Search

The management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is rapidly evolving. The pharmacologic treatment of patients with HFpEF includes symptom management with diuretics and optimization of comorbidities, including hypertension, obesity, diabetes mellitus, and atrial fibrillation. Specific therapies, including angiotensin II receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, are well tolerated and can reduce the risk of HF hospitalization, particularly in those on the lower end of the HFpEF left ventricular ejection fraction spectrum. Ongoing trials should continue to inform optimal therapy in this evolving field.

It is unknown whether digital applications can improve guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Care Optimization Through Patient and Hospital Engagement Clinical Trial for Heart Failure trial (CONNECT-HF) included an optional, prospective ancillary study of a mobile health application among patients hospitalized due to HFrEF. Digital users were matched to nonusers from the usual-care group. Coprimary outcomes included change in opportunity-based composite HF quality scores and HF rehospitalization or all-cause mortality. Among 2431 patients offered digital applications across the United States, 1526 (63%) had limited digital access or insufficient data, 425 (17%) were digital users, and 480 (20%) declined use. Digital users were similar in age to those who declined use (mean 58 vs 60 years; P = 0.031). Digital users (n = 368) vs matched nonusers (n = 368) had improved composite HF quality scores (48.0% vs 43.6%; + 4.76% [3.27-6.24]; P = 0.001) and composite clinical outcomes (33.0% vs 39.6%; HR 0.76 [0.59-0.97]; P = 0.027).Among participants in the CONNECT-HF trial, use of digital applications was modest but was associated with higher HF quality-of-care scores, including use of GDMT and better clinical outcomes. Although cause and effect cannot be determined from this study, the application of technology to guide GDMT use and dosing among patients with HFrEF warrants further investigation.

Heart failure (HF) hospitalizations are common, costly, associated with poor outcomes and potentially avoidable. Reducing HF hospitalizations is therefore a major objective of US healthcare. This review aims to outline causes for HF hospitalizations and provides actionable strategies for HF hospitalization prevention.Heart failure hospitalizations often have multifactorial and diverse etiologies associated with medical and social patient factors leading to increased congestion. The most recently updated American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America Guidelines for the Management of HF were published in 2022 and utilize high-quality evidence to offer a framework for analyzing and preventing HF hospitalizations.Prevention of hospitalizations can be achieved by optimizing guideline-directed medical therapies, incorporating appropriate device-based technologies, and utilizing systems-based practices. By identifying treatment gaps and opportunities for improved HF care, this review comprehensively defines the challenges associated with HF rehospitalizations as well as potential solutions.

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.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.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.

ImportanceClinical guidelines for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) strongly recommend treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) to reduce cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization. Nationwide adoption of SGLT2i for HFrEF in the US is unknown.ObjectiveTo characterize patterns of SGLT2i use among eligible US patients hospitalized for HFrEF.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed 49 399 patients hospitalized for HFrEF across 489 sites in the Get With The Guidelines–Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022. Patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 20 mL/min/1.73 m2, type 1 diabetes, and previous intolerance to SGLT2i were excluded.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPatient-level and hospital-level prescription of SGLT2i at hospital discharge.ResultsOf 49 399 included patients, 16 548 (33.5%) were female, and the median (IQR) age was 67 (56-78) years. Overall, 9988 patients (20.2%) were prescribed an SGLT2i. SGLT2i prescription was less likely among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD; 4550 of 24 437 [18.6%] vs 5438 of 24 962 [21.8%]; P P P P Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, prescription of SGLT2i at hospital discharge among eligible patients with HFrEF was low, including among patients with comorbid CKD and T2D who have multiple indications for therapy, with substantial variation among US hospitals. Further efforts are needed to overcome implementation barriers and improve use of SGLT2i among patients with HFrEF.

Background Many patients with heart failure (HF) have severely reduced ejection fraction but do not meet threshold for consideration of advanced therapies (ie, stage D HF). The clinical profile and health care costs associated with these patients in US practice is not well described. Methods and Results We examined patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction ≤40% from 2014 to 2019 in the GWTG‐HF (Get With The Guidelines‐Heart Failure) registry, who did not receive advanced HF therapies or have end‐stage kidney disease. Patients with severely reduced EF defined as EF ≤30% were compared with those with EF 31% to 40% in terms of clinical profile and guideline‐directed medical therapy. Among Medicare beneficiaries, postdischarge outcomes and health care expenditure were compared. Among 113 348 patients with EF ≤40%, 69% (78 589) had an EF ≤30%. Patients with severely reduced EF ≤30% tended to be younger and were more likely to be Black. Patients with EF ≤30% also tended to have fewer comorbidities and were more likely to be prescribed guideline‐directed medical therapy (“triple therapy” 28.3% versus 18.2%, P P =0.11). Conclusions Among patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in US clinical practice, most patients have severely reduced EF ≤30%. Despite younger age and modestly higher use of guideline‐directed medical therapy at discharge, patients with severely reduced EF face heightened postdischarge risk of death and HF hospitalization.

Background: There is a need for simple, noninvasive solutions to remotely monitor and predict worsening heart failure (HF) events. SCALE-HF 1 (Surveillance and Alert-Based Multiparameter Monitoring to Reduce Worsening Heart Failure Events) is a prospective, multicenter study that will develop and assess the accuracy of the heart function index—a composite algorithm of noninvasive hemodynamic biomarkers from a cardiac scale—in predicting worsening HF events. Methods: Approximately 300 patients with chronic HF and recent decompensation will be enrolled in this observational study for model development. Patients will be encouraged to take daily cardiac scale measurements. Results: Approximately 50 HF events, defined as an urgent, unscheduled clinic, emergency department, or hospitalization for worsening HF will be used for model development. The composite index will be developed from hemodynamic biomarkers derived from ECG, ballistocardiogram, and impedance plethysmogram signals measured from the cardiac scale. Biomarkers of interest include weight, peripheral impedance, pulse rate and variability, and estimates of stroke volume, cardiac output, and blood pressure captured through the cardiac scale. The sensitivity, unexplained alert rate, and alerting time of the index in predicting worsening HF events will be evaluated and compared with the performance of simple weight-based rule-of-thumb algorithms (eg, weight increase of 3 lbs in 1 day or 5 lbs in 7 days) that are often used in practice. Conclusions: SCALE-HF 1 is the first study to develop and evaluate the performance of a composite index derived from noninvasive hemodynamic biomarkers measured from a cardiac scale in predicting worsening HF events. Subsequent studies will validate the heart function index and assess its ability to improve patient outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04882449.

