Search

Although methamphetamine use associated heart failure (MU-HF) is increasing, data on its clinical course are limited due to a preponderance of single center studies and significant heterogeneity in the definition of MU-HF in the published literature. Our objective was to evaluate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) distribution, methamphetamine use treatment engagement and postdischarge healthcare utilization among Veterans with heart failure hospitalization in the department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers for MU-HF versus HF not associated with methamphetamine use (other-HF). Observational study including a cohort of Veterans with a first heart failure hospitalization during 2007 - 2020 using data in the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. MU-HF was identified based on the presence of an ICD-code for methamphetmaine use or positive toxicology results within 1-year of heart failure hospitalization. LVEF values entered in the medical record were identified using a validated natural language processing algorithm. Healthcare utilization data was obtained using clinic stop-codes and hosptilaization records. Of 203,005 first-time heart failure hospitlaizations, 4080 were categorized as MU-HF. Median (interquartile range) of LVEF was 30 (20-45) % for MU-HF versus 40 (25-55)% for other-HF (P <.0001). Eighteen percent of MU-HF had LVEF ≥ 50% compared to 28% in other-HF. Discharge against medical advice was higher in MU-HF (8% vs 2%). Among Veterans with MU-HF, post hospital discharge methamphetamine use treatment engagement was low (18% at 30 days post discharge), with higher follow-up in primary care (76% at 30 days). Post discharge emergency department visits (33% versus 22% at 30 days) and rehospitalizations (24% versus 18% at 30 days) were higher in MU-HF compared to other-HF. While the majority of MU-HF hospitalizations are HFrEF, a sizeable minority have HFpEF. This finding has implications for accurate MU-HF classification, treatment, and prognosis. Patients with MU-HF have low addiction treatment receipt and high postdischarge unplanned healthcare utilization. Increasing substance use disorder treatment in this population must be a priority to improve health outcomes. Care-coordination and linkage interventions are urgently needed to increase post-hospitalization addiction treatment and follow-up in an effort to increase evidence-base care and mitigate unplanned healthcare utilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The prevalence of heart failure has increased in many developed countries including Japan and the USA, due in large part to the aging of their populations. The lifetime risk of heart failure is now 20–30 % in the USA. Fortunately, there have been important advances in therapy that increase quality and length of life for those with heart failure. This review discusses the important advances in care including treatment and diagnosis and the new recommendations for this care from the recent American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA)/Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) Guideline. Relevant studies that have been published since the guideline was released are also included. Of the many recommendations in the ACC/AHA/HFSA Guideline, this review focuses on the definition of heart failure, the medical treatments specific to left ventricular ejection fraction, use of devices for treatment and diagnosis, diagnosis and treatment of amyloidosis, treatment of iron deficiency, screening for asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, use of patient reported outcomes, and tools for implementation. [Display omitted] • The 2022 United States guideline includes new recommendations for heart failure management. • There are now four pillars of therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. • Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors are now recommended for most with heart failure. • There are new recommendations for testing, amyloid heart disease, and patient reported outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• In a large cohort of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with HF and DM, insulin and metformin were commonly prescribed antihyperglycemic therapies, whereas GLP-1RA and SGLT2i were infrequently prescribed. • Use of potentially harmful therapies in patients with HF and DM did not substantially decline. This raises the need for potential de-implementation initiatives. • Among a subset of patients with HFrEF and DM, prescriptions of guideline concordant HF therapies declined from 6 months to 3 months prior to HF hospitalization but then rose substantially at the time of hospital discharge. Despite these gains during hospitalization, overall use remained low, with 1 in 5 patients receiving triple therapy. Patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) are at risk for worsening clinical status. Little is known about the frequency of therapeutic changes during hospitalization. We characterized the use of medical therapies before, during and after hospitalization in patients with HF and DM. We identified Medicare beneficiaries in Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) hospitalized between July 2014 and September 2019 with Part D prescription coverage. We evaluated trends in the use of 7 classes of antihyperglycemic therapies (metformin, sulfonylureas, GLP-1RA, SGLT2-inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, and insulins) and 4 classes of HF therapies (evidence-based β-blockers, ACEi or ARB, MRA, and ARNI). Medication fills were assessed at 6 and 3 months before hospitalization, at hospital discharge and at 3 months post-discharge. Among 35,165 Medicare beneficiaries, the median age was 77 years, 54% were women, and 76% were white; 11,660 (33%) had HFrEF (LVEF ≤ 40%), 3700 (11%) had HFmrEF (LVEF 41%–49%), and 19,805 (56%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 50%). Overall, insulin was the most commonly prescribed antihyperglycemic after HF hospitalization (n = 12,919, 37%), followed by metformin (n = 7460, 21%) and sulfonylureas (n = 7030, 20%). GLP-1RA (n = 700, 2.0%) and SGLT2i (n = 287, 1.0%) use was low and did not improve over time. In patients with HFrEF, evidence-based beta-blocker, RASi, MRA, and ARNI fills during the 6 months preceding HF hospitalization were 63%, 62%, 19%, and 4%, respectively. Fills initially declined prior to hospitalization, but then rose from 3 months before hospitalization to discharge (beta-blocker: 56%–82%; RASi: 51%–57%, MRA: 15%–28%, ARNI: 3%–6%, triple therapy: 8%–20%; P < 0.01 for all). Prescription rates 3 months after hospitalization were similar to those at hospital discharge. In-hospital optimization of medical therapy in patients with HF and DM is common in participating hospitals of a large US quality improvement registry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Heart failure (HF) poses a significant economic burden in the US, with costs projected to reach $70 billion by 2030. Cost-effectiveness analyses play a pivotal role in assessing the economic value of HF therapies. In this review, we overview the cost-effectiveness of HF therapies and discuss ways to improve patient access. Based on current costs, guideline directed medical therapies for HF with reduced ejection fraction provide high economic value except for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which provide intermediate economic value. Combining therapy with the four pillars of medical therapy also has intermediate economic value, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $73,000 to $98,500/ quality adjusted life-years. High economic value procedures include cardiac resynchronization devices, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and coronary artery bypass surgery. In contrast, advanced HF therapies have previously demonstrated intermediate to low economic value, but newer data appear more favorable. Given the affordability challenges of HF therapies, additional efforts are needed to ensure optimal care for patients. The recent Inflation Reduction Act contains provisions to reform policy pertaining to drug price negotiation and out-of-pocket spending, as well as measures to increase access to existing programs, including the Medicare low-income subsidy. On a patient level, it is also important to encourage patient and physician awareness and discussions surrounding medical costs. Overall, a broad approach to improving available therapies and access to care is needed to reduce the growing clinical and economic morbidity of HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

· The clinical implications of heterogeneity in preclinical HF remain under-investigated. · Of a community sample, 25.3% were eligible for stage B HF, based on echo abnormalities. · Echo abnormalities without HF risk factors were related to normal physical fitness. · LV dysfunction/hypertrophy with HF risk factors were related to worse exercise capacity. · Evaluation of both HF risk factors and type of echo abnormality facilitates the stratification of HF risk. Clinical and echocardiographic features may carry diverse information about the development of heart failure (HF). Therefore, we determined heterogeneity in clinical and echocardiographic phenotypes and its association with exercise capacity. In 2036 community-dwelling individuals, we defined echocardiographic profiles of left and right heart remodeling and dysfunction. We subdivided the cohort based on presence (+) or absence (-) of HF risk factors (RFs) and echocardiographic abnormalities (RF-/Echo-, RF-/Echo+, RF+/Echo-, RF+/Echo+). Multivariable-adjusted associations between subgroups and physical performance metrics from 6-minute walk and treadmill exercise testing were assessed. The prevalence was 35.3% for RF-/Echo-, 4.7% for RF-/Echo+, 39.3% for RF+/Echo-, and 20.6% for RF+/Echo+. We observed large diversity in echocardiographic profiles in the Echo+ group. Participants with RF-/Echo+ (18.6% of Echo+) had predominantly echocardiographic abnormalities other than left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction, hypertrophy and reduced ejection fraction, whereas their physical performance was similar to RF-/Echo-. In contrast, participants with RF+/Echo+ presented primarily with LV hypertrophy or dysfunction, features that related to lower 6-minute walking distance and lower exercise capacity. Subclinical echocardiographic abnormalities suggest HF pathogenesis, but the presence of HF risk factors and type of echo abnormality should be considered so as to distinguish adverse from benign adaptation and to stratify HF risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Morbidity and mortality associated with high CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and HAS-BLED scores is not specific to atrial fibrillation (AF). Frailty could be an important contributor to this morbidity and mortality while being mechanistically independent from AF. We sought to evaluate the association of stroke and bleeding risk to noncardiovascular frail events and the association of stroke prevention therapy to outcomes in frail patients with AF. Using the TREAT-AF (The Retrospective Evaluation and Assessment of Therapies in AF) study from the Veterans Health Administration, we identified patients with newly diagnosed AF from 2004 to 2014. Baseline frailty was identified using a previously validated claims-based index requiring ≥2 of 12 ICD-9 diagnoses. Logistic regressions modeled the association between CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and modified HAS-BLED and frailty. Cox proportional hazard regressions were used to evaluate the association between CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and modified HAS-BLED and a composite of noncardiovascular frail events (fractures, urinary tract infections, bacterial pneumonia, or dehydration). We also evaluated the association of oral anticoagulant (OAC) use with stroke, bleeding, and 1-year mortality in frail patients and non-frail patients. In 213,435 patients (age 70 ± 11; 98% male; CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc 2.4 ± 1.7) with AF, 8,498 (4%) were frail. CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc > 0 and HAS-BLED > 0 were strongly associated with frailty (odds ratio [OR] 13.3 (95% CI: 11.6-15.2) for CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc 4+ and OR 13.4 (10.2-17.5) for HAS-BLED 3+). After adjusting for covariates, CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc, and HAS-BLED > 0 were associated with higher risk of non-cardiovascular frail events (hazard ratio [HR] 2.1 (95% CI: 2.0-2.2) for CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc 4+ and HR 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3-1.5) for HAS-BLED 3+). In frail patients, OAC use was associated with significantly lower risk of 1-year mortality (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.72-0.94, P =.0031) but did not reach significance for risk of stroke (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.55-1.18, P =.26) or major bleeding (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.93-1.25, P =.34). High CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and HAS-BLED scores are strongly associated with frailty. However, in frail patients, OAC use was associated with reduction in 1-year mortality. For this challenging clinical population with competing risks of frailty and frail events, focused prospective studies are needed to support clinical decision-making. Until then, careful evaluation of frailty should inform shared decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditional approaches to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) management often lead to delayed initiation and titration of therapies in patients with heart failure. This study sought to characterize alternative models of care involving nonphysician provider-led GDMT interventions and their associations with therapy use and clinical outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing nonphysician provider-led GDMT initiation and/or uptitration interventions vs usual physician care (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022334661). We queried PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform for peer-reviewed studies from database inception to July 31, 2022. In the meta-analysis, we used RCT data only and leveraged random-effects models to estimate pooled outcomes. Primary outcomes were GDMT initiation and titration to target dosages by therapeutic class. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations. We reviewed 33 studies, of which 17 (52%) were randomized controlled trials with median follow-ups of 6 months; 14 (82%) trials evaluated nurse interventions, and the remainder assessed pharmacists' interventions. The primary analysis pooled data from 16 RCTs, which enrolled 5268 patients. Pooled risk ratios (RR) for renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI) and beta-blocker initiation were 2.09 (95% CI 1.05–4.16; I2 = 68%) and 1.91 (95% CI1.35-2.70; I2 = 37%), respectively. Outcomes were similar for uptitration of RASI (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.24-3.20; I2 = 77%) and beta-blocker (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.29–3.83; I2 = 66%). No association was found with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist initiation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.47–2.19). There were lower rates of mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67–1.04; I2 = 12%) and hospitalization due to HF (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63–1.01; I2 = 25%) across intervention arms, but these differences were small and not statistically significant. Prediction intervals were wide due to moderate-to-high heterogeneity across trial populations and interventions. Subgroup analyses by provider type did not show significant effect modification. Pharmacist- and nurse-led interventions for GDMT initiation and/or uptitration improved guideline concordance. Further research evaluating newer therapies and titration strategies integrated with pharmacist- and/or nurse-based care may be valuable. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Among patients with heart failure (HF), patient-reported health status provides information beyond standard clinician assessment. Although HF management guidelines recommend collecting patient-reported health status as part of routine care, there is minimal data on the impact of this intervention.Study Design: The Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic (PRO-HF) trial is a pragmatic, randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial testing the hypothesis that routine health status assessment via the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) leads to an improvement in patient-reported health status among patients treated in a tertiary health system HF clinic. PRO-HF has completed randomization of 1,248 participants to routine KCCQ-12 assessment or usual care. Patients randomized to the KCCQ-12 arm complete KCCQ-12 assessments before each HF clinic visit with the results shared with their treating clinician. Clinicians received education regarding the interpretation and potential utility of the KCCQ-12. The primary endpoint is the change in KCCQ-12 over 1 year. Secondary outcomes are HF therapy patterns and health care utilization, including clinic visits, testing, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits. As a sub-study, PRO-HF will also evaluate the impact of routine KCCQ-12 assessment on patient experience and the accuracy of clinician-assessed health status. In addition, clinicians completed