Search

Aims: Guidelines recommend down-titration of loop diuretics (LD) once euvolaemia is achieved. In outpatients with heart failure (HF), we investigated LD dose changes in daily cardiology practice, agreement with guideline recommendations, predictors of successful LD down-titration and association between dose changes and outcomes.Methods and Results: We included 8130 HF patients from the ESC-EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry. Among patients who had dose decreased, successful decrease was defined as the decrease not followed by death, HF hospitalization, New York Heart Association class deterioration, or subsequent increase in LD dose. Mean age was 66 ± 13 years, 71% men, 62% HF with reduced ejection fraction, 19% HF with mid-range ejection fraction, 19% HF with preserved ejection fraction. Median [interquartile range (IQR)] LD dose was 40 (25-80) mg. LD dose was increased in 16%, decreased in 8.3% and unchanged in 76%. Median (IQR) follow-up was 372 (363-419) days. Diuretic dose increase (vs. no change) was associated with HF death [hazard ratio (HR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-2.08; P = 0.008] and nominally with cardiovascular death (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.96-1.63; P = 0.103). Decrease of diuretic dose (vs. no change) was associated with nominally lower HF (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.33-1.07; P = 0.083) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38-1.00; P = 0.052). Among patients who had LD dose decreased, systolic blood pressure [odds ratio (OR) 1.11 per 10 mmHg increase, 95% CI 1.01-1.22; P = 0.032], and absence of (i) sleep apnoea (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09-0.69; P = 0.008), (ii) peripheral congestion (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.80; P = 0.005), and (iii) moderate/severe mitral regurgitation (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37-0.87; P = 0.008) were independently associated with successful decrease.Conclusion: Diuretic dose was unchanged in 76% and decreased in 8.3% of outpatients with chronic HF. LD dose increase was associated with worse outcomes, while the LD dose decrease group showed a trend for better outcomes compared with the no-change group. Higher systolic blood pressure, and absence of (i) sleep apnoea, (ii) peripheral congestion, and (iii) moderate/severe mitral regurgitation were independently associated with successful dose decrease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Patients with advanced heart failure (AdHF) who are ineligible for heart transplantation (HTx) can become candidates for treatment with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in some countries, but not others. This reflects the lack of a systematic analysis of the usefulness of LVAD systems in this context, and of their benefits, limitations and cost-effectiveness. The SWEdish evaluation of left Ventricular Assist Device (SweVAD) study is a Phase IV, prospective, 1:1 randomized, non-blinded, multicentre trial that will examine the impact of assignment to mechanical circulatory support with guideline-directed LVAD destination therapy (GD-LVAD-DT) using the HeartMate 3 (HM3) continuous flow pump vs. guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) on survival in a population of AdHF patients ineligible for HTx.Methods: A total of 80 patients will be recruited to SweVAD at the seven university hospitals in Sweden. The study population will comprise patients with AdHF (New York Heart Association class IIIB-IV, INTERMACS profile 2-6) who display signs of poor prognosis despite GDMT and who are not considered eligible for HTx. Participants will be followed for 2 years or until death occurs. Other endpoints will be determined by blinded adjudication. Patients who remain on study-assigned interventions beyond 2 years will be asked to continue follow-up for outcomes and adverse events for up to 5 years.Conclusion: The SweVAD study will compare survival, medium-term benefits, costs and potential hazards between GD-LVAD-DT and GDMT and will provide a valuable reference point to guide destination therapy strategies for patients with AdHF ineligible for HTx. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM-HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes.Methods and Results: Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA Long-Term Heart Failure (HF-LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM-HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM-HF and guidelines. One-year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all-cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM-HF.Conclusions: Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA HF-LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM-HF enalapril group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]