Background: Heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to classify patients and guide therapy implementation. However, LVEF alone may be insufficient to adequately characterize patients with HF, especially those with mildly reduced or preserved LVEF. Recommendations on additional testing are lacking, and there are limited data on use of echocardiographic features beyond LVEF in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved LVEF. Methods: In patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved LVEF identified in a large US health care system, the association of the following metrics with mortality was evaluated: LV global longitudinal strain (LV GLS>–16), left atrial volume index (>28 mL/m 2 ), left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), and E/e´>13 and e´ Results: Among 2337 patients with complete echocardiographic data assessed between 2017 and 2020, the following features were associated with all-cause mortality on univariate analysis over 3 years of follow-up: E/e´+e´, LV GLS, left atrial volume index (all P C -index=0.65), only abnormal LV GLS was independently associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.11–1.63]; P =0.002). Among patients with LVEF>55%, 498/1255 (40%) demonstrated abnormal LV GLS. Regardless of specific LVEF, patients with abnormal LV GLS demonstrated a higher burden of multiple comorbidities and higher event rates compared with patients with normal LV GLS. Conclusions: In a large, real-world HF with mildly reduced or preserved LVEF population, echocardiographic features, led by LV GLS, were associated with adverse outcomes irrespective of LVEF. A large proportion of patients demonstrate adverse myocardial function by LV GLS despite preserved LVEF and may represent a key cohort of interest for HF medical therapies and future clinical studies.

Advanced heart failure affects tens of thousands of people in the United States alone with high morbidity and mortality. Cardiac transplantation offers the best treatment strategy, but has been limited historically by donor availability. Recently, there have been significant advances in organ allocation, donor-recipient matching, organ preservation, and expansion of the donor pool. The current heart allocation system prioritizes the sickest patients to minimize waitlist mortality. Advances in donor organ selection, including predicted heart mass calculations and more sophisticated antibody detection methods for allosensitized patients, offer more effective matching of donors and recipients. Innovations in organ preservation such as with organ preservation systems have widened the donor pool geographically. The use of donors with hepatitis C is possible with the advent of effective direct-acting antiviral agents to cure donor-transmitted hepatitis C. Finally, further expansion of the donor pool is occurring with the use of higher risk donors with advanced age, medical comorbidities, and left ventricular dysfunction and advances in donation after circulatory death. This review provides an update on the new technologies and transplantation strategies that serve to widen the donor pool and more effectively match donors and recipients so that heart transplant candidates may derive the best outcomes from heart transplantation.

Clinical practice guidelines support sustained use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) inhibitors over time in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, yet few data are available regarding the frequency, timing or predictors of early treatment discontinuation in clinical practice.Among prevalent or new users of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry, we estimated the frequency and independent predictors of treatment discontinuation during follow-up. Among sites with5 users of a given RAAS inhibitor, we evaluated practice variation in the proportion of patients with treatment discontinuation.Over median follow-up of 18 months, frequency of drug discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs, ARNIs and MRAs was 12.7% (444 of 3509 users), 10.4% (140 of 1352 users), and 20.4% (435 of 2129 users), respectively. An additional, 149 (11.0%) of ARNI users were switched to ACEis/ARBs, and 447 (12.7%) of ACEi/ARB users were switched to ARNIs during follow-up. Across sites, the median proportion of discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs, ARNIs and MRAs was 12.5% (25th-75th percentiles 6.9%-18.9%), 18.8% (25th-75th percentiles 12.5%-28.6%), and 19.6% (25th-75th percentiles 10.7%-27.0%), respectively. Chronic kidney disease was the only independent predictor of increased risk of discontinuation of each of the RAAS inhibitor classes (P0.02 for all). Higher Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores independently predicted lower risk of discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs and ARNIs (both P0.001) but not of MRAs. Investigator clinical experience was predictive of lower risks of discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs and MRAs (P0.02) but not of ARNIs. All other independent predictors of discontinuation were unique to individual therapeutic classes.One in 10 patients discontinue ACEis/ARBs or ARNIs, and 1 in 5 discontinue MRAs in routine clinical practice of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Unique patient-level and clinician/practice-level factors are associated with premature discontinuation of individual RAAS inhibitors, which may help to guide structured efforts to promote treatment persistence in clinical care.

ImportanceBlack adults with heart failure (HF) disproportionately experience higher population-level mortality than White adults with HF. Whether quality of care for HF differs at hospitals with high proportions of Black patients compared with other hospitals is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare quality and outcomes for patients with HF at hospitals with high proportions of Black patients vs other hospitals.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsPatients hospitalized for HF at Get With The Guidelines (GWTG) HF sites from January 1, 2016, through December 1, 2019. These data were analyzed from May 2022 through November 2022.ExposuresHospitals caring for high proportions of Black patients.Main Outcomes and MeasuresQuality of HF care based on 14 evidence-based measures, overall defect-free HF care, and 30-day readmissions and mortality in Medicare patients.ResultsThis study included 422 483 patients (224 270 male [53.1%] and 284 618 White [67.4%]) with a mean age of 73.0 years. Among 480 hospitals participating in GWTG-HF, 96 were classified as hospitals with high proportions of Black patients. Quality of care was similar between hospitals with high proportions of Black patients compared with other hospitals for 11 of 14 GWTG-HF measures, including use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors for left ventricle systolic dysfunction (high-proportion Black hospitals: 92.7% vs other hospitals: 92.4%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.65-1.27), evidence-based β-blockers (94.7% vs 93.7%; OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.82-1.28), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors at discharge (14.3% vs 16.8%; OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.54-1.02), anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation/flutter (88.8% vs 87.5%; OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.76-1.45), and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator counseling/placement/prescription at discharge (70.9% vs 71.0%; OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.50-1.13). Patients at high-proportion Black hospitals were less likely to be discharged with a follow-up visit made within 7 days or less (70.4% vs 80.1%; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86), receive cardiac resynchronization device placement/prescription (50.6% vs 53.8%; OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.95), or an aldosterone antagonist (50.4% vs 53.5%; OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.97). Overall defect-free HF care was similar between both groups of hospitals (82.6% vs 83.4%; OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.19) and there were no significant within-hospital differences in quality for Black patients vs White patients. Among Medicare beneficiaries, the risk-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for 30-day readmissions was higher at high-proportion Black vs other hospitals (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.26), but similar for 30-day mortality (HR 0.92; 95% CI,0.84-1.02).Conclusions and RelevanceQuality of care for HF was similar across 11 of 14 measures at hospitals caring for high proportions of Black patients compared with other hospitals, as was overall defect-free HF care. There were no significant within-hospital differences in quality for Black patients vs White patients.

