than physiology. Holistic evaluation of the treatment effects for therapies throughout the LVEF range suggests the standard categorization paradigm for HF merits modification. The multidisciplinary Heart Failure Collaboratory reviewed data from large-scale HF clinical trials and found that many HF therapies have demonstrated therapeutic benefit across a large range of LVEF, but specific treatment effects vary across that range. Therefore, HF should practically be classified by association with an LVEF that is reduced or not reduced, while acknowledging uncertainty around the precise LVEF cutpoint, and future research should evaluate new therapies across the continuum of LVEF.

Standardized Definitions for Evaluation of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Therapies: HF-ARC Expert Panel Paper

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is one of the most common reasons for hospitalizations or urgent care and is associated with poor outcomes. Therapies shown to improve outcomes are limited, however, and innovation in pharmacologic and device-based therapeutics are therefore actively being sought. Standardizing definitions for ADHF and its trajectory is complex, limiting the generalizability and translation of clinical trials to effect clinical care and policy change. The Heart Failure Collaboratory is a multistakeholder organization comprising clinical investigators, clinicians, patients, government representatives (including U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health participants), payors, and industry collaborators. The following expert consensus document is the product of the Heart Failure Collaboratory convening with the Academic Research Consortium, including members from academia, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry, for the purposes of proposing standardized definitions for ADHF and highlighting important endpoint considerations to inform the design and conduct of clinical trials for drugs and devices in this clinical arena.

Biomarkers for Heart Failure Prediction and Prevention

Heart failure (HF) is a global pandemic affecting over 64 million people worldwide. Its prevalence is on an upward trajectory, with associated increasing healthcare expenditure. Organizations including the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have identified HF prevention as an important focus. Recently, the ACC/AHA/Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) Guidelines on heart failure were updated with a new Class IIa, Level of Evidence B recommendation for biomarker-based screening in patients at risk of developing heart failure. In this review, we evaluate the studies that have assessed the various roles and contributions of biomarkers in the prediction and prevention of heart failure. We examined studies that have utilized biomarkers to detect cardiac dysfunction or abnormality for HF risk prediction and screening before patients develop clinical signs and symptoms of HF. We also included studies with biomarkers on prognostication and risk prediction over and above existing HF risk prediction models and studies that address the utility of changes in biomarkers over time for HF risk. We discuss studies of biomarkers to guide management and assess the efficacy of prevention strategies and multi-biomarker and multimodality approaches to improve risk prediction.

An Updated Review on the Role of Non-dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers and Beta-blockers in Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: Evidence and Gaps

PURPOSE

The 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on acute and chronic heart failure (HF) recommend that non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (NDCC) should be avoided in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. It also emphasizes that beta-blockers only be initiated in clinically stable, euvolemic patients. Despite these recommendations, NDCC and beta-blockers are often still employed in patients with AF with rapid ventricular response and acute decompensated HF. The relative safety and efficacy of these therapies in this setting is unclear.

METHODS

To address the question of the safety and efficacy of NDCC and beta-blockers for acute rate control in decompensated HF, we provide a perspective on the literature of NDCC and beta-blockers in chronic HF with reduced and preserved ejection fraction and AF, including trials on the management of AF with rapid ventricular response with and without HF.

RESULTS

Robust data demonstrates mortality benefits when beta-blockers are used in patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction. The data that inform the contraindication of NDCC in HF with reduced ejection fraction are outdated and were not primarily designed to address the efficacy and safety of rate control of AF in patients with HF. Several studies indicate that for acute rate control, NDCC and beta-blockers are both efficacious therapies, especially in the setting of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy.

