P239 TOLERABILITY OF SACUBITRIL/VALSARTAN TREATMENT IN OLDER PATIENTS WITH HEART FAILURE WITH REDUCED EJECTION FRACTION: PRELIMINARY DATA FROM THE REAL–WORLD AGING–HF REGISTRY

Background

Although older patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction enrolled in PARADIGM–HF showed a good tolerance to sacubitril/valsartan (Sa/Va), more real–word data are needed to define their tolerability in this population. Aim: To describe the Sa/Va tolerability and titration in older HFrEF patients followed by our HF outpatient.

Methods

HFrEF patients aged ≥65 years and treated with Sa/Va from November 2016 to June 2021 were enrolled, assessing Sa/Va tolerability at six months and its clinical and hemodynamic effects.

Results

We enrolled 101 patients with a mean age of 78 years (⁓20% female). The aetiology was ischemic in 59% of cases while the mean ejection fraction was 31%. Sa/Va was prescribed at the starting dose (24/26mg) and intermediate dose (49/51mg) in 91% and 9% of cases, respectively. After six months, 9 of the 100 patients still alive had discontinued treatment with Sa/Va (4 for symptomatic hypotension, 3 for suspected allergic reaction and 2 for worsening renal function). Of the 91 patients still on therapy, only 17 had reached the target dose (97/103mg) while 28 were at the intermediate dose (Figure 1). Symptomatic hypotension (62%), hyperkalaemia (15%) and worsening of renal function (4%) were the main causes of maintaining Sa/Va therapy at the starting dose; note, in 15% of cases a specific cause of non–titration was not identified. Comparing HF treatment between starting dose vs higher–dose patients, after six months in low–dose patients there was a slight improvement in mineralcorticosteroid receptor antagonist (MRA) prescription and in combination therapy (Sa/Va, beta–blocker and MRA) while in patients at higher–doses there was a significant decrease (Figure 2). In patients still receiving Sa/Va, significant clinical improvement was observed while renal function, K+ levels and systolic blood pressure remained stable (Figure 3).

Conclusions

After six months of treatment, Sa/Va was well tolerated in most of our older patients and used in combination with a beta–blocker and an MRA in a high percentage of cases, although a reduction in MRA prescription is observed in patients taking higher dosages of Sa/Va. In addition, there was a marked improvement in the clinical variables.

P252 PROTOCOL FOR TELEHEALTH MANAGEMENT AND STRATIFICATION RISK OF ELDERLY PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC HEART FAILURE DURING THE COVID–19 PANDEMIC: A MID–TERM PROGNOSTIC EVALUTATION BY TELEHFCOVID–19 SCORE

Introduction

The Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19) pandemic and its consequences has forced physicians to develop telematic methods in order to follow up patients with cronic diseases, such as heart failure (HF).

Objectives

To evaluate TeleHFCovid–19 score as a mid–term (six months) prognostic score in terms of prediction of hospitalitazion and cardiovascular mortality in patients with chronic HF during Covid–19 pandemic.

Methods

During COVID–19 pandemic (from March 2020 to May 2020), we were forced to cancel nearly all follow–up checks in our HF outpatient clinic. We hence standardized a telephone follow–up by developing a questionnaire (Fig. 1) from which we then obtained a score, later called the “TeleHFCovid–19 score” (0–29). This score stratified patients in three risk score groups: green (0–3), yellow (4–8), and red (≥9), for which the next telefonic evaluation was planned after 4, 2 and 1 weeks, respectively.

Results

146 patients were enrolled: 112 were classified as green, 21 as yellow and 13 as red. Mean age was 81 years, females were 40%. Approximately one third had EF < 40%. At six months, compared to red (69.2%) and yellow patients (33.3%), green patients (8.9%) presented a significantly lower rate of the composite outcome of cardiovascular death and/or HF hospitalization, (p < 0.001, Fig 2). Multivariate analysis showed that high levels of creatinine (OR 5.960, 95% CI 1.627–21.837, p = 0.007), dyspnea at rest or for basic activities (OR 2.469, 95% CI 1.216–5.013, p = 0.012) and a high loop–diuretic dosage (OR 6.224, 95% CI 1.504–25.753, p = 0.012) were indipendently associated with the outcome. Moreover, ROC analysis showed a high sensibility and specificity for our score at six months (AUC =0.789, 95% CI 0.682–0.896, p < 0.001), with a score < 4.5 (very close to the green group cut–off) that identified lower–risk subjects (Fig 3).