The recently concluded prospective Portable Organ Care System (OCS) Heart trial to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of The Portable Organ Care System Heart for Preserving and Assessing Expanded Criteria Donor Hearts for Transplantation (EXPAND) demonstrated that the use of ex vivo perfusion for expanded-criteria hearts may be a viable method for increasing the use of donor hearts. We sought to estimate the potential impact of ex vivo expanded-criteria heart perfusion on the donor pool in the United States by using a large national transplant registry. After applying the inclusion criteria of EXPAND, 8637 potentially eligible donors were identified in the U.S. between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019, representing a substantial potential increase in the donor pool.

PURPOSE: Clinical models to identify patients at high risk of primary graft dysfunction (PGD) after heart transplantation (HT) are limited, and the underlying pathophysiology of this common post-transplant complication remains poorly understood. We sought to identify whether pre-transplant levels of circulating proteins reporting on immune activation and inflammation are associated with incident PGD. METHODS: The study population consisted of 219 adult heart transplant recipients identified between 2016 and 2020 at Duke University Medical Center, randomly divided into derivation (n = 131) and validation (n = 88) sets. PGD was defined using modified ISHLT criteria. Proteomic profiling was performed using Olink panels (n = 354 proteins) with serum samples collected immediately prior to transplantation. Association between normalized relative protein expression and PGD was tested using univariate and multivariable (recipient age, creatinine, mechanical circulatory support, and sex; donor age; ischemic time) models. Significant proteins identified in the derivation set (p < 0.05 in univariate models), were then tested in the validation set. Pathway enrichment analysis was used to test candidate biological processes. The predictive performance of proteins was compared to that of the RADIAL score. RESULTS: Nine proteins were associated with PGD in univariate models in the derivation set. Of these, only CLEC4C remained associated with PGD in the validation set after Bonferroni correction (OR [95% CI] = 3.04 [1.74,5.82], p = 2.8×10(−4)). Patterns of association were consistent for CLEC4C in analyses stratified by biventricular/left ventricular and isolated right ventricular PGD. Pathway analysis identified interferon-alpha response and C-type lectin signaling as significantly enriched biologic processes. The RADIAL score was a poor predictor of PGD (AUC = 0.55). CLEC4C alone (AUC = 0.66, p = 0.048) and in combination with the clinical covariates from the multivariable model (AUC = 0.69, p = 0.018) improved discrimination for the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-transplantation circulating levels of CLEC4C, a protein marker of plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs), may identify HT recipients at risk for PGD. Further studies are needed to better understand the potential role pDCs and the innate immune response in PGD.

Aims We aimed to develop a risk prediction tool that incorporated both clinical events and worsening health status for patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Identifying patients with HFrEF at increased risk of a poor outcome may enable proactive interventions that improve outcomes. Methods and results We used data from a longitudinal HF registry, CHAMP‐HF, to develop a risk prediction tool for poor outcomes over the next 6 months. A poor outcome was defined as death, an HF hospitalization, or a ≥20‐point decrease (or decrease below 25) in 12‐item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ‐12) overall summary score. Among 4546 patients in CHAMP‐HF, 1066 (23%) experienced a poor outcome within 6 months (1.3% death, 11% HF hospitalization, and 11% change in KCCQ‐12). The model demonstrated moderate discrimination (c‐index = 0.65) and excellent calibration with observed data. The following variables were associated with a poor outcome: age, race, education, New York Heart Association class, baseline KCCQ‐12, atrial fibrillation, coronary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, smoking, prior HF hospitalization, and systolic blood pressure. We also created a simplified model with a 0–10 score using six variables (New York Heart Association class, KCCQ‐12, coronary disease, chronic kidney disease, prior HF hospitalization, and systolic blood pressure) with similar discrimination (c‐index = 0.63). Patients scoring 0–3 were considered low risk (event rate 40%). Conclusions The PROMPT‐HF risk model can identify outpatients with HFrEF at increased risk of poor outcomes, including clinical events and health status deterioration. With further validation, this model may help inform therapeutic decision making.

Durable implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been shown to improve survival and quality of life for patients with stage D heart failure. Even though LVADs remain underused overall, the number of patients with heart failure supported with LVADs is steadily increasing. Therefore, general cardiologists will increasingly encounter these patients. In this review, we provide an overview of the field of durable LVADs. We discuss which patients should be referred for consideration of advanced heart failure therapies. We summarize the basic principles of LVAD care, including medical and surgical considerations. We also discuss the common complications associated with LVAD therapy, including bleeding, infections, thrombotic issues, and neurologic events. Our goal is to provide a primer for the general cardiologist in the recognition of patients who could benefit from LVADs and in the principles of managing patients with LVAD. Our hope is to “demystify” LVADs for the general cardiologist.

Background: Neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with worse health outcomes, yet its relationship with in-hospital heart failure (HF) outcomes and quality metrics are underexplored. We examined the association between socioeconomic neighborhood disadvantage and in-hospital HF outcomes for patients from diverse neighborhoods in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. Methods: SES-disadvantage scores were derived from geocoded US census data using a validated algorithm, which incorporated household income, home value, rent, education, and employment. We examined the association between SES-disadvantage quintiles with all-cause in-hospital mortality, adjusting for demographics and comorbidities. Results: Of 593 053 patients hospitalized for HF between 2017 and 2020, 321 314 (54%) had residential ZIP Codes recorded. Patients from the most compared with least disadvantaged neighborhoods were younger (mean age 67 versus 76 years), more often Black (42% versus 9%) or Hispanic (14% versus 5%), and had higher comorbidity burden. Demographic-adjusted length of stay increased by ≈1.5 hours with each increment in worsening SES-disadvantage quintiles. Adjusted-mortality odds ratios increased with worsening SES-disadvantage quintiles ( P trend =0.003), and was 28% higher (adjusted OR=1.28 [1.12–1.48]) for the most compared with least disadvantaged neighborhood groups. Conclusions: Patients hospitalized for HF from disadvantaged neighborhoods were younger and more often Black or Hispanic. SES disadvantage was independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Further research is needed to characterize care delivery patterns in disadvantaged neighborhoods and to address social determinants of health among patients hospitalized for HF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02693509.

