Search

Background: Monitoring supine pulmonary artery pressures to guide heart failure (HF) management has reduced HF hospitalizations in select patients., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of managing seated mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) with the Cordella Pulmonary Artery sensor on outcomes in patients with HF., Methods: Following GUIDE-HF (Hemodynamic-GUIDEd Management of Heart Failure Trial), with U.S. Food and Drug Administration input, PROACTIVE-HF (A Prospective, Multi-Center, Open Label, Single Arm Clinical Trial Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of the Cordella Pulmonary Artery Sensor System in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients trial) was changed from a randomized to a single-arm, open label trial, conducted at 75 centers in the USA and Europe. Eligible patients had chronic HF with NYHA functional class III symptoms, irrespective of the ejection fraction, and recent HF hospitalization and/or elevated natriuretic peptides. The primary effectiveness endpoint at 6 months required the HF hospitalization or all-cause mortality rate to be lower than a performance goal of 0.43 events/patient, established from previous hemodynamic monitoring trials. Primary safety endpoints at 6 months were freedom from device- or system-related complications or pressure sensor failure., Results: Between February 7, 2020, and March 31, 2023, 456 patients were successfully implanted in modified intent-to-treat cohort. The 6-month event rate was 0.15 (95% CI: 0.12-0.20) which was significantly lower than performance goal (0.15 vs 0.43; P < 0.0001). Freedom from device- or system-related complications was 99.2% and freedom from sensor failure was 99.8% through 6 months., Conclusions: Remote management of seated mPAP is safe and results in a low rate of HF hospitalizations and mortality. These results support the use of seated mPAP monitoring and extend the growing body of evidence that pulmonary artery pressure-guided management improves outcomes in heart failure. (Multi-Center, Open Label, Single Arm Clinical Trial Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of the Cordella Pulmonary Artery Sensor System in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients trial [PROACTIVE-HF]; NCT04089059)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by Endotronix Inc. Drs Miranda, Shah, Macaluso, and Hickey were on the Eligibility Committee of PROACTIVE-HF. Prof Sharif is funded by the Science Foundation Ireland SFI 17/RI/5353. Drs Hiivala, Owens, Sauerland, and Forouzan are employees of Endotronix. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although studies consistently show that beta-blockers reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF), data are inconsistent in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and suggest potential negative effects in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the association of beta-blockers with heart failure (HF) hospitalization and death in patients with HF and EF ≥40% METHODS: Beta-blocker use was assessed at first encounter in outpatients ≥65 years of age with HFmrEF and HFpEF in the U.S. PINNACLE Registry (2013-2017). The associations of beta-blockers with HF hospitalization, death, and the composite of HF hospitalization/death were assessed using propensity-score adjusted multivariable Cox regression models, including interactions of EF × beta-blocker use., Results: Among 435,897 patients with HF and EF ≥40% (HFmrEF, n = 75,674; HFpEF = 360,223), 289,377 (66.4%) were using a beta-blocker at first encounter; more commonly in patients with HFmrEF vs HFpEF (77.7% vs 64.0%; P < 0.001). There were significant interactions between EF × beta-blocker use for HF hospitalization, death, and composite of HF hospitalization/death (P < 0.001 for all), with higher risk with beta-blocker use as EF increased. Beta-blockers were associated with decreased risk of HF hospitalization and death in patients with HFmrEF but a lack of survival benefit and a higher risk of HF hospitalization in patients with HFpEF, particularly when EF was >60%., Conclusions: In a large, real-world, propensity score-adjusted cohort of older outpatients with HF and EF ≥40%, beta-blocker use was associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization as EF increased, with potential benefit in patients with HFmrEF and potential risk in patients with higher EF (particularly >60%). Further studies are needed to understand the appropriateness of beta-blocker use in patients with HFpEF in the absence of compelling indications., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PINNACLE Registry is part of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry and is managed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and Veradigm. The sponsors of the registry had no role in data analysis or interpretation, manuscript development, publication review, or approval for this study. The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to determine whether the increased use of telehealth was associated with a difference in outcomes for outpatients with heart failure., Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to dramatic changes in the delivery of outpatient care. It is unclear whether increased use of telehealth affected outcomes for outpatients with heart failure., Methods: In March 2020, a large Midwestern health care system, encompassing 16 cardiology clinics, 16 emergency departments, and 12 hospitals, initiated a telehealth-based model for outpatient care in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. A propensity-matched analysis was performed to compare outcomes