Search

We sought to determine the association between heart failure (HF) and cognitive change and dementia.Systematic search of three electronic databases was performed and 29 eligible studies involving approximately 3 million participants were identified. Twelve studies examined dementia and 20 cognitive change, but only a subset of studies could be included in the meta-analysis. These findings indicated that HF was not significantly associated with dementia (n = 8, hazard ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval 0.93-1.50), but increased the risk of cognitive impairment (n = 3, hazard ratio 1.80, 95% confidence interval 1.14-2.86) . Additionally, HF was associated with poorer mean cognitive performance in global cognition (Hedges' g -0.73, 95% confidence interval -1.12 to -0.35), memory (Hedges' g -0.57, 95% confidence interval -0.72 to -0.42), executive function (Hedges' g -0.58, 95% confidence interval -0.72 to -0.43), attention/speed (Hedges' g -0.50, 95% confidence interval -0.63 to -0.37) and language (Hedges' g -0.61, 95% confidence interval -1.05 to -0.17).Patients with HF perform worse on all cognitive tests and have an increased risk of cognitive impairment. These findings highlight the need for clinicians to consider cognition as part of routine care for patients with HF.

Background Multiple co-morbidities complicate initiation of medical therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Adherence to guidelines based on individual patient profiles is not well described. This paper examines the effect of individual patient profiles on guideline recommended therapies for HFrEF. Methods This was a prospective, observational, non-randomised study of hospitalised HFrEF patients over 30 days, from 2014 to 2017 in 16 hospitals. A previously developed algorithm-based guideline adherence score was used to determine adherence to key performance indicators: prescribing of beta blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonist (MRAs) for HFrEF patients and early outpatient and heart failure (HF) disease management program review. Patients were classified as low, moderate and excellent adherence to medical therapy. Results Of the 696 HFrEF patients, 69.1% (n=481) were male with an average age of 73.15 years (SD±14.5 years). At discharge, 64.6% (n=427) were prescribed an ACEI/ARB, 78.7% (n=525) a beta blocker and 45.3% (n=302) prescribed MRA. Based on individual patient profiles, 18.2% (n=107) of eligible patients received an outpatient clinic and HF disease management program review within 30 days and 41.5% (n=71) were prescribed triple therapy. Based on individual profiles, 13% (n=21) of patients received an excellent guideline adherence score. Conclusion Individual patient profiles impact on adherence to guideline recommendations. Review in transitional care and prescribing of triple pharmacotherapy is suboptimal. Translational strategies to facilitate the implementation of guideline recommended therapies is warranted.

Current cardiovascular pharmacotherapy targets maladaptive overactivation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), which occurs throughout the continuum of cardiovascular disease spanning from hypertension to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Over the past 16 years, 4 prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials using candesartan, perindopril, irbesartan, and spironolactone in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) failed to demonstrate increased efficacy of RAAS blockade added to guideline-directed medical therapy. We reappraise these trials and their weaknesses, which precluded statistically significant findings. Recently, dual-acting RAAS blockade with sacubitril-valsartan relative to stand-alone valsartan failed to improve outcome in the PARAGON-HF trial (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared with Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction). The majority of patients with HFpEF experience hypertension, frequently with subclinical left ventricular dysfunction, contributed to by comorbidities such as coronary disease, diabetes mellitus, overweight, and atrial fibrillation. Contrasting the findings in HFpEF, trials evaluating RAAS blockade on either side of HFpEF on the cardiovascular continuum in patients with high-risk hypertension and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, respectively, showed positive outcomes. We do not have a biologically plausible explanation for such divergent efficacy of RAAS blockade. Based on considerations of well-established clinical efficacy in hypertension and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and the shortcomings of aforementioned clinical trials in HFpEF, we argue that RAAS blockers including MRAs (mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists; aldosterone antagonists) should be used in the treatment of patients with HFpEF.