Aims Associations between growth differentiation factor‐15 (GDF‐15), cardiovascular outcomes, and exercise capacity among patients with a recent hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are unknown. We utilized data from the ‘Functional Impact of GLP‐1 for Heart Failure Treatment’ (FIGHT) study to address these knowledge gaps. Methods and results FIGHT was a randomized clinical trial testing the effect of liraglutide (vs. placebo) among 300 participants with HFrEF and a recent HHF. Multivariable regression models evaluated associations between baseline GDF‐15 and change in GDF‐15 (per 1000 pg/mL increase from baseline to 30 days) with clinical outcomes (at 180 days) and declines in exercise capacity (6 min walk distance ≥ 45 m). At baseline (n = 249), median GDF‐15 value was 3221 pg/mL (interquartile range 1938–5511 pg/mL). Participants in the highest tertile of baseline GDF‐15 were more likely to be male and have more co‐morbidities. After adjustment, an increase in GDF‐15 over 30 days was associated with higher risk of death or HHF [hazard ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–1.64]. In addition, higher baseline GDF‐15 (per 1000 pg/mL until 6000 pg/mL) and an increase in GDF‐15 over 30 days were associated with declining 6 min walk distance (odds ratio 1.26, 95% CI 1.02–1.55 and odds ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.12–1.69, respectively). GDF‐15 levels remained stable among participants randomized to liraglutide. Conclusions An increase in GDF‐15 over 30 days among patients in HFrEF was independently associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and declining exercise capacity. These results support the value of longitudinal GDF‐15 trajectory in informing risk of heart failure disease progression.

Background: Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improves clinical outcomes and quality of life. Optimizing GDMT in the hospital is associated with greater long-term use in HFrEF. This study aimed to describe the efficacy of a multidisciplinary virtual HF intervention on GDMT optimization among patients with HFrEF admitted for any cause. Methods: In this pilot randomized, controlled study, consecutive patients with HFrEF admitted to non-cardiology medicine services for any cause were identified at a large academic tertiary care hospital between May to September 2021. Major exclusions were end-stage renal disease, hemodynamic instability, concurrent COVID-19 infection, and current enrollment in hospice care. Patients were randomized to a clinician-level virtual peer-to-peer consult intervention providing GDMT recommendations and information on medication costs vs. usual care. Primary endpoints included 1) proportion of patients with new GDMT initiation or use, and 2) changes to HF optimal medical therapy (OMT) scores which included target dosing (range 0-9). Results: Of 242 patients identified, 91 (38%) were eligible and randomized to intervention (N=52) or usual care (N=39). Baseline characteristics were similar between intervention and usual care (mean age 63 vs. 67 years, 23% vs. 26% female, 46% vs. 49% Black, mean EF 33% vs. 31%). GDMT use on admission was also similar. There were greater proportions of patients with GDMT initiation or continuation with the intervention compared with usual care. After adjusting for OMT score on admission, changes to OMT score at discharge were higher for the intervention group compared with usual care (+0.44 vs. -0.31, absolute difference +0.75, adjusted estimate 0.86 ± 0.42; p=0.041). Conclusions: Among eligible patients with HFrEF hospitalized for any cause on non-cardiology services, a multidisciplinary pilot virtual HF consultation increased new GDMT initiation and dose optimization at discharge.

Heart failure remains among the most common and morbid health conditions. The Heart Failure Strategically Focused Research Network (HF SFRN) was funded by the American Heart Association to facilitate collaborative, high‐impact research in the field of heart failure across the domains of basic, clinical, and population research. The Network was also charged with developing training opportunities for young investigators. Four centers were funded in 2016: Duke University, University of Colorado, University of Utah, and Massachusetts General Hospital‐University of Massachusetts. This report summarizes the aims of each center and major research accomplishments, as well as training outcomes from the HF SFRN.

OBJECTIVES: The authors estimated changes of stressed blood volume (SBV) induced by splanchnic nerve block (SNB) in patients with either decompensated or ambulatory heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: The splanchnic vascular capacity is a major determinant of the SBV, which in turn determines cardiac filling pressures and may be modifiable through SNB. METHODS: We analyzed data from 2 prospective, single-arm clinical studies in decompensated HFrEF (splanchnic HF-1; resting hemodynamics) and ambulatory heart failure (splanchnic HF-2; exercise hemodynamics). Patients underwent invasive hemodynamics and short-term SNB with local anesthetics. SBV was simulated using heart rate, cardiac output, central venous pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, systolic and diastolic systemic arterial and pulmonary artery pressures, and left ventricular ejection fraction. SBV is presented as ml/70 kg body weight. RESULTS: Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 21 ± 11%. In patients with decompensated HFrEF (n = 11), the mean estimated SBV was 3,073 ±251 ml/70 kg. At 30 min post-SNB, the estimated SBV decreased by 10% to 2,754 ± 386 ml/70 kg (p = 0.003). In ambulatory HFrEF (n = 14) patients, the mean estimated SBV was 2,664 ± 488 ml/70 kg and increased to 3,243 ± 444 ml/70 kg (p < 0.001) at peak exercise. The resting estimated SBV was lower in ambulatory patients with HFrEF than in decompensated HFrEF (p = 0.019). In ambulatory patients with HFrEF, post-SNB, the resting estimated SBV decreased by 532 ± 264 ml/70 kg (p < 0.001). Post-SNB, with exercise, there was no decrease of estimated SBV out of proportion to baseline effects (p = 0.661). CONCLUSIONS: The estimated SBV is higher in decompensated than in ambulatory heart failure. SNB reduced the estimated SBV in decompensated and ambulatory heart failure. The reduction in estimated SBV was maintained throughout exercise. (Splanchnic Nerve Anesthesia in Heart Failure, NCT02669407; Abdominal Nerve Blockade in Chronic Heart Failure, NCT03453151) (J Am Coll Cardiol HF 2021;9:293–300) © 2021 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

In the United States, the frequency of using percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock is increasing. These devices require large-bore vascular access to provide left, right, or biventricular cardiac support, frequently under urgent/emergent circumstances. Significant technical and logistical variability exists in device insertion, care, and removal in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and in the cardiac intensive care unit. This variability in practice may contribute to adverse outcomes observed in centers that receive patients with cardiogenic shock, who are at higher risk for circulatory insufficiency, venous stasis, bleeding, and arterial hypoperfusion. In this position statement, we aim to: 1) describe the public health impact of bleeding and vascular complications in cardiogenic shock; 2) highlight knowledge gaps for vascular safety and provide a roadmap for a regulatory perspective necessary for advancing the field; 3) propose a minimum core set of process elements, or "vascular safety bundle"; and 4) develop a possible study design for a pragmatic trial platform to evaluate which structured approach to vascular access drives most benefit and prevents vascular and bleeding complications in practice.