semi-structured interviews to capture their perceptions on the trial's implementation of routine KCCQ-12 assessment in clinical practice.Conclusions: PRO-HF is a pragmatic, randomized trial based in a real-world HF clinic to determine the feasibility of routinely assessing patient-reported health status and the impact of this intervention on health status, care delivery, patient experience, and the accuracy of clinician health status assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2009.10.026 Byline: John R. Kapoor, Paul A. Heidenreich Abstract: Studies document better survival in heart failure patients with decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) and higher body mass index (BMI; kg/m.sup.2) compared to those with a lower BMI. However, it is unknown if this 'obesity paradox' applies to heart failure patients with preserved EF or if it extends to the very obese (BMI >35). Author Affiliation: Division of Cardiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA Article History: Received 7 May 2009; Accepted 16 October 2009

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2009.07.031 Byline: Paul A. Heidenreich (a), William R. Lewis (b), Kenneth A. LaBresh (c), Lee H. Schwamm (d), Gregg C. Fonarow (e) Abstract: Many hospitals enrolled in the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines (GWTG) Program achieve high levels of recommended care for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. However, it is unclear if outcomes are better in those hospitals recognized by the GWTG program for their processes of care. Author Affiliation: (a) Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA (b) MetroHealth Campus, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (c) RTI International Waltham, MA (d) Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (e) Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, Los Angeles, CA Article History: Received 13 April 2009; Accepted 20 July 2009 Article Note: (footnote) Raymond J. Gibbons, MD served as guest editor on this manuscript.

Background: Health system-level interventions to improve use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) often fail in the acute care setting. We sought to identify factors associated with high performance in adoption of GDMT among health systems in CONNECT-HF.Methods and Results: Site-level composite quality scores were calculated at discharge and last follow-up. Site performance was defined as the average change in score from baseline to last follow-up and analyzed by performance tertile using a mixed-effects model with baseline performance as a fixed effect and site as a random effect. Among 150 randomized sites, the mean 12-month improvement in GDMT was 1.8% (-26.4% to 60.0%). Achievement of 50% or more of the target dose for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and beta-blockers at 12 months was modest, even at the highest performing sites (median 29.6% [23%, 41%] and 41.2% [29%, 50%]). Sites achieving higher GDMT scores had care teams that included social workers and pharmacists, as well as patients who were able to afford medications and access medication lists in the electronic health record.Conclusions: Substantial gaps in site-level use of GDMT were found, even among the highest performing sites. The failure of hospital-level interventions to improve quality metrics suggests that a team-based approach to care and improved patient access to medications are needed for postdischarge success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2007.10.001 Byline: David C. Chan (a), Paul A. Heidenreich (b), Milton C. Weinstein (c), Gregg C. Fonarow (d) Abstract: Heart failure (HF) disease management programs have shown impressive reductions in hospitalizations and mortality, but in studies limited to short time frames and high-risk patient populations. Current guidelines thus only recommend disease management targeted to high-risk patients with HF. Author Affiliation: (a) Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA (b) VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA (c) Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA (d) Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA Article History: Received 23 May 2007; Accepted 1 October 2007

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2007.03.012 Byline: Gregg C. Fonarow (a), J. Thomas Heywood (b), Paul A. Heidenreich (c), Margarita Lopatin (d), Clyde W. Yancy (e) Abstract: The purpose of this study was to assess temporal trends in clinical characteristics, treatments, quality indicators, and outcomes for heart failure (HF) hospitalizations. Author Affiliation: (a) Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, Los Angeles, CA (b) Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, CA (c) VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA (d) Department of Biostatistics, Scios Inc, Fremont, CA (e) Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX Article History: Received 3 January 2007; Accepted 6 March 2007

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2006.06.037 Byline: Paul A. Heidenreich, Gregg C. Fonarow Abstract: Clinical registries have been created to address questions that are difficult to answer with clinical trials. However, the applicability of registry findings to the general population has been questioned because of concerns over potential bias in the selection of participating hospitals. The purpose of this study was to determine if patients admitted to hospitals participating in a heart failure registry (ADHERE) are comparable with patients admitted to other hospitals, including those admitted to Framingham area hospitals. Author Affiliation: VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA Article History: Received 4 April 2006; Accepted 6 June 2006 Article Note: (footnote) The study used data sets created with funding from the National Institute of Aging (R03 AG19870-01), Bethesda, MD.