CONCLUSION

Future studies are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of beta-blockers and NDCC in both acute and chronic AF with HF with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

Incidence, risk assessment and prevention of sudden cardiac death in cardiomyopathies

Cardiomyopathies are a significant contributor to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, mainly due to the development of heart failure and increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Despite improvement in survival with contemporary treatment, SCD remains an important cause of mortality in cardiomyopathies. It occurs at a rate ranging between 0.15% and 0.7% per year (depending on the cardiomyopathy), which significantly surpasses SCD incidence in the age- and sex-matched general population. The risk of SCD is affected by multiple factors including the aetiology, genetic basis, age, sex, physical exertion, the extent of myocardial disease severity, conduction system abnormalities, and electrical instability, as measured by various metrics. Over the past decades, the knowledge on the mechanisms and risk factors for SCD has substantially improved, allowing for a better-informed risk stratification. However, unresolved issues still challenge the guidance of SCD prevention in patients with cardiomyopathies. In this review, we aim to provide an in-depth discussion of the contemporary concepts pertinent to understanding the burden, risk assessment and prevention of SCD in cardiomyopathies (dilated, non-dilated left ventricular, hypertrophic, arrhythmogenic right ventricular, and restrictive). The review first focuses on SCD incidence in cardiomyopathies and then summarizes established and emerging risk factors for life-threatening arrhythmias/SCD. Finally, it discusses validated approaches to the risk assessment and evidence-based measures for SCD prevention in cardiomyopathies, pointing to the gaps in evidence and areas of uncertainties that merit future clarification.

Practical algorithms for early diagnosis of heart failure and heart stress using NT-proBNP: A clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association of the ESC

Diagnosing heart failure is often difficult due to the non-specific nature of symptoms, which can be caused by a range of medical conditions. Natriuretic peptides (NPs) have been recognized as important biomarkers for diagnosing heart failure. This document from the Heart Failure Association examines the practical uses of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in various clinical scenarios. The concentrations of NT-proBNP vary according to the patient profile and the clinical scenario, therefore values should be interpreted with caution to ensure appropriate diagnosis. Validated cut-points are provided to rule in or rule out acute heart failure in the emergency department and to diagnose de novo heart failure in the outpatient setting. We also coin the concept of 'heart stress' when NT-proBNP levels are elevated in an asymptomatic patient with risk factors for heart failure (i.e. diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease), underlying the development of cardiac dysfunction and further increased risk. We propose a simple acronym for healthcare professionals and patients, FIND-HF, which serves as a prompt to consider heart failure: Fatigue, Increased water accumulation, Natriuretic peptide testing, and Dyspnoea. Use of this acronym would enable the early diagnosis of heart failure. Overall, understanding and utilizing NT-proBNP levels will lead to earlier and more accurate diagnoses of heart failure ultimately improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare costs.

State-of-the-art document on optimal contemporary management of cardiomyopathies

Cardiomyopathies represent significant contributors to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Over the past decades, a progress has occurred in characterization of the genetic background and major pathophysiological mechanisms, which has been incorporated into a more nuanced diagnostic approach and risk stratification. Furthermore, medications targeting core disease processes and/or their downstream adverse effects have been introduced for several cardiomyopathies. Combined with standard care and prevention of sudden cardiac death, these novel and emerging targeted therapies offer a possibility of improving the outcomes in several cardiomyopathies. Therefore, the aim of this document is to summarize practical approaches to the treatment of cardiomyopathies, which includes the evidence-based novel therapeutic concepts and established principles of care, tailored to the individual patient aetiology and clinical presentation of the cardiomyopathy. The scope of the document encompasses contemporary treatment of dilated, hypertrophic, restrictive and arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy. It was based on an expert consensus reached at the Heart Failure Association online Workshop, held on 18 March 2021.

A scoping review of heart failure transitional care quality indicators and outcomes for use in clinical care and research

AIMS

There are no accepted quality indicators for transitional care following hospitalization for heart failure (HF). Current quality measures focus on 30-day readmissions without accounting for competing risks such as death. In this scoping review of clinical trials, we aimed to develop a set of HF transitional care quality indicators for clinical or research applications following hospitalization for HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a scoping review using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, reference lists and grey literature from January 1990 to November 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults hospitalized for HF who received a healthcare service or strategy intervention that aimed to improve patient-reported or clinical outcomes. We independently extracted data and performed a qualitative synthesis of the results. We generated a list of process, structure, patient-reported, and clinical measures that could be used as quality indicators. We highlighted process indicators that were associated with improved clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes that had high adherence to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and United States Food and Drug Administration standards. From 42 RCTs included in the study, we identified a set of process, structure, patient-reported, and clinical indicators that could be used as transitional care measures in clinical or research settings.