Primary graft dysfunction (PGD), the leading cause of early mortality after heart transplantation, is more common following donation after circulatory death (DCD) than donation after brain death (DBD). We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study to compare the incidence, severity and outcomes of patients experiencing PGD after DCD compared to DBD heart transplantation.Medical records were reviewed for all adult heart transplant recipients at our institution between March 2016 and December 2021. PGD was diagnosed within 24 hours after transplant according to modified International Society for Heart and Lung Transplant criteria. A total of 459 patients underwent isolated heart transplantation during the study period, 65 (14%) following DCD and 394 (86%) following DBD. The incidence of moderate or severe PGD in DCD and DBD recipients was 34% and 23%, respectively (P = 0.070). DCD recipients were more likely to experience severe biventricular PGD than DBD recipients (19% vs 7.4%; P = 0.004). Among patients with severe PGD, DCD recipients experienced shorter median (Q1, Q3) duration of post-transplant mechanical circulatory support (6 [4, 7] vs 9 [5, 14] days; P = 0.039), shorter median post-transplant hospital length of stay (17 [15, 29] vs 52 [26, 83] days; P = 0.004), and similar 60-day survival rates (100% [95% CI: 76.8%-100%] vs 80.0% [63.1%-91.6%]; P = 0.17) and overall survival (log-rank; P = 0.078) compared with DBD recipients.DCD heart transplant recipients were more likely to experience severe, biventricular PGD than DBD recipients. Despite this, DCD recipients with severe PGD spent fewer days on mechanical circulatory support and in the hospital than similar DBD patients. These findings suggest that patterns of graft dysfunction and recovery may differ between donor types, and they support the expansion of the heart-donor pool with DCD.

Background There are limited data on the use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) in minority populations with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. We used data from the CHAMP‐HF (Change the Management of Patients With Heart Failure) registry to evaluate ARNI initiation and associated changes in health status and clinical outcomes across different races and ethnicities. Methods and Results CHAMP‐HF was a prospective, observational registry of US outpatients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction. We compared patients starting ARNI with patients not starting ARNI using a propensity‐matched analysis. Patients were grouped as Hispanic, non‐Hispanic Black, non‐Hispanic White, or non‐Hispanic other individuals, where “non‐Hispanic other” consists of all patients who did not identify as Hispanic, Black, or White. Health status was assessed using the 12‐item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Outcomes were analyzed with multivariable models that included race and ethnicity, ARNI initiation, and an interaction term between race and ethnicity and ARNI initiation. Cox proportional hazards models were used for death/HF hospitalization, and multiple regression was used for change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score. The analysis included 1516 patients, with 758 patients in each group (ARNI and no ARNI). Changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score after ARNI initiation were similar among all race and ethnicity groups (mean [SD], non‐Hispanic White individuals, 3.5 [19.0]; non‐Hispanic Black individuals, 2.0 [17.0]; non‐Hispanic other individuals, 5.5 [20.3]; and Hispanic individuals, 3.2 [20.1]), with no statistically significant interaction between race and ethnicity and ARNI initiation ( P =0.21). There was similarly no statistically significant interaction between race and ethnicity and ARNI initiation for HF hospitalization ( P =0.82) or all‐cause mortality ( P =0.92). Conclusions In a large registry of outpatients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the association between ARNI initiation and outcomes did not differ by race and ethnicity. These data support the use of ARNI therapy for chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction irrespective of race and ethnicity.

Heart failure (HF) is a complex, multifactorial and heterogeneous syndrome with substantial mortality and morbidity. Over the last few decades, numerous attempts have been made to develop targeted therapies that may attenuate the known pathophysiological pathways responsible for causing the progression of HF. However, therapies developed with this objective have sometimes failed to show benefit. The pathophysiological construct of HF with numerous aetiologies suggests that interventions with broad mechanisms of action which simultaneously target more than one pathway maybe more effective in improving the outcomes of patients with HF. Indeed, current therapeutics with clinical benefits in HF have targeted a wider range of intermediate phenotypes. Despite extensive scientific breakthroughs in HF research recently, questions persist regarding the ideal therapeutic targets which may help achieve maximum benefit. In this review, we evaluate the mechanism of action of current therapeutic strategies, the pathophysiological pathways they target and highlight remaining knowledge gaps regarding the mode of action of these interventions.

Treatment options for patients with heart failure have improved rapidly over the last few decades. Data from large scale clinical trials demonstrate that medical and device therapies can improve quality of life, reduce hospitalizations for acute heart failure, and reduce mortality. However, the use of many of these therapies in routine practice is remarkably low. There are many reasons for suboptimal implementation of evidence-based therapies for heart failure, and we believe addressing the large gap between what can be accomplished in clinical trials versus routine practice is a critical and urgent public health issue. In this review, we outline reasons for this implementation gap and review recent studies attempting to address this issue. We also provide recommendations for future interventions and areas of clinical investigation to improve implementation for patients with heart failure.

Objectives The authors sought to evaluate the association of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) prescribing patterns among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Background HFH represents an important opportunity to titrate GDMT among patients with HFrEF. Methods The CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients With Heart Failure) registry is a prospective registry of adults with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%). Using data from the CHAMP-HF registry (N = 4,365), adjusted time-to-event models were created to study the association of HFH with GDMT prescribing patterns. Results HFH (compared with no HFH) was positively associated with initiation of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). HFH positively associated with dose escalation of ACE inhibitor/ARB (probability ratio: 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.36 to 2.16) and MRA (probability ratio: 8.71, 95% CI: 4.19 to 18.10). In those on prior therapy, HFH was associated with discontinuation and de-escalation of all classes of GDMT. ACE inhibitor/ARB, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, beta-blocker, and MRA de-escalation/discontinuation after HFH was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality with hazard ratios of 3.82 (95% CI: 2.42 to 6.03), 4.76 (95% CI: 2.06 to 11.03), 2.94 (95% CI: 2.04 to 4.25), and 4.81 (95% CI: 2.61 to 8.87), respectively. Conclusions HFH positively associated with changes in GDMT, including initiation, dose escalation, discontinuation, and dose de-escalation. De-escalation/discontinuation of GDMT after HFH associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality. Educational endeavors are needed to ensure GDMT is not inappropriately held in the setting of HFH. For those in whom GDMT must be held/decreased, improvement tools at discharge and post-discharge titration clinics may help ensure lifesaving GDMT regimens remain optimized.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for heart failure (HF) and discharged home who received home healthcare (HHC) to those who did not, and to examine associations between HHC and readmission and mortality rates. BACKGROUND: After hospitalization for HF, some patients receive HHC; however, utilization of HHC over time, factors associated with its use and post-discharge outcomes after receiving it are not well studied. METHODS: We used Get With The Guidelines-HF data, merged with Medicare fee-for-service claims. Propensity-score matching and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the associations between HHC and post-discharge outcomes. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2015, 95,531 patients were admitted for HF and 32,697 (34.2%) received HHC after discharge. The rate of HHC increased over time from 31.4% to 36.1% (p