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2005.04.023 Byline: Jayant Nath (a), James L. Vacek (a), Paul A. Heidenreich (b)(c) Abstract: The inferior vena cava (IVC) morphology is often used to estimate right atrial pressure; however, the association of IVC morphology and outcome is poorly described. Author Affiliation: (a) University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS (b) VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA (c) Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA Article History: Received 2 January 2005; Accepted 26 April 2005 Article Note: (miscellaneous) Dr Heidenreich was supported by a Career Development Award from the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service.

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2004.12.026 Byline: Paul A. Heidenreich (a)(b), Steven L. Hancock (c), Randall H. Vagelos (b), Byron K. Lee (d), Ingela Schnittger (b) Abstract: Mediastinal irradiation is known to cause cardiac disease, but its effect on left ventricular diastolic function is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction and its association with prognosis in asymptomatic patients after mediastinal irradiation. Author Affiliation: ([cor]) Cardiology Section, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (b) Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (c) Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (d) Department of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif Article History: Received 28 June 2004; Accepted 17 December 2004 Article Note: (footnote) The study was supported by grant 1 RO1 CA 63001 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. PAH is supported by a Career Development Award from the Veteran's Affairs Health Services Research Development Office.

Aim: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (AHA/ACC/HFSA) Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure replaces the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure and the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with heart failure.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews and other evidence conducted in human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies published through September 2021 were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.Results and Conclusions: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments that have high-quality published economic analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors form the latest pillar in the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and appear to be effective across a range of patient profiles. There is increasing interest in initiating SGLT-2 inhibitors during hospitalization, yet little is known about the putative benefits of this implementation strategy.Methods: We evaluated Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF (≤ 40%) hospitalized at 228 sites in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry in 2016 who had linked claims data for ≥ 1 year postdischarge. We identified those eligible for dapagliflozin under the latest U.S. Food and Drug Administration label (excluding estimated glomerular filtration rates < 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2, dialysis and type 1 diabetes). We evaluated 1-year outcomes overall and among key subgroups (age ≥ 75 years, gender, race, hospital region, kidney function, diabetes status, triple therapy). We then projected the potential benefits of implementation of dapagliflozin based on the risk reductions observed in the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) trial.Results: Among 7523 patients hospitalized for HFrEF, 6576 (87%) would be candidates for dapagliflozin (mean age 79 ± 8 years, 39% women, 11% Black). Among eligible candidates, discharge use of β-blockers, ACEi/ARB, MRA, ARNI, and triple therapy (ACEi/ARB/ARNI+β-blocker+MRA) was recorded in 88%, 64%, 29%, 3%, and 20%, respectively. Among treatment-eligible patients, the 1-year incidence (95% CI) of mortality was 37% (36-38%) and of HF readmission was 33% (32-34%), and each exceeded 25% across all key subgroups. Among 1333 beneficiaries eligible for dapagliflozin who were already on triple therapy, the 1-year incidence of mortality was 26% (24%-29%) and the 1-year readmission due to HF was 30% (27%-32%). Applying the relative risk reductions observed in DAPA-HF, absolute risk reductions with complete implementation of dapagliflozin among treatment-eligible Medicare beneficiaries are projected to be 5% (1%-9%) for mortality and 9% (5%-12%) for HF readmission by 1 year. The projected number of Medicare beneficiaries who would need to be treated for 1 year to prevent 1 death is 19 (11-114), and 12 (8-21) would need to be treated to prevent 1 readmission due to HF.Conclusions: Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF who are eligible for dapagliflozin after hospitalization due to HF, including those well-treated with other disease-modifying therapies, face high risks of mortality and HF readmission by 1 year. If the benefits of reductions in death and hospitalizations due to HF observed in clinical trials can be fully realized, the absolute benefits of implementation of SGLT-2 inhibitors among treatment-eligible candidates are anticipated to be substantial in this high-risk postdischarge setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common cause of new-onset heart failure (HF). Although guidelines recommend ischemic evaluation in this population, testing has historically been underutilized.Objectives: This study aimed to identify contemporary trends in CAD testing for patients with new-onset HF, particularly after publication of the STICHES (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure Extension Study), and to characterize geographic