CONCLUSION

In this scoping review, we developed a list of quality indicators that could guide clinical efforts or serve as research endpoints in transitional care in HF. Clinicians, researchers, institutions, and policymakers can use the indicators to guide management, design research, allocate resources, and fund services that improve clinical outcomes.

Mortality, Outcomes, Costs, and Use of Medicines Following a First Heart Failure Hospitalization: EVOLUTION HF

BACKGROUND

There are few contemporary data on outcomes, costs, and treatment following a hospitalization for heart failure (hHF) in epidemiologically representative cohorts.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to describe rehospitalizations, hospitalization costs, use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) (renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors), and mortality after hHF.

METHODS

EVOLUTION HF (Utilization of Dapagliflozin and Other Guideline Directed Medical Therapies in Heart Failure Patients: A Multinational Observational Study Based on Secondary Data) is an observational, longitudinal cohort study using data from electronic health records or claims data sources in Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Adults with a first hHF discharge between 2018 and 2022 were included. The 1-year event rates per 100 patient-years (ERs) for death and rehospitalizations (with a primary diagnosis of heart failure (HF), chronic kidney disease [CKD], myocardial infarction, stroke, or peripheral artery disease) were calculated. Hospital health care costs were cumulatively summarized. Cumulative GDMT use was assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

Of 263,525 patients, 28% died within the first year post-hHF (ER: 28.4 [95% CI: 27.0-29.9]). Rehospitalizations were mainly driven by HF (ER: 13.6 [95% CI: 9.8-17.4]) and CKD (ER: 4.5 [95% CI: 3.6-5.3]), whereas the ERs for myocardial infarction, stroke, and peripheral artery disease were lower. Health care costs were predominantly driven by HF and CKD. Between 2020 and 2022, use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists changed little, whereas uptake of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors increased 2- to 7-fold.

CONCLUSIONS

Incident post-hHF rehospitalization risks and costs were high, and GDMT use changed little in the year following discharge, highlighting the need to consider earlier and greater implementation of GDMT to manage risks and reduce costs.

Utilization Rates of SGLT2 Inhibitors Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes, Heart Failure, and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: Insights From the Department of Veterans Affairs

BACKGROUND

Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated significant cardiovascular benefit with use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and heart failure (HF) irrespective of ejection fraction. There are limited data evaluating real-world prescription and practice patterns of SGLT2 inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to assess utilization rates and facility-level variation in the use among patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), HF, and T2DM using data from the nationwide Veterans Affairs health care system.

METHODS

The authors included patients with established ASCVD, HF, and T2DM seen by a primary care provider between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. They assessed the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and the facility-level variation in their use. Facility-level variation was computed using median rate ratios, a measure of likelihood that 2 random facilities differ in use of SGLT2 inhibitors.

RESULTS

Among 105,799 patients with ASCVD, HF, and T2DM across 130 Veterans Affairs facilities, 14.6% received SGLT2 inhibitors. Patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors were younger men with higher hemoglobin A1c and estimated glomerular filtration rate and were more likely to have HF with reduced ejection fraction and ischemic heart disease. There was significant facility-level variation of SGLT2 inhibitor use, with an adjusted median rate ratio of 1.55 (95% CI: 1.46-1.64), indicating a 55% residual difference in SGLT2 inhibitor use among similar patients with ASCVD, HF, and T2DM receiving care at 2 random facilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization rates of SGLT2 inhibitors are low in patients with ASCVD, HF, and T2DM, with high residual facility-level variation. These findings suggest opportunities to optimize SGLT2 inhibitor use to prevent future adverse cardiovascular events.