Objectives This study compared the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan to enalapril in Black and non-Black Americans with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). Background Black patients have a different response to treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors compared with other racial and ethnic groups. How Black patients with ADHF respond to sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor, is unclear. PIONEER-HF was a double-blind randomized clinical trial of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in hospitalized patients with ADHF following hemodynamic stabilization. Methods In a pre-specified subgroup analysis, we examined changes in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide, clinical outcomes, and safety according to race. Results The study population, all enrolled in the United States, included 316 (36%) Black participants, 515 (58%) White participants, and 50 (5.7%) participants of other racial groups. The reduction in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide concentration at weeks 4 and 8 was significantly greater with sacubitril/valsartan than enalapril in both Black (ratio of change with sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 0.88) and non-Black patients (ratio of change: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.83; interaction p = 1.00). Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan also reduced the pre-specified exploratory composite of cardiovascular death or HF rehospitalization in both Black (hazard ratio: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.93) and non-Black patients (hazard ratio: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.06; interaction p = 0.44). Conclusions Among Black patients admitted with ADHF in the United States, the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was more effective than enalapril in reducing natriuretic peptide levels and the composite of cardiovascular death or HF rehospitalization. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan did not differ by race. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890)

The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Mor...

Objectives This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan according to dose level achieved in the PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode) trial. Background In patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), in-hospital initiation and continuation of sacubitril/valsartan as compared with enalapril is well tolerated, achieves a greater reduction in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF through 8 weeks. However, not all patients achieve the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan, and its efficacy and safety in such patients are of interest. Methods PIONEER-HF was a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in 881 patients stabilized during hospitalization for ADHF. Blinded study medication was administered for 8 weeks, with initial dosing selected based on the systolic blood pressure at randomization and titrated toward a target of sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily, or enalapril 10 mg twice daily, with an algorithm based on systolic blood pressure and the investigator’s assessment of tolerability. Results At 4 weeks, 199 (55%) patients allocated to sacubitril/valsartan and 211 (60%) patients allocated to enalapril were dispensed the target dose. Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 treatment groups within each dose level. There was no heterogeneity across dose levels in the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the reduction in NT-proBNP (pinteraction = 0.69), the reduction in cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for heart failure (pinteraction = 0.42), or the pre-specified adverse events of special interest through 8 weeks. Conclusions In hemodynamically stabilized patients with ADHF, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan are generally consistent across dose levels. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890)

The PIONEER-HF (comParIson Of sacubitril/valsartaN versus Enalapril on Effect on nt-pRo-bnp in patients stabilized from an acute Heart Failure episode) trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) in stabilized patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction.The study sought to determine whether and how prior HF history and treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) affected the results.The PIONEER-HF trial was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial enrolling 881 patients with an ejection fraction ≤40%. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to in-hospital initiation of S/V (n = 440) versus enalapril (n = 441). Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed based on prior HF history (i.e., de novo HF vs. worsening chronic HF) and treatment with an ACE inhibitor or ARB (i.e., ACE inhibitor or ARB-yes vs. ACE inhibitor or ARB-no) at admission.At enrollment, 303 (34%) patients presented with de novo HF and 576 (66%) patients with worsening chronic HF. A total of 421 (48%) patients had been treated with an ACE inhibitor or ARB, while 458 (52%) had not been treated with an ACE inhibitor or ARB. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide declined significantly in all 4 subgroups (p 0.001), with greater decreases in the S/V versus the enalapril arm (p 0.001). There was no interaction between prior HF history (p = 0.350) or ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment (p = 0.880) and the effect of S/V versus enalapril on cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF. The incidences of adverse events were comparable between S/V and enalapril across all 4 subgroups.Among patients admitted for acute decompensated HF, S/V was safe and well tolerated, led to a significantly greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and improved clinical outcomes compared with enalapril irrespective of previous HF history or ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890).

We hypothesized that splanchnic nerve blockade (SNB) would attenuate increased exercise-induced cardiac filling pressures in patients with chronic HF.Chronic heart failure (HF) is characterized by limited exercise capacity driven in part by an excessive elevation of cardiac filling pressures.This is a prospective, open-label, single-arm interventional study in chronic HF patients. Eligible patients had a wedge pressure ≥15 mm Hg at rest or ≥25 mm Hg with exercise on baseline right heart catheterization. Patients underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing with invasive hemodynamic assessment, followed by percutaneous SNB with ropivacaine.Nineteen patients were enrolled, 15 of whom underwent SNB. The average age was 58 ± 13 years, 7 (47%) patients were women and 6 (40%) were black. Left ventricular ejection fraction was ≤35% in 14 (93%) patients. No procedural complications were encountered. SNB reduced mean pulmonary arterial pressure at peak exercise from 54.1 ± 14.4 (pre-SNB) to 45.8 ± 17.7 mm Hg (p 0.001) (post-SNB). Similarly, SNB reduced exercise-induced wedge pressure from 34.8 ± 10.0 (pre-SNB) to 25.1 ± 10.7 mm Hg (p 0.001) (post-SNB). The cardiac index changed with peak exercise from 3.4 ± 1.2 (pre-SNB) to 3.8 ± 1.1 l/min/mSNB reduced resting and exercise-induced pulmonary arterial and wedge pressure with favorable effects on cardiac output and exercise capacity. Continued efforts to investigate short- and long-term effects of SNB in chronic HF are warranted. Clinical Trials Registration (Abdominal Nerve Blockade in Chronic Heart Failure; NCT03453151).

Little is known about the impact of accountable care organizations (ACO) on hospitalized heart failure (HF) patients, a high-cost and high-risk population.We linked Medicare fee-for-service claims from 2013 to 2015 with data from American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-HF registry to compare HF care, post-discharge outcomes, and total annual Medicare spending by ACO status at discharge.Using adjusted Cox models and accounting for competing risks of death, we compared all-cause mortality and readmission at 1 year by ACO status with reporting of hazard ratios (HR) and 99% confidence intervals (CI).The study included 45,259 HF patients from 300 hospitals, with 21.1% assigned to an ACO. Patient characteristics were similar between the two groups with a few exceptions. The ACO patients lived in geographic areas with higher median income ($54400 [IQR $48600-65900] vs $52300 [$45900-61200], P.0001). Compliance with four HF-specific quality measures was modestly higher in the ACO group (80% vs 76%, P.0001). In adjusted analysis, ACO status was associated with similar all-cause readmission (HR: 1.03; 99% CI: 0.99, 1.07) but lower risk of 1-year mortality (HR: 0.85; 99% CI: 0.85, 0.90) compared with non-ACO status. Median Medicare spending in the calendar year of hospitalization was similar (ACO $42,737 [IQR $23,011-72,667] vs non-ACO $42,586 [$22,896-72,518], P = 0.06).Among Medicare patients hospitalized for HF, participation in an ACO was associated with similar rates of all-cause readmission and no associated cost reductions compared with non-ACO status. There was a lower risk of 1-year mortality associated with ACO participation, which warrants further evaluation.