Late referral for heart transplantation (HTx) is associated with worse patient outcomes. There are no universally accepted definitions of what constitutes a timely referral for HTx assessment.To evaluate the impact of late referral (LR) on HTx outcomes.This single-centre retrospective observational study included 80 patients undergoing HTx between 2016-2019. We applied a simple clinical tool, derived from markers of advanced heart failure (HF), to classify LR in HTx patients and assess the impact of LR on HTx outcomes. Outcome measures included duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, total hospitalisation stay, cost of transplant admission and one-year mortality.Based upon the clinical profile, LR was defined by the presence of four or more out of 10 criteria for more than 6 months in HTx patients. In this model, 34 patients were timely referrals and 46 were LR. Patients who were LR had: a longer median time between initial diagnosis and referral (3 vs 7 ys; p=0.03); more features of advanced HF, including inotrope requirements (p=0.004); more comorbidities (p=0.014); and hospitalisations (p0.0001). Late referral was not associated with longer ICU (p=0.14) or hospital stay (p=0.051), however LR incurred greater total in-hospital costs (p=0.011). There was no difference in one-year mortality (6% vs 9%; p=0.64).Patients referred late for HTx are more unwell at time of referral and require greater in-hospital resource usage at the time of transplantation. Earlier referral for transplant assessment in patients with advanced HF should be encouraged.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with heart failure (HF) are treated with warfarin or non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Randomized outcome-driven comparisons of different anticoagulant strategies in HF are lacking. Data from international, government-mandated registries may be useful in understanding the real-life use of various anticoagulants and how they are linked to outcomes.STUDY QUESTION: To assess 2015 annual all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke rates co-reported for warfarin and NOACs in subjects with and without HF in the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database.STUDY DESIGN: We extracted and examined outcome cases in subjects with HF and on warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban and stratified these according to anticoagulants.MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: Annual all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke in FAERS.ANALYSIS METHOD: Odds ratio (OR) and χ(Equation is included in full-text article.)for oral anticoagulants from FAERS with and without HF among complete primary reports issued in 2015.RESULTS: FAERS reported 137,026 HF cases, with death co-reported in 42,942 (31.3%). In total, 11,278 (8.2%) HF patients were treated with anticoagulants, with more prescribed warfarin (n = 8260) than all NOACs combined (n = 3018). Very few reports for edoxaban were available. Warfarin consistently displayed a signal for excess adverse events compared to NOACs: OR (95% confidence interval) for the composite of mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke were 1.91 (1.76-2.07) versus apixaban, 1.92 (1.81-2.03) versus dabigatran, 4.09 (3.38-4.37) versus rivaroxaban, and 2.64 (2.53-2.76) versus all NOACs combined (all P < 0.001). Warfarin, compared to all NOACs combined, demonstrated higher rates of all-cause mortality [OR = 2.69 (95% confidence interval, 2.49-2.90)], myocardial infarction [5.30 (4.17-6.74)], stroke [OR = 8.85 (6.61-11.84)], and ischemic stroke [OR = 12.73 (8.87-18.27); all P < 0.001].CONCLUSIONS: Annual 2015 FAERS profiles in HF patients reveal that warfarin was numerically dominant. Warfarin was associated with higher risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared to NOACs. These observational data provide real-world insight into a potential safety benefit of NOACs over warfarin in the setting of HF.

Background Limited data exist on whether outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have improved over time. The purpose of this study was to assess temporal trends in patient characteristics, treatment and outcomes of patients with HF undergoing PCI. Methods Using data from the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG), we evaluated temporal trends of procedure volume, major adverse cardiac events (MACE; a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularisation) and rates of cardiovascular readmission, all-cause death and cardiovascular death in consecutive patients with HF undergoing PCI. Change over time was assessed by Box-Jenkins autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models. Results Data from 1,604 patients were analysed. In our cohort, there were no significant changes in the number of procedures performed annually and patient characteristics between January 2005 and December 2014. Optimal use of HF therapy has improved over the study period. Planned clopidogrel therapy of more than 12 months increased in tandem with increasing use of drug-eluting stents (DES). Procedural success was high (≥90%). However, the rates of MACE, cardiovascular readmission, all-cause death and cardiovascular death remained unchanged throughout the study period. Conclusions Clinical outcomes in HF patients undergoing PCI have remained unchanged despite improvement in medical technology and contemporary therapeutic measures.