between outpatients seen in-person in 2018 and 2019 and via telemedicine in 2020., Results: Among 8,263 unique patients with heart failure with 15,421 clinic visits seen from March 15 to June 15, telehealth was employed in 88.5% of 2020 visits but in none in 2018 or 2019. Despite the pandemic, more outpatients were seen in 2020 (n = 5,224) versus 2018 and 2019 (n = 5,099 per year). Using propensity matching, 4,541 telehealth visits in 2020 were compared with 4,541 in-person visits in 2018 and 2019, and groups were well matched. Mortality was similar for telehealth and in-person visits at both 30 days (0.8% vs 0.7%) and 90 days (2.9% vs 2.4%). Likewise, there was no excess in hospital encounters or need for intensive care with telehealth visits., Conclusions: A telehealth model for outpatients with heart failure allowed for distanced encounters without increases in subsequent acute care or mortality. As the pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic abate, these data suggest that telehealth outpatient visits in patients with heart failure can be safely incorporated into clinical practice., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Spertus is the principal investigator of grants from National Institutes of Health, Abbott Vascular, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation; is a consultant to Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Merck; serves on the Scientific Advisory Board of United Healthcare and the Board of Directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City; owns the copyright to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire; and has an equity interest in Health Outcomes Sciences. Dr Sperry is a consultant to Pfizer and Alnylam. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to describe the short-term health status benefits of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Background: Although therapy with sacubitril/valsartan, a neprilysin inhibitor, improved patients' health status (compared with enalapril) at 8 months in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) study, the early impact of ARNI on patients' symptoms, functions, and quality of life is unknown., Methods: Health status was assessed by using the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) in 3,918 outpatients with HFrEF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% across 140 U.S. centers in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry. ARNI therapy was initiated in 508 patients who were matched 1:2 to 1,016 patients who were not initiated on ARNI (no-ARNI), using a nonparsimonious time-dependent propensity score (6 sociodemographic factors, 23 clinical characteristics), prior KCCQ overall summary (KCCQ-OS) score, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker status., Results: Multivariate linear regression demonstrated a greater mean improvement in KCCQ-OS in patients initiated on ARNI therapy (5.3 ± 19 vs. 2.5 ± 17.4, respectively; p < 0.001) over a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 57 (32 to 104) days. The proportions of ARNI versus no-ARNI groups with ≥10-point (large) and ≥20-point (very large) improvements in KCCQ-OS were 32.7% versus 26.9%, respectively, and 20.5% versus 12.1%, respectively, consistent with numbers needed to treat of 18 and 12, respectively., Conclusions: In routine clinical care, ARNI therapy was associated with early improvements in health status, with 20% experiencing a very large health status benefit compared with 12% who were not started on ARNI therapy. These findings support the use of ARNI to improve patients' symptoms, functions, and quality of life., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to use a multicenter, observational outpatient registry of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to describe the association between changes in patients' medications with changes in health status., Background: Alleviating symptoms and improving function and quality of life for patients with HFrEF are primary treatment goals and potential indicators of quality. Whether titrating medications in routine clinical care improves patients' health status is unknown., Methods: The association of any change in HFrEF medications with 3-month change in health status, as measured using the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Scale, was determined in unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted (25 clinical characteristics, baseline health status) models using hierarchical linear regression., Results: Among 3,313 outpatients with HFrEF from 140 centers, 21.9% had medication changes. Three months later, 23.7% and 46.4% had clinically meaningfully worse (≥5-point decrease) and improved (≥5-point increase) Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Scale scores. The 3-month median change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Scale score for patients whose HFrEF medications were changed was significantly larger (7.3 points; interquartile range: -3.1 to 20.8 points) than in patients whose medications were not changed (3.1 points; interquartile range: -4.7 to 12.5 points) (adjusted difference 3.0 points; 95% confidence interval: 1.4 to 4.6 points; p < 0.001). Among patients whose medications were adjusted, 26% had very large clinical improvement (≥20 points) compared with 14% whose regimens were not changed., Conclusions: In routine care of patients with HFrEF, changes in HFrEF medications were associated with significant improvements in patients' health status, suggesting that health status-based performance measures can quantify the benefits of titrating medicines in patients with