Background An early report of recipient heart transplantation outcomes under the new U.S. heart allocation system introduced in late 2018 found a lower post-transplant survival rate compared with that of the prior system. Objectives The aim of this study was to examine recipient survival under the new system by using an updated dataset. Methods The 2015 to 2019 United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried for adult heart transplant recipients, stratified according to whether the subjects were listed and underwent transplant before or after October 18, 2018, when the new allocation system was implemented. The association between allocation system and recipient mortality was analyzed by using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Results A total of 7,119 recipients met inclusion criteria: 6,004 (84%) and 1,115 (16%) listed and undergoing transplant in the old and new allocation systems, respectively. This registry update included 576 new-system recipients, more than double the amount previously analyzed. Recipients from the new system were more likely to be bridged to transplant with temporary mechanical circulatory support devices instead of durable left ventricular assist devices and had longer graft ischemic times. After adjustment, the new system was not associated with poorer survival on Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (log-rank test; p = 0.075) or multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.18; 95% confidence interval: 0.90 to 1.55). Conclusions The short-term survival of recipients listed and receiving a transplant under the old and new allocation systems seems to be comparable. The modification to the allocation system has resulted in several changes to the clinical profiles of patients undergoing transplants that must be closely monitored in the coming years.

Objectives The purpose of this study was to characterize the clinical profile, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of patients with comorbid diabetes mellitus (DM) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in a contemporary, real-world U.S. outpatient registry in the context of evolving treatment strategies. Background Specific antihyperglycemic classes have differential risks and benefits with respect to HF. Limited data are available evaluating contemporary treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with comorbid DM and HFrEF. Methods Among 4,970 patients with chronic HFrEF (≤40%) across 152 U.S. sites in the CHAMP-HF prospective, observational registry (2015 to 2017), we examined therapies and clinical outcomes by DM status. Results Median age was 68 (58 to 75) years of age; 29% were women; 73.5% were white; and 64% had coronary artery disease. Overall, 42% (n = 2,085) had comorbid DM with a median hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 7.2% (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.4% to 8.3%). One-fourth of DM patients (24%) were not treated with an antihyperglycemic therapy. Most patients with DM were taking 1 (46%) or 2 (23%) antihyperglycemic therapies: metformin (40%), insulin (33%); sulfonylureas (24%); dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (10%); glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonists (4%); sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors (2%); and thiazolidinediones (2%). Among patients with DM, 62%, 16%, 80%, and 33.5% were receiving any angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), β-blockers, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) at baseline, respectively. Among patients without DM, corresponding baseline rates were 65%, 15%, 80%, and 37%, respectively. Patients with or without DM were infrequently treated with guideline-directed HFrEF therapies at target doses (≤27% across classes). During median 15-month follow-up, patients with DM experienced higher rates of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization (30% vs. 23%, respectively), independent of 11 pre-specified covariates (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.35 (95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 1.52); p Conclusions Despite higher risk-adjusted clinical event rates in patients with comorbid HFrEF and DM, guideline-directed medical therapies for both disease states are incomplete and represent an important target for quality improvement through multidisciplinary care pathways.

The TOPCAT trial investigated spironolactone vs placebo in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Although the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, treatment with spironolactone did reduce heart failure hospitalizations compared with placebo. TOPCAT's impact on prescribing patterns in the United States is not well-characterized. We performed a retrospective analysis of discharge prescribing data in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry among patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% discharged between January 2009 and December 2016 to assess prescribing trends upon dissemination of TOPCAT results. Of 142,201 patients included in the study, 18,581 (13.1%) were prescribed mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) at discharge. Compared with those not prescribed MRAs, patients discharged on MRAs were generally younger (75 vs 78 years), and report white race (76.7% vs 72.0%), more likely to have had prior heart failure hospitalizations (75.5% vs 65.7%), lower brain natriuretic peptide levels (492 vs 545 pg/mL), but similar serum creatinine levels (1.2 vs 1.2 mg/dL) upon admission. MRA prescribing modestly increased over time (p

Background Ivabradine is guideline-recommended to reduce heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with stable chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF). Ivabradine initiation following acute HF has had limited evaluation, and there are few randomized data in US patients. The PredischaRge initiation of Ivabradine in the ManagEment of Heart Failure (PRIME-HF) study was conducted to address predischarge ivabradine initiation in stabilized acute HF patients. Methods PRIME-HF was an investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label study of predischarge initiation of ivabradine versus usual care. Eligible patients were hospitalized for acute HF but stabilized, with EF ≤35%, on maximally tolerated β-blocker and in sinus rhythm with heart rate ≥70 beats/min. Ivabradine was acquired per routine care. The primary end point was the proportion of patients on ivabradine at 180 days. Additional end points included heart rate change, patient-reported outcomes, β-blocker use/dose, and safety events (symptomatic bradycardia and hypotension). Results Overall, 104 patients (36% women, 64% African American) were randomized, and the study was terminated early because of funding limitations. At 180 days, 21 of 52 (40.4%) of patients randomized to predischarge initiation were treated with ivabradine compared with 6 of 52 (11.5%) randomized to usual care (odds ratio 5.19, 95% CI 1.88-14.33, P = .002). The predischarge initiation group experienced greater reduction in heart rate through 180 days (mean −10.0 beats/min, 95% CI −15.7 to −4.3 vs 0.7 beats/min, 95% CI −5.4 to 6.7, P = .011). Patient-reported outcomes, β-blocker use/dose, and safety events were similar (all P > .05). Conclusions Ivabradine initiation prior to discharge among stabilized HF patients increased ivabradine use at 180 days and lowered heart rates without reducing β-blockers or increasing adverse events. As the trial did not achieve the planned enrollment, additional studies are needed.