Background Heart failure decompensation is a major driver of hospitalizations and represents a significant burden to the health care system. Identifying those at greatest risk of admission can allow for targeted interventions to reduce this risk. Objective This paper aims to compare the predictive value of objective and subjective heart failure respiratory symptoms on imminent heart failure decompensation and subsequent hospitalization within a 30-day period. Methods A prospective observational pilot study was conducted. People living at home with heart failure were recruited from a single-center heart failure outpatient clinic. Objective (blood pressure, heart rate, weight, B-type natriuretic peptide) and subjective (4 heart failure respiratory symptoms scored for severity on a 5-point Likert scale) data were collected twice weekly for a 30-day period. Results A total of 29 participants (median age 79 years; 18/29, 62% men) completed the study. During the study period, 10 of the 29 participants (34%) were hospitalized as a result of heart failure. For objective data, only heart rate exhibited a between-group difference. However, it was nonsignificant for variability (P=.71). Subjective symptom scores provided better prediction. Specifically, the highest precision of heart failure hospitalization was observed when patients with heart failure experienced severe dyspnea, orthopnea, and bendopnea on any given day (area under the curve of 0.77; sensitivity of 83%; specificity of 73%). Conclusions The use of subjective respiratory symptom reporting on a 5-point Likert scale may facilitate a simple and low-cost method of predicting heart failure decompensation and imminent hospitalization. Serial collection of symptom data could be augmented using ecological momentary assessment of self-reported symptoms within a mobile health monitoring strategy for patients at high risk for heart failure decompensation.

Background We identified variation in delivery of guideline recommended care at our institution, and undertook a project to design a heart failure (HF) model of care. Aim To maximise time patients with HF spend well in the community by delivering best practice guidelines to reduce variation in care improving overall outcomes. Methods This quality improvement project focused on reducing variation in process measures of care. The HF model of care included electronic HF care bundles, a patient education pack with staff training on delivering HF patient education, referral of all HF patients to the Hospital Admissions Risk Program for phone call within 72 h, and a nurse-pharmacist early follow-up clinic. Outcomes were assessed using interrupted time series analyses. Results The pre-intervention group comprised 1585 patients, and post-intervention 1720 patients with a primary diagnosis of HF admitted under general cardiology and general medicine. Interrupted time series analysis indicated 30-day readmissions did not change in overall trend (-0.2% per month, P = 0.479) but a significant immediate step-down of 7.8% was seen (P = 0.018). For 90-day readmissions, a significant trend reduction over the time period was seen (-0.6% per month, P = 0.017) with a significant immediate step-down (-9.4%, P = 0.001). Emergency department representations, in-patient mortality and length of stay did not change significantly. Improvements in process measures were seen at audit. Conclusion This model of care resulted in overall trends of reductions in 30- and 90-day readmissions, without increasing emergency department representations, mortality and length of stay. This model will be adapted as the electronic medical record is introduced at our institution.

Previous studies on the ‘treatment gap’ in patients with heart failure (HF) have focused either on prescribing or patients’ adherence to prescribed treatment. This study sought to determine whether or not recent initiatives to close the gap have also minimised any mismatches between physicians’ expectation of their patients’ medications, medications in the patients’ possession and their actual medication use. A cross-sectional observational survey was conducted from December 2015 to June 2016 in The Alfred Hospital HF clinic in Melbourne, Australia. Patients were invited to participate if they had chronic HF (NYHA class II to IV), were aged ≥ 60 years, had no history of HF related hospitalisation within the past 6 months and were prescribed at least two HF medications. Of 123 eligible patients, 102 were recruited into the study. Beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, loop diuretics and statins were associated with the highest rates of mismatches of drugs and doses, ranging from 10 to 17%. Discrepancy of total daily doses was the most common type of mismatch. Overall, only 23.5% of the patients were taking the right drugs at the right doses as expected by their cardiologists/HF specialists. Despite improved prescribers’ adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy, there remain considerable mismatches between prescribers’ expectation of patients’ HF medications, medications in patients’ possession and their actual medication use. Initiatives to improve this situation are urgently needed.

The clinical diagnosis of heart failure should be confirmed by echocardiogram to determine the underlying mechanism and to measure the left ventricular ejection fraction. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction have different treatments but are often indistinguishable clinically. Lifestyle modification and education on self-management are important strategies for all patients. Patients should monitor their symptoms and weight regularly. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should be managed with ACE inhibitors, heart failure specific beta blockers, and aldosterone antagonists. These drugs all reduce mortality. Angiotensin receptor antagonists should be used if the patient cannot tolerate ACE inhibitors. The combination of sacubitril and valsartan is indicated if patients remain symptomatic despite ACE inhibitors, beta blockers and aldosterone antagonists. Digoxin and diuretics may also have a role in treating persistent symptoms. In heart failure with preserved ejection fraction no drug has been proven to reduce mortality. Patients should be treated cautiously with diuretics and have aggressive management of risk factors, particularly hypertension.