Conclusions

The TeleHFCovid–19 score was able to correctly identify patients with good outcomes at six months. Furthermore, it has the ability to stratify the adverse event risk and this could represent a useful tool to appropriately schedule the reevaluation timing of these patients and to identify those who may need urgent hospital evaluation.

P250 PROTOCOL FOR TELEHEALTH EVALUATION AND FOLLOW–UP OF PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC HEART FAILURE DURING THE COVID–19 PANDEMIC

Background

After the lockdown imposed by the COVID19 pandemic, physicians had to limite ambulatory visits to exceptional cases to reduce interpersonal contact. We structured a telephone follow–up developing a standardized 23 item questionnaire to administrate to our HF outpatient clinic and from whom we obtained the Covid–19–HFscore.

Methods

The patients were identified by a numeric code, date of birth and gender. The questionnaire was designed for rapid administration during telephone interview (on average 6 minutes) and was administered directly by physicians to patients and/or to their caregiver. It was built to reproduce our usual clinical evaluation.

Results

As shown in Figure 1, we investigated seven domains: 1) social and functional condition 2) mood 3) adherence to pharmacological and non–pharmacological recommendations (blood pressure, heart rate, weight monitoring and fluid intake control) 4) clinical and hemodynamic status 5) recording of laboratory tests 6) current pharmacological treatment 7) recent evaluation by family physician or need to contact emergency services followed or not by hospitalisation. General and pharmacological recommendations as well as the following telephone contact were finally recorded. To determine the timing of the next telephonic evaluation, we decided to weight questions regarding clinical and hemodynamic status, adherence to pharmacological and non–pharmacological recommendations, therapeutic changes and need for hospitalisation by scoring the answers (from 1 to 3) to build a score. The sum of individual scores represented the novel TeleHFCovid19–score, ranging from 0 to 29. Based on such score, three groups of patients were identified by arbitrary cut–off levels: the green (score <4), the yellow (score 4–8) and the red (score ≥9) group, for which next telephonic evaluation was planned respectively after four, two and one week respectively. Alternatively, the red group could receive recommendation for urgent hospital evaluation.

Conclusion

During this emergency situation this questionnaire could be a useful clinical tool to help physicians maintaining a regular FU of their patients and identifying patients at greatest risk of imminent instability. Furthermore, this instrument could also represent a useful resource in the management of low–risk HF patients.

P260 PRELIMINARY EXPERIENCE OF REPEATED LEVOSIMENDAN INFUSIONS IN ELDERLY OUTPATIENTS WITH ADVANCED HEART FAILURE

Background

The use of intermittent infusion of Levosimendan (L) demonstrated to be able to reduce hospitalisations and to improve functional capacity and quality of life in patients with advanced heart failure (HF).

Purpose

To describe our preliminary experience regarding L intermittent infusions in advanced HF older outpatients.

Methods

A maximum of three consecutive L infusions were carried out 14 days apart. The duration of each session was 8 hours. The starting infusion rate was 0.05 μg/Kg/min, titrated every 30/60‘ up to a maximum of 0.2 μg/Kg/min based on blood pressure, heart rate and arrhythmias recorded during telemetry. We evaluated patients by clinical, laboratory and echocardiographic controls at baseline and two weeks after the end of treatment.

Results

Since November 2020 we enrolled 17 patients with a mean age of 77 years; 12% were women. HF etiology was ischemic in 64% of cases and the mean ejection fraction was 30%. A total of 41 infusions were performed, the mean dose of L administered was 5.4 mg/infusion. Three patients did not complete the expected treatment, one due to an intercurrent COVID–19 infection and two because of social issues. In 28 sessions the maximum infusion rate was reached, while in 12 a lower rate; in one case drug infusion was suspended (Figure 1). The main complication observed was marked non–symptomatic hypotension, followed by the onset of atrial fibrillation or frequently ventricular extrasystole. As shown in Figure 2, at the end of the infusion cycles, there was an improvement of clinical and hemodynamic parameters. Moreover, at the end of the infusion cycles, we observed a reduction in the mean dose of loop diuretic prescribed and an increase in the prescription of disease–modify treatment, according to HF guidelines (Figure 3).

Conclusions

In our preliminary experience repeated infusions of L appear to be well tolerated in older patients with advanced HF. Although there was an improvement in congestion parameters and targeted therapy for HF, more data will be needed in the future to confirm its safety and efficacy, also in terms of guidelines–directed medical therapy.