HFrEF., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to describe the health status of outpatients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by sex, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES)., Background: Although a primary goal in treating patients with HFrEF is to optimize health status, whether disparities by sex, race/ethnicity, and SES exist is unknown., Methods: In the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry, the associations among sex, race, and SES and health status, as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary (KCCQ-os) score (range 0 to 100; higher scores indicate better health status) was compared among 3,494 patients from 140 U.S. clinics. SES was categorized by total household income. Hierarchical multivariate linear regression estimated differences in KCCQ-os score after adjusting for 31 patient characteristics and 10 medications., Results: Overall mean KCCQ-os scores were 64.2 ± 24.0 but lower for women (29% of sample; 60.3 ± 24.0 vs. 65.9 ± 24.0, respectively; p < 0.001), for blacks (60.5 ± 25.0 vs. 64.9 ± 23.0, respectively; p < 0.001), for Hispanics (59.1 ± 21.0 vs. 64.9 ± 23.0, respectively; p < 0.001), and for those with the lowest income (<$25,000; mean: 57.1 vs. 63.1 to 74.7 for other income categories; p < 0.001). Fully adjusted KCCQ-os scores were 2.2 points lower for women (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.8 to -0.6; p = 0.007), no different for blacks (p = 0.74), 4.0 points lower for Hispanics (95% CI: -6.6 to -1.3; p = 0.003), and lowest in the poorest patients (4.7 points lower than those with the highest income (95% CI: 0.1 to 9.2; p = 0.045; p for trend = 0.003)., Conclusions: Among outpatients with HFrEF, women, blacks, Hispanics, and poorer patients had worse health status, which remained significant for women, Hispanics, and poorer patients in fully adjusted analyses. This suggests an opportunity to further optimize treatment to reduce these observed disparities., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Quantifying quality of life (QoL) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) remains challenging. Heart failure (HF)-specific health status measures are ideal for assessing symptoms of HF; however, if patients' QoL is limited by other factors, they may experience improved HF-specific QoL but no concurrent improvement in generic QoL. We sought to examine and predict discrepancies between disease-specific and generic QoL measures after LVAD., Methods: We examined HF-specific and generic QoL with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and EuroQol-5D Visual Analog Scale (VAS), respectively, among 1,888 patients with advanced heart failure who underwent LVAD implantation from 2012 to 2014 as part of the INTERMACS registry., Results: Both measures showed substantial improvement, on average, at 6 months after LVAD, with mean changes of 32.7 ± 25.0 and 27.6 ± 27.4, respectively. Among the 1,539 patients (81.5%) with moderate/large improvement in KCCQ, 334 (21.7%) had discordant changes in generic QoL (i.e., VAS did not substantially increase despite improvement in KCCQ). In a multivariable logistic regression model, baseline VAS score was the strongest predictor of KCCQ-VAS discordance, whereas post-LVAD complications were not significant predictors of discordance., Conclusions: Most patients have major improvements in both HF-specific and generic QoL after LVAD implantation, and discordance in these measures after LVAD is uncommon. When it did occur, discordance was primarily observed in patients who reported good generic QoL on the VAS before LVAD (despite substantial impairment due to congestive HF). These results support the continued use of HF-specific health status measures to monitor QoL before and after LVAD implantation., (Copyright © 2017 International Society for the Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to assess the performance of the HeartMate Risk Score (HMRS) in a large multicenter cohort, with a focus on its performance as a function of disease severity., Background: The HMRS has been proposed as a simple tool for risk stratification of LVAD recipients, but subsequent studies have challenged its validity., Methods: We performed a retrospective, longitudinal, comparative study using the INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) database. The HMRS was calculated for each patient and its association with mortality was assessed using Cox models, including a pre-specified interaction by INTERMACS profile groups (1 vs. 2 vs. 3 vs 4+)., Results: Among 10,847 patients with a mean age of 57.0 ± 12.9 years, 78.9 % were male; and 14.1%, 37.4%, 30.4%, and 18.2% were in INTERMACS profile groups 1, 2, 3, and ≥4, respectively. The HMRS showed moderate discrimination for both short-term (90-day, C-index 0.62) and long-term (2-years, C-index 0.60) mortality, with no significant difference between axial and centrifugal devices. Patients in the highest HMRS group had a relative risk of 90-day mortality 2.8 times greater than those in the lowest HMRS group (13.0% vs. 4.7%; p < 0.001). Importantly, the relative risks of higher HMRS scores were similar across INTERMACS profile groups, with subgroups of patients in INTERMACS profile 1 and 2 having comparable or lower mortality than some in INTERMACS profile 4+., Conclusions: The HMRS is a valid means of risk-stratifying patients across all INTERMACS profiles and may be superior to traditional INTERMACS classification. Risk stratification with the HMRS showed that patients within each INTERMACS profile groups have a wide spectrum of mortality risk and low INTERMACS profiles should therefore not be considered a contraindication