A 77-year-old man with history of ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) presented with abdominal pain after a lawn mower accident. Examination and imaging revealed a displaced LVAD driveline and a pericardial hematoma secondary to traumatic coronary artery injury. The patient was treated with coronary artery coil embolization. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.), Graphical abstract, A 77-year-old man with history of ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) presented with abdominal pain after a lawn mower…

Background: Data on the association between quality of heart failure (HF) care and outcomes among patients with incident HF are sparse. We examined the association between process performance measures and clinical outcomes in patients with incident HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods: Patients with incident HF with reduced ejection fraction (n=10 966) between January 2008 and October 2015 were identified from the Danish HF Registry. Data from public registries were linked. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess the association between 6 guideline-recommended HF care processes (New York Heart Association assessment, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, exercise training, and patient education) and all-cause and HF readmission, all-cause and HF hospital days, and mortality within 3 to 12 months after HF diagnosis. The associations were analyzed according to the percentages of all relevant performance measures fulfilled for the individual patient (0%–50% [reference group], >50%–75%, and >75%–100%) and for the individual performance measures. Results: Fulfilling >75% to 100% of the performance measures (n=5341 [48.7%]) was associated with lower risk of all-cause readmission (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.68–0.89]) and HF readmission (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.54–0.92]), lower use of all-cause hospital days (adjusted mean ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.70–0.76]) and HF hospital days (adjusted mean ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.70–0.89]), and lower mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.32–0.53]). A dose-response relationship was observed between fulfilling more performance measures and mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.49–0.77] fulfilling >50%–75% of the measures). Fulfilling individual performance measures, except mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist therapy, was associated with lower adjusted all-cause readmission, lower adjusted use of all-cause and HF hospital days, and lower adjusted mortality. Conclusions: Fulfilling more process performance measures was associated with better clinical outcomes in patients with incident HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Heart Donation after Circulatory Death (DCD) has the potential to significantly increase the number of patients benefitting from heart transplantation. However, the expansion of DCD heart transplantation is currently limited by unanswered questions pertaining to best practices in DCD heart procurement. Additionally, significant variability exists within regulatory frameworks, professional guidelines, and published practices of DCD procurement processes. Here we describe the current practice and outstanding questions related to fundamental aspects of DCD heart procurement, including donor selection, premortem donor intervention, ischemic definitions, confirmation of circulatory death, and techniques for heart procurement and preservation. Addressing these key issues through research and consensus recommendations will facilitate the advancement of the field and ultimately expand the opportunity for heart transplantation to a greater number of patients.

We assessed for an association between improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and future outcomes, including health status, in routine clinical practice.CHAMP-HF was a registry of outpatients with heart failure (HF) and LVEF ≤40%. Enrolled participants completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) at regular intervals and were followed as part of routine care. We assessed for associations between improvements in LVEF (≥10%) over time and concurrent changes in KCCQ-12, as well as the subsequent risk of poor outcomes. We included 2092 participants in the study. They had the following characteristics: median age 67 years (25th-75th percentile 58-75), 29% female, median duration of HF 2.7 years (0.6-6.8), and median baseline LVEF 30% (23-35). Of the study participants, 689 (33%) had a ≥10% absolute improvement in LVEF. Participants with an LVEF improvement also had an improvement in KCCQ-12 overall summary score compared with participants without an LVEF improvement (+7.6 vs. +3.5, adjusted effect estimate +4.01 [95% confidence interval CI 2.3-5.7]). Similarly, subsequent all-cause death or HF hospitalization occurred in 12% in the LVEF improvement group versus 25% in the group without an LVEF improvement (adjusted hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.41-0.61).In a large cohort of outpatients with chronic HF, improvements in LVEF were associated with improved health status and a reduced risk for future clinical events. These data underscore the importance of improvement in LVEF as a treatment target for medical interventions for patients with chronic HF.

BackgroundUninsurance is a known contributor to racial/ethnic health inequities. Insurance is often needed for prescriptions and follow-up appointments. Therefore, we determined whether the Affordable Care Act(ACA) Medicaid Expansion was associated with increased receipt of guideline-directed medical treatment(GDMT) at discharge among patients hospitalized with heart failure(HF) by race/ethnicity.MethodsUsing Get With The Guidelines-HF registry, logistic regression was used to assess odds of receiving GDMT(HF medications; education; follow-up appointment) in early vs non-adopter states before(2012 - 2013) and after ACA Medicaid Expansion(2014 - 2019) within each race/ethnicity, accounting for patient-level covariates and within-hospital clustering. We tested for an interaction(p-int) between GDMT and pre/post Medicaid Expansion time periods.ResultsAmong 271,606 patients(57.5% early adopter, 42.5% non-adopter), 65.5% were White, 22.8% African American, 8.9% Hispanic, and 2.9% Asian race/ethnicity. Independent of ACA timing, Hispanic patients were more likely to receive all GDMT for residing in early adopter states compared to non-adopter states (P

ImportancePrior studies have suggested patients with heart failure (HF) from rural areas have worse clinical outcomes. Contemporary differences between rural and urban hospitals in quality of care and clinical outcomes for patients hospitalized for HF remain poorly understood.ObjectiveTo assess quality of care and clinical outcomes for US patients hospitalized for HF at rural vs urban hospitals.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed 774 419 patients hospitalized for HF across 569 sites in the Get With The Guidelines–Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2021. Postdischarge outcomes were assessed in a subset of 161 996 patients linked to Medicare claims. Data were analyzed from August 2022 to January 2023.Main Outcomes and MeasuresGWTG-HF quality measures, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and 30-day mortality and readmission outcomes.ResultsThis study included 19 832 patients (2.6%) and 754 587 patients (97.4%) hospitalized at 49 rural hospitals (8.6%) and 520 urban hospitals (91.4%), respectively. Of 774 419 included patients, 366 161 (47.3%) were female, and the median (IQR) age was 73 (62-83) years. Compared with patients at urban hospitals, patients at rural hospitals were older (median [IQR] age, 74 [64-84] years vs 73 [61-83] years; standardized difference, 10.63) and more likely to be non-Hispanic White (14 572 [73.5%] vs 498 950 [66.1%]; standardized difference, 34.47). In adjusted models, patients at rural hospitals were less likely to be prescribed cardiac resynchronization therapy (adjusted risk difference [aRD], −13.5%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.92), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (aRD, −3.7%; aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.96), and an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (aRD, −5.0%; aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.98) at discharge. In-hospital mortality was similar between rural and urban hospitals (460 of 19 832 [2.3%] vs 20 529 of 754 587 [2.7%]; aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70-1.07). Patients at rural hospitals were less likely to have a length of stay of 4 or more days (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.85). Among Medicare beneficiaries, there were no significant differences between rural and urban hospitals in 30-day HF readmission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.90-1.19), all-cause readmission (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.04), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.91-1.21).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this large contemporary cohort of US patients hospitalized for HF, care at rural hospitals was independently associated with lower use of some guideline-recommended therapies at discharge and shorter length of stay. In-hospital mortality and 30-day postdischarge outcomes were similar at rural and urban hospitals.