Optimizing outcomes in heart failure: 2022 and beyond

Although the development of therapies and tools for the improved management of heart failure (HF) continues apace, day-to-day management in clinical practice is often far from ideal. A Cardiovascular Round Table workshop was convened by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) to identify barriers to the optimal implementation of therapies and guidelines and to consider mitigation strategies to improve patient outcomes in the future. Key challenges identified included the complexity of HF itself and its treatment, financial constraints and the perception of HF treatments as costly, failure to meet the needs of patients, suboptimal outpatient management, and the fragmented nature of healthcare systems. It was discussed that ongoing initiatives may help to address some of these barriers, such as changes incorporated into the 2021 ESC HF guideline, ESC Heart Failure Association quality indicators, quality improvement registries (e.g. EuroHeart), new ESC guidelines for patients, and the universal definition of HF. Additional priority action points discussed to promote further improvements included revised definitions of HF 'phenotypes' based on trial data, the development of implementation strategies, improved affordability, greater regulator/payer involvement, increased patient education, further development of patient-reported outcomes, better incorporation of guidelines into primary care systems, and targeted education for primary care practitioners. Finally, it was concluded that overarching changes are needed to improve current HF care models, such as the development of a standardized pathway, with a common adaptable digital backbone, decision-making support, and data integration, to ensure that the model 'learns' as the management of HF continues to evolve.

Reclassification of Pre-Heart Failure Stages Using Cardiac Biomarkers: The ARIC Study

BACKGROUND

The recent heart failure (HF) guideline recommends the inclusion of cardiac biomarkers in defining Stage B HF.

OBJECTIVES

The authors evaluated the impact of incorporating cardiac biomarkers to reclassify HF in 5,324 participants (mean age: 75.8 years) without prevalent HF enrolled in the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities) study and assessed prognosis of Stage B using cardiac biomarkers.

METHODS

Using N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (<125 pg/mL or ≥125 pg/mL), high-sensitivity troponin T (<14 ng/L or ≥14 ng/L), and abnormal cardiac structure/function by echocardiography, individuals were classified as Stage Anew and Stage Bnew HF, respectively. Stage Bnew was further evaluated as elevated biomarker only, abnormal echocardiogram only, and abnormalities in both (echo + biomarker). The authors assessed risk for incident HF and all-cause death using Cox regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 4,326 (81.3%) individuals were classified as Stage Bnew with 1,123 (21.1%) meeting criteria for elevated biomarkers only. Compared with Stage Anew, Stage Bnew was associated with increased risk for incident HF (HR: 3.70 [95% CI: 2.58-5.30]) and death (HR: 1.94 [95% CI: 1.53-2.46]). Stage Bbiomarkers only and Stage Becho only were associated with increased HF risk, whereas Stage Bbiomarkers only was also associated with increased death. Stage Becho+biomarker had the highest risk for HF (HR: 6.34 [95% CI: 4.37-9.19]) and death (HR: 2.53 [95% CI: 1.98-3.23]).

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating biomarkers based on the new HF guideline reclassified approximately 1 in 5 older adults without prevalent HF to Stage B. The routine measurement of biomarkers can help to identify individuals at higher HF risk who may benefit most from HF prevention efforts.

Association of Long-term Change in N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide With Incident Heart Failure and Death

Importance

Most studies, especially in primary prevention patients, have evaluated N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) at one time point. Evaluation of change in NT-proBNP may improve risk stratification for incident cardiovascular events.

Objective

To assess the association between change in NT-proBNP and risk for incident heart failure (HF) and death.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Participants were recruited from 4 US communities enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Community (ARIC) study. Individuals who attended ARIC visits 2 and 4 (approximately 6 years apart) with measurements of NT-proBNP and without prevalent HF were included. Assays of NT-proBNP were conducted between 2011 and 2013, and analysis took place between July 2021 and October 2022.

Exposures

The primary exposure variable was NT-proBNP change between visits 2 and 4, modeled as change categories (<125 pg/mL or ≥125 pg/mL) and as percent change.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome measures were incident HF hospitalization and all-cause death. The association between changes in cardiovascular risk factors with change in NT-proBNP was further assessed.