to mechanical support., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to determine whether severe right ventricular (RV) dysfunction in the pre-operative setting is associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD)., Background: GIB is a significant complication in patients supported with continuous-flow LVADs. The impact of RV dysfunction on the risk of GIB has not been investigated., Methods: We retrospectively identified 212 patients who survived index hospitalization after implantation of HeartMate II (Thoratec Corp., Pleasanton, California) or Heartware HVAD (HeartWare Corp., Framingham, Massachusetts) from June 2009 to April 2013. Patients with severe RV dysfunction on pre-LVAD echocardiogram (n = 37) were compared to patients without severe RV dysfunction (n = 175). The primary outcome was freedom from GIB., Results: The majority of patients were male (79%) with a median INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) profile of 2 at LVAD implantation. There were no significant differences between cohorts with respect to demographics, comorbidities, device type, international normalization ratio, or aspirin strategy. During follow-up, 81 patients had GIB events: 23 of 37 (62%) in the severe RV dysfunction group versus 58 of 175 (33%) in the control group (p = 0.001). After adjustment for age and ischemic cardiomyopathy, severe RV dysfunction was associated with increased risk of GIB (hazard ratio: 1.799, 95% confidence interval: 1.089 to 2.973, p = 0.022)., Conclusions: In this single-center sample of patients supported with continuous-flow LVADs, severe RV dysfunction on pre-LVAD echocardiogram was associated with an increased risk of GIB. Further studies are needed to investigate possible mechanisms by which RV dysfunction increases the risk of GIB and to identify patient populations who may benefit from alterations in antithrombotic strategies., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Stroke is a significant complication in patients supported with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVAD) and hypertension is a significant risk factor for stroke, but the association between blood pressure and stroke in LVAD patients is not well characterized., Methods: We identified 275 consecutive patients who survived implant hospitalization between January 2005 and April 2013. Patients were grouped according to systolic blood pressure (SBP) as above a median and below a median of 100 mm Hg by their averaged systolic blood pressure during the 48 hours before discharge from implantation hospitalization. The groups were compared for the primary outcome of time to stroke., Results: The above-median SBP group had mean SBP of 110 mm Hg and the below-median SBP group had mean SBP of 95 mm Hg. There were no significant between-group differences in body mass index, smoking, vascular disease, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, or prior stroke. During a mean follow-up of 16 months, stroke occurred in 16% of the above-median SBP group vs in 7% of the below-median SBP group (hazard ratio, 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-5.11), with a similar proportion of hemorrhagic and ischemic strokes in each group. In Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for age, diabetes, or prior stroke, the hazard ratio remained statistically significant. SBP as a continuous variable predictor of stroke had an area under the curve of 0.64 in a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis., Conclusions: In this large, CF-LVAD cohort, elevated SBP was independently associated with a greater risk of subsequent stroke. These results identify management of hypertension as a potential modifiable risk factor for reducing the incidence of stroke in patients supported by CF-LVAD., (Copyright © 2015 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study evaluated clinical outcomes associated with erythropoiesis stimulating agent (ESA) use in left ventricular assist devices (LVAD)-supported patients., Background: Use of ESAs in patients with LVADs may minimize blood transfusions and decrease allosensitization. ESAs increase thrombotic events, which is concerning because LVADs are sensitive to pump thrombosis (PT)., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 221 patients at our center who received a HeartMate II (Thoratec Corp., Pleasanton, California) LVAD between January 1, 2009 and June 6, 2013. Patients were divided into those who received ESAs during index admission (n = 121) and those who did not (n = 100). Suspected PT was defined as evidence of thrombus in the LVAD or severe hemolysis (lactate dehydrogenase >1,000 mg/dl or plasma-free hemoglobin >40 mg/dl). Outcomes were compared between cohorts using inverse probability-weighted analyses., Results: During a mean follow-up of 14.2 ± 11.9 months, suspected PT occurred in 37 patients (ESA 23%, no ESA 12%; p =0.03). The ESA cohort received ESAs 13.9 ± 60.9 days after LVAD implantation. At 180 days, event-free rates for suspected PT were ESA 78.6% versus no ESA 94.5% (p < 0.001). ESA use had higher rates of suspected PT (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.38 to 4.00; p = 0.002). For every 100-unit increase in cumulative ESA dosage, the hazard of suspected PT increased by 10% (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.16; p < 0.001). After inverse probability weighting, ESA use was associated with a significantly higher rate of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.12 to 2.33; p = 0.01)., Conclusions: ESA use in LVAD patients is associated with higher rates of suspected PT., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)