Search

AWAKE-HF evaluated the effect of the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on activity and sleep using actigraphy in patients who have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In this randomized, double-blind study, patients with HFrEF (n = 140) were randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril for 8 weeks, followed by an 8-week open-label phase with sacubitril/valsartan. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean activity counts during the most active 30 min/day at week 8. The key secondary endpoint was change in mean nightly activity counts/minute from baseline to week 8. Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-23 (KCCQ-23) was an exploratory endpoint. There were no detectable differences between groups in geometric mean ratio of activity counts during the most active 30 min/day at week 8 compared with baseline (0.9456 [sacubitril/valsartan:enalapril]; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8863–1.0088; P = 0.0895) or in mean change from baseline in activity during sleep (difference: 2.038 counts/min; 95% CI − 0.062 to 4.138; P = 0.0570). Change from baseline to week 8 in KCCQ-23 was 2.89 for sacubitril/valsartan and 4.19 for enalapril, both nonsignificant. In AWAKE-HF, no detectable differences in activity and sleep were observed when comparing sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril in patients with HFrEF using a wearable biosensor. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02970669.

The treatment of congestive heart failure is an expensive undertaking with much of this cost occurring as a result of hospitalization. It is not surprising that many remote monitoring strategies have been developed to help patients maintain clinical stability by avoiding congestion. Most of these have failed. It seems very unlikely that these failures were the result of any one underlying false assumption but rather from the fact that heart failure is a progressive, deadly disease and that human behavior is hard to modify. One lesson that does stand out from the myriad of methods to detect congestion is that surrogates of congestion, such as weight and impedance, are not reliable or actionable enough to influence outcomes. Too many factors influence these surrogates to successfully and confidently use them to affect HF hospitalization. Surrogates are often attractive because they can be inexpensively measured and followed. They are, however, indirect estimations of congestion, and due to the lack specificity, the time and expense expended affecting the surrogate do not provide enough benefit to warrant its use. We know that high filling pressures cause transudation of fluid into tissues and that pulmonary edema and peripheral edema drive patients to seek medical assistance. Direct measurement of these filling pressures appears to be the sole remote monitoring modality that shows a benefit in altering the course of the disease in these patients. Congestive heart failure is such a serious problem and the consequences of hospitalization so onerous in terms of patient well-being and costs to society that actual hemodynamic monitoring, despite its costs, is beneficial in carefully selected high-risk patients. Those patients who benefit are ones with a prior hospitalization and ongoing New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III symptoms. Patients with NYHA class I and II symptoms do not require hemodynamic monitoring because they largely have normal hemodynamics. Those with NYHA class IV symptoms do not benefit because their hemodynamics are so deranged that they cannot be substantially altered except by mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation. Finally, hemodynamic monitoring offers substantial hope to those patients with normal ejection fraction (EF) heart failure, a large group for whom medical therapy has largely been a failure. These patients have not benefited from the neurohormonal revolution that improved the lives of their brothers and sisters with reduced ejection fractions. Hemodynamic stabilization improves the condition of both but more so of the normal EF cohort. This is an important observation that will help us design future trials for the 50% of heart failure patients with normal systolic function.

Currently, the use of diuretics in heart failure (HF) remains more of an art than a science. Diuretics are the principle means for relieving congestion in patients with decompensated HF. Unfortunately, they persist as the only major therapy in HF that has not been subjected to a large randomized clinical trial, precisely because no comparable therapy exists that can so easily, efficiently, and inexpensively treat fluid overload. Nonetheless, diuretics have many potential drawbacks, including electrolyte abnormalities, neurohormonal activation, hypovolemia, renal dysfunction, and direct myocardial effects. Until definitive answers about mortality are settled, the lowest dose of a diuretic that can produce euvolemia should be employed and these agents should be discontinued when possible. Many outpatients with HF can be managed quite well without diuretics once adequate neurohormonal blockade with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta blockers has been achieved.

Heart failure (HF) is a major medical problem in the United States, imposing significant economic burden on the health care system. Despite therapeutic advances, HF-associated morbidity and mortality continue to increase. Compliance with therapeutic guidelines for the management of chronic HF is far from ideal, increasing the likelihood that patients will experience multiple episodes of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) during the course of HF disease. Prevention, streamlined inpatient care, effective vasoactive therapy, and initiation of proven long-term therapies, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and beta-blockers, are all targets for improvement. Because of the chronic nature of heart failure, a successful disease management program for ADHF must also include effective outpatient care.