Results

A total of 9776 individuals (mean [SD] age, 57.1 [5.7] years at visit 2; 5523 [56.5%] women) were included in the study. Compared with participants with NT-proBNP level less than 125 pg/mL at both visits, participants with NT-proBNP level of 125 pg/mL or higher at both visits had an increase in incident HF (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.40 [95% CI, 2.00-2.88]) and mortality risk (HR, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.47-1.91). Participants with NT-proBNP levels of 125 pg/mL or higher at visit 2 and less than 125 pg/mL at visit 4 had similar risk for HF and death (HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.71-1.43]; HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.61-1.01]) compared with the group with NT-proBNP levels of less than 125 pg/mL at both visits. The percent change in NT-proBNP was positively associated with HF and death (HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.02-1.10]; HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.03-1.08] per 1-SD increase, respectively). Change in systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride level, body mass index, and estimated glomerular filtration rate were significantly associated with change in NT-proBNP.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, 6-year change in NT-proBNP reflected dynamic change in risk for HF events and death among community-dwelling adults without prevalent clinical HF. These results support the utility of serial NT-proBNP measurements to improve risk stratification of patients with pre-HF.

Misconceptions and Facts about Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is a significant driver of morbidity and mortality. There are common misconceptions regarding the disease processes underlying heart failure and best practices for therapy. The terms heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left ventricular systolic dysfunction are not interchangeable terms. Key therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction target the underlying disease processes, not the left ventricular ejection fraction alone. The absence of congestion does not rule out heart failure. Patients with cardiac amyloidosis can also present with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A rise in serum creatinine in acute heart failure exacerbation is not associated with tubular injury. Guideline directed medical therapy should be continued during acute exacerbations of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and should be started in the same hospitalization in new diagnoses. Marginal blood pressure is not a relative contraindication to optimal guideline directed medical therapy. Guideline directed medical therapy should be continued even if ejection fraction improves. There are other therapies that provide significant benefit besides the four key medications in guideline directed medical therapy.

Complementary and Alternative Medicines in the Management of Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) are commonly used across the world by diverse populations and ethnicities but remain largely unregulated. Although many CAM agents are purported to be efficacious and safe by the public, clinical evidence supporting the use of CAM in heart failure remains limited and controversial. Furthermore, health care professionals rarely inquire or document use of CAM as part of the medical record, and patients infrequently disclose their use without further prompting. The goal of this scientific statement is to summarize published efficacy and safety data for CAM and adjunctive interventional wellness approaches in heart failure. Furthermore, other important considerations such as adverse effects and drug interactions that could influence the safety of patients with heart failure are reviewed and discussed.

Heart Failure Drug Treatment-Inertia, Titration, and Discontinuation: A Multinational Observational Study (EVOLUTION HF)

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend early initiation of multiple guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) to reduce mortality/rehospitalization in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Understanding GDMT use is critical to improving clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to describe GDMT use in Japan, Sweden, and the United States in contemporary real-world settings.

METHODS

EVOLUTION HF (Utilization of Dapagliflozin and Other Guideline Directed Medical Therapies in Heart Failure Patients: A Multinational Observational Study Based on Secondary Data) is an observational cohort study using routine-care databases. Patients initiating any GDMT within 12 months of a hospitalization for heart failure (hHF) discharge were included. Dapagliflozin (the only sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor approved at study onset), sacubitril/valsartan, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) were considered separately. Doses and discontinuation were assessed in the 12 months following initiation. Target dose was defined as ≥100% of the guideline-recommended dose.

RESULTS

Overall, 266,589 patients were included. Mean times from hHF to GDMT initiation were longer for novel GDMTs (dapagliflozin or sacubitril/valsartan) than for other GDMTs: 39 and 44 vs 12 to 13 days (Japan), 44 and 33 vs 22 to 31 days (Sweden), and 33 and 19 vs 18 to 24 days (United States). Pooled across countries, proportions of patients who discontinued therapy (not including switches from ACE inhibitor or ARB to sacubitril/valsartan) within 12 months were 23.5% (dapagliflozin), 26.4% (sacubitril/valsartan), 38.4% (ACE inhibitors), 33.4% (ARBs), 25.2% (beta-blockers), and 42.2% (MRAs). Corresponding target dose achievements were 75.7%, 28.2%, 20.1%, 6.7%, 7.2%, and 5.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of novel GDMTs is delayed compared with other GDMTs. Few patients received target doses of GDMTs requiring uptitration. Persistence was higher for dapagliflozin than other GDMTs.