and clinician-level variability in testing patterns.Methods: We determined the proportion of patients with incident HF who received CAD testing from 2004 to 2019 using an administrative claims database covering commercial insurance and Medicare. We identified demographic and clinical predictors of CAD testing during the 90 days before and after initial diagnosis. Patients were grouped by their county of residence to assess national variation. Patients were then linked to their primary care physician and/or cardiologist to evaluate variation across clinicians.Results: Among 558,322 patients with new-onset HF, 34.8% underwent CAD testing and 9.3% underwent revascularization. After multivariable adjustment, patients who underwent CAD testing were more likely to be younger, male, diagnosed in an acute care setting, and have systolic dysfunction or recent cardiogenic shock. Incidence of CAD testing remained flat without significant change post-STICHES. Covariate-adjusted testing rates varied from 20% to 45% across counties. The likelihood of testing was higher among patients co-managed by a cardiologist (adjusted OR: 5.12; 95% CI: 4.98-5.27) but varied substantially across cardiologists (IQR: 50.9%-62.4%).Conclusions: Most patients with new-onset HF across inpatient and outpatient settings did not receive timely testing for CAD. Substantial variability in testing persists across regions and clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Get With The Guidelines - Atrial Fibrillation (GWTG-AFIB) Registry uses achievement and quality measures to improve the care of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to evaluate overall and site-level variation in attainment of these measures among sites participating in the GWTG-AFIB Registry.Methods: From the GWTG-AFIB registry, we included patients with AF admitted between 1/3/2013 and 6/30/2019. We described patient-level attainment and variation in attainment across sites of 6 achievement measures with 1) defect-free scores (percent of patients with all eligible measures attained), and 2) composite opportunity scores (percent of all eligible patient measures attained). We also described attainment of 11 quality measures at the patient-level.Results: Among 80,951 patients hospitalized for AF (age 70±13 years, 47.0% female; CHA2DS2-VASc 3.6±1.8) at 132 sites. Site-level defect-free scores ranged from 4.7% to 85.8% (25th, 50th, 75th percentile: 32.7%, 52.1%, 64.4%). Composite opportunity scores ranged from 39.4% to 97.5% (25th, 50th, 75th: 68.1%, 80.3%, 87.1%). Attainment was notably low for the following quality measures: 1) aldosterone antagonist prescription when ejection fraction ≤35% (29% of those eligible); and 2) avoidance of antiplatelet therapy with OAC in patients without coronary/peripheral artery disease (81% of those eligible).Conclusions: Despite high overall attainment of care measures across GWTG-AFIB registry sites, large site variation was present with meaningful opportunities to improve AF care beyond OAC prescription, including but not limited to prescription of aldosterone antagonists in those with AF and systolic dysfunction and avoidance of non-indicated adjunctive antiplatelet therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The cost of heart failure care is high owing to the cost of hospitalization and chronic treatments. Heart failure treatments vary in their benefit and cost. The cost effectiveness of therapies can be determined by comparing the cost of treatment required to obtain a certain benefit, often defined as an increase in 1 year of life. This review was sponsored by the Heart Failure Society of America and describes the growing economic burden of heart failure for patients and the health care system in the United States. It also provides a summary of the cost effectiveness of drugs, devices, diagnostic tests, hospital care, and transitions of care for patients with heart failure. Many medications that are no longer under patent are inexpensive and highly cost-effective. These include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. In contrast, more recently developed medications and devices, vary in cost effectiveness, and often have high out-of-pocket costs for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Donor and recipient size matching during heart transplant can be assessed using weight or predicted heart mass (PHM) ratios. We developed sex-specific allomteric equations for PHM and predicted lean body mass (PLBM) using the United Kingdom Biobank (UKB) and evaluated their predictive value in the United Network of Organ Sharing database. Donor and recipient size matching was based on weight, PHM and PLBM ratios. PHM was calculated using the Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and UKB equations. PLBM was calculated using the UKB and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey equations. Relative prognostic utility was compared using multivariable Cox analysis, adjusted for predictors of 1-year survival in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients model. Of 53,648 adult patients in the United Network of Organ Sharing database between 1996 and 2016, 6528 (12.2%) died within the first year. In multivariable analysis, undersized matches by any metric were associated with increased 1-year mortality (all P < 0.01). Oversized matches were at increased risk using PHM or PLBM (all P < 0.01), but not weight ratio. There were significant differences in classification of size matching by weight or PHM in sex-mismatched donor-recipient pairs. A significant interaction was observed between pulmonary hypertension and donor undersizing (hazard ratio 1.15, P = 0.026) suggesting increased risk of undersizing in pulmonary hypertension. Donor and recipient size matching with simplified PHM and PLBM offered an advantage over total body weight and may be more important for sex-mismatched donor-recipient pairs. Donor undersizing is associated with worse outcomes in patients with pulmonary hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine cardiovascular care, with unclear impact on procedural deferrals and associated outcomes across diverse patient populations.Methods: Cardiovascular procedures performed at 30 hospitals across 6 Western states in 2 large, non-profit healthcare systems (Providence St. Joseph Health and Stanford Healthcare) from December 2018-June 2020 were analyzed for changes over time. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was compared across pandemic phases with multivariate logistic regression.Results: Among 36,125 procedures (69% percutaneous coronary intervention, 13% coronary artery bypass graft surgery, 10% transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and 8% surgical aortic valve replacement), weekly volumes changed in 2 distinct phases after the initial inflection point on February 23, 2020: an initial period of significant deferral (COVID I: March 15-April 11) followed by recovery (COVID II: April 12 onwards). Compared to pre-COVID, COVID I patients were less likely to be female (P = .0003), older (P < .0001), Asian or Black (P = .02), or Medicare insured (P < .0001), and COVID I procedures were higher acuity (P < .0001), but not higher complexity. In COVID II, there was a trend toward more procedural deferral in regions with a higher COVID-19 burden (P = .05). Compared to pre-COVID, there were no differences in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality during both COVID phases.Conclusions: Significant decreases in cardiovascular procedural volumes occurred early in the COVID-19 pandemic, with disproportionate impacts by race, gender, and age. These findings should inform our approach to future healthcare disruptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are known to impact the functional receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The association between chronic therapy with these medications and infection risk remains unclear.Objectives: The objective was to determine the association between prior ACEI or ARB therapy and SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with hypertension in the U.S. Veteran's Affairs health system.Methods: We compared the odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection among three groups: patients treated with ACEI, treated with ARB, or treated with alternate first-line anti-hypertensives without ACEI/ARB. We excluded patients with alternate indications for ACEI or ARB therapy. We performed an augmented inverse propensity weighted analysis with adjustment for demographics, region, comorbidities, vitals, and laboratory values.Results: Among 1,724,723 patients with treated hypertension, 659,180 were treated with ACEI, 310,651 with ARB, and 754,892 with neither. Before weighting, patients treated with ACEI or ARB were more likely to be diabetic and use more anti-hypertensives. There were 13,278 SARS-CoV-2 infections (0.8%) between February 12, 2020 and August 19, 2020. Patients treated with ACEI had lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95% CI: 0.89-0.97) while those treated with ARB had similar odds (OR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.96-1.07) compared with patients treated with alternate first-line anti-hypertensives without ACEI/ARB. In falsification analyses, patients on ACEI did not have a difference in their odds of unrelated outcomes.Conclusions: Our results suggest the safety of continuing ACEI and ARB therapy. The association between ACEI therapy and lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection requires further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States (U.S.) and incurs significant cost to the healthcare system. Management of cholesterol remains central for ASCVD prevention and has been the focus of multiple national guidelines. In this review, we compare the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Cholesterol guidelines. We review the evidence base that was used to generate recommendations focusing on 4 distinct themes: 1) the threshold of absolute 10-year ASCVD risk to start a clinician-patient discussion for the initiation of statin therapy in primary prevention patients; 2) the utility of coronary artery calcium score to guide clinician-patient risk discussion pertaining to the initiation of statin therapy for primary ASCVD prevention; 3) the use of moderate versus high-intensity statin therapy in patients with established ASCVD; and 4) the utility of ordering lipid panels after initiation or intensification of lipid lowering therapy to document efficacy and monitor adherence to lipid lowering therapy. We discuss why the VA/DoD and AHA/ACC may have reached different conclusions on these key issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as: At-risk for HF (Stage A) , for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-heart failure (Stage B) for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C) for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D) for patients with severe symptoms and/ or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT) , refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) . The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) : HF with LVEF ≤ 40%; HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF) : HF with LVEF 41-49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) : HF with LVEF ≥ 50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF) : HF with a baseline LVEF ≤ 40%, a ≥ 10 point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF > 40. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]