Background: Nutraceuticals are pharmacologically active substances extracted from vegetable or animal food and administered to produce health benefits. We recently reviewed the current evidence for nutraceuticals in patients diagnosed with heart failure as part of the writing of the Australian Guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of heart failure. Methods: A systematic search for studies that compared nutraceuticals to standard care in adult patients with heart failure was performed. Studies were included if >50 patients were enrolled, with ≥6 months follow-up. If no studies met criteria then studies

Compared to men, women with heart failure (HF) are often older, smoke less, and have more preserved ejection fraction (EF) and hypertensive HF rather than HF of ischemic etiology. Gender-stratified outcomes on comorbidities data in HF are scarce. Women have traditionally been underrepresented in HF trials. Although data suggest that overall prognosis may be better in women, they experience lower quality of life with greater functional impairment from HF compared to men. Gender differences have been reported for comorbid diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal dysfunction, anemia, and depression and may explain gender disparity in outcomes. However, possible confounding of comorbidities with known prognostic determinants in HF (such as EF) as well as gender differences in the utilization of medical therapies obscures interpretation. In this review, we will explore the evidence for gender differences in non-cardiovascular comorbidities in HF. Our findings may guide clinicians to individualize HF care, according to best practice, in the hope of improving prognosis for this chronic and debilitating condition.

Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Aims Socioeconomic status (SES) is recognizably linked with incident heart failure (HF) risk and the association of SES with geography presents a potential target for geographical location of preventive health services. To better inform policy we sought to quantify the independent association between SES and incident HF and investigate differences by type of SES measure. Methods and results MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to August 2018. Observational studies and randomized trials reporting adjusted HF incidence by stratified socioeconomic measures were included. Effect sizes reflected HF incidence in the lowest vs. highest SES stratum and were pooled using a random-effects model. Low SES referred to the lowest resource stratum, the definition of which varied across studies: meta-analysis was only performed where strata were comparable. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Eleven studies comprising 6 308 006 individuals and 104 217 HF events found that low SES was associated with an increase in risk of incident HF ranging between 43% and 87% depending on SES measure, with an overall estimate of 62% [hazard ratio (HR) 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50-1.76]. By individual measure, HRs of 1.66 (95% CI 1.3-2.11), 1.87 (95% CI 1.33-2.62), and 1.54 (95% CI 1.22-1.95) were observed for education, income, and occupation, respectively. For area-level indexes, HRs were 1.43 (95% CI 1.2-1.69) (Carstairs index) and 1.61 (95% CI 1.56-1.65) (index of multiple deprivation). Conclusion Low SES assessed by all common measures confers independent risk for incident HF. These findings carry implications for the design and delivery of HF prevention programmes.

Background Physicians’ adherence to guideline-recommended therapy is associated with short-term clinical outcomes in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, its impact on longer-term outcomes is poorly documented. In this analysis we assessed the longer-term association of physicians’ adherence with clinical outcomes, including mortality and unplanned hospitalisations, at 18-month follow-up of the QUALIFY registry (Clinical trial registration ISRCTN87465420) Method and results Data at 18 months were available for 6118 ambulatory HFrEF patients from this international prospective observational survey. Adherence was measured as a continuous variable, ranging from 0 to 1, and was assessed with regard to five classes of recommended HF medications and dosages. Most deaths were cardiovascular (CV) (228/394) and HF-related (191/394) and the same was true for unplanned hospitalisations (1175 CV and 861 HF-related hospitalisations, out of a total of 1541). According to univariable analysis, CV and HF deaths were significantly associated with physician adherence to guidelines. In multivariable analysis, HF death was associated with adherence level [subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87–0.99 per 0.1 unit adherence level increase; P = 0.034] as was composite of HF hospitalisation or CV death (SHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94–0.99 per 0.1 unit adherence level increase; P = 0.043), whereas unplanned all-cause, CV or HF hospitalisations were not (all-cause: SHR 0.99, 95% CI 0.9–1.02; CV: SHR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96–1.01; and HF: SHR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96–1.02 per 0.1 unit change in adherence score; P = 0.52, P = 0.2, and P = 0.4, respectively). Conclusion These results suggest that physicians’ adherence to guideline-recommended HF therapies is associated with improved outcomes in HFrEF. Practical strategies should be established to improve physicians’ adherence to guidelines.

The effectiveness of statins in improving clinical outcomes among patients with heart failure (HF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear. We examined the association between use of statins and clinical outcomes in patients with HF included in the Melbourne Interventional Group registry. Patients were followed from 30 days to 1 year post-PCI for a primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality and hospitalisation for cardiovascular (CV) causes. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularisation) and