Abnormalities in cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers in ambulatory subjects after COVID-19 infection

Background

Coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) is known to affect the heart and is associated with a pro-inflammatory state. Most studies to date have focused on clinically sick subjects. Here, we report cardiac and proinflammatory biomarkers levels in ambulatory young adults with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 infection compared to those without infection 4-8 weeks after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) testing.

Methods

131 asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic subjects were enrolled following testing for SARS-COV-2. Fifty subjects tested negative, and 81 subjects tested positive. Serum samples were collected for measurement of C-reactive protein, ferritin, interleukin-6, NT-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and cardiac troponin 28-55 days after SARS-COV-2 RT-PCR testing.

Results

Biomarker levels trended higher in SARS-COV-2-positive vs negative subjects, but differences in biomarker levels or proportion of subjects with elevated biomarkers were not statistically significant with respect to SARS-COV-2 status. Among individuals with ≥ 1 comorbidity, odds of elevated CRP were greater compared to individuals without any comorbidities (odds ratio [OR] = 2.90); this effect size was increased 1.4-fold among SARS-COV-2-positive subjects (OR = 4.03). Similarly, NT-pro-BNP was associated with CVD, with the strongest association in COVID-positive individuals (OR = 16.9).

Conclusions

In a relatively young, healthy adult population, mild COVID-19 infection was associated with mild elevations in cardiac and proinflammatory biomarkers within 4-8 weeks of mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 infection in individuals with preexisting comorbidities, but not among individuals without comorbidities. For the general population of young adults, we did not find evidence of elevation of cardiac or proinflammatory biomarkers 4-8 weeks after COVID-19 infection.Clinical Perspective: This is a characterization of cardiac and proinflammatory biomarkers in ambulatory subjects following asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 infection. Young, ambulatory individuals did not have cardiac and proinflammatory biomarker elevation 4-8 weeks after mild COVID-19 infection. However, COVID-19 infection was associated with biomarker elevations in select individuals with comorbidities.Clinical study number: H-47423.

Aiming at harmony. Comparing and contrasting International HFrEF Guidelines

Large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have led to major changes in the treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and these advances are included in the recent European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (ACC/AHA/HFSA) guidelines issued in 2021 and 2022, respectively. According to both guidelines, treatment of patients with HFrEF is based on the administration of four classes of drugs that reduce the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations in RCTs: angiotensin-converting enzyme or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. Specific sequences of treatment are not recommended but emphasis is given to reaching treatment with all four drugs as early as possible. Further treatments are considered in selected patients including ivabradine, hydralazine nitrates, digoxin, and the new agent vericiguat. Specific treatments, mostly new, for cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities are also given. The aim of this article is to compare the two recent guidelines issued by the ESC and ACC/AHA/HFSA and show the few differences and the many consistent recommendations, now more numerous given the evidence available for many new treatments.

Re-examining the widespread policy of stopping sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors during acute illness: A perspective based on the updated evidence

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are now seen as an integral part of therapy in type 2 diabetes to control not only blood glucose but to improve cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is an uncommon but serious complication of type 2 diabetes, which has a high case fatality rate. The absolute risk of DKA in large, prospective randomized clinical trials in people with type 2 diabetes using SGLT2 inhibitors has been low, although the relative risk is higher in those assigned to SGLT2 inhibitors compared with placebo. In those without diabetes but prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure or chronic kidney disease, the risk of DKA is similar to placebo. Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, cases of DKA have also been reported in cases of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Consensus guidelines have recommended that SGLT2 inhibitors should be avoided in cases of serious illness and suggest they are not recommended for routine in-hospital use. However, recent data suggest potential beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in the setting of acute illness with COVID-19 with no increase in adverse events and low rates of DKA, which were non-severe. Given the low rates of DKA in cardiovascular outcome trials and in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes, the potential for SGLT2 inhibitors not being re-initiated following discharge and their cardiovascular and kidney benefits, we believe the practice of routine 'sick day' guidance should be re-examined based on current evidence with a call for further research in this area. Furthermore, high-quality trials of initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in people admitted to hospital with cardiovascular disease or kidney disease, and trials of continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors in people, with careful monitoring of DKA should be conducted. These should be further supplemented with large observational studies.