Search

Aim: To evaluate use of CIED-generated Heart Failure Risk Score (HFRS) alerts in an integrated, multi-disciplinary approach to HF management. Methods: We undertook a prospective, single centre outcome study of patients implanted with an HFRS-enabled Medtronic CIED, generating a “high risk” alert between November 2018 and November 2020. All patients generating a “high risk” HFRS alert were managed within an integrated HF pathway. Alerts were shared with local HF teams, prompting patient contact and appropriate intervention. Outcome data on health care utilisation (HCU) and mortality were collected. A validated questionnaire was completed by the HF teams to obtain feedback. Results: 367 “High risk” alerts were noted in 188 patients. The mean patient age was 70 and 49% had a Charlson Comorbidity Score of >6. Mean number of alerts per patients was 1.95 and 44 (23%) of patients had >3 “high risk” alerts in the follow up period. Overall, 75 (39%) patients were hospitalised in the 4–6-week period of the alert; 53 (28%) were unplanned of which 24 (13%) were for decompensated HF. A total of 33 (18%) patients died in the study period. Having three or more alerts significantly increased the risk of hospitalisation for heart failure (HR 2.5, CI 1.1–5.6 p = 0.03). The feedback on the pathway was positive. Conclusions: Patients with “high risk” alerts are co-morbid and have significant HCU. An integrated approach can facilitate timely risk stratification and intervention. Intervention in these patients is not limited to HF alone and provides the opportunity for holistic management of this complex cohort.

Background Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Clinical prediction models provide suboptimal estimates of mortality in this population. We sought to determine the incremental value of implantable device diagnostics over clinical prediction models for mortality. Methods and Results RAFT (Resynchronization/Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial) patients with implanted devices capable of device diagnostic monitoring were included, and demographic and clinical parameters were used to compute Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) heart failure risk scores. Patients were classified according to MAGGIC score into low (0–16), intermediate (17–24), or high (>24) risk groups. Mortality was evaluated from 6 months postimplant in accordance with the RAFT protocol. In a subset of 1036 patients, multivariable analysis revealed that intermediate and high MAGGIC scores, fluid index, atrial fibrillation, and low activity flags were independent predictors of mortality. A device‐integrated diagnostic parameter that included a fluid index flag and either a positive atrial fibrillation flag or a positive activity flag was able to significantly differentiate higher from lower risk for mortality in the intermediate MAGGIC cohort. The effect was more pronounced in the high‐risk MAGGIC cohort, in which device‐integrated diagnostic–positive patients had a shorter time to death than those who were device‐integrated diagnostic negative. Conclusions Device diagnostics using a combination of fluid index trends, atrial fibrillation burden, and patient activity provide significant incremental prognostic value over clinical heart failure prediction scores in higher‐risk patients. This suggests that combining clinical and device diagnostic parameters may lead to models with better predictive power. Whether this risk is modifiable with early medical intervention would warrant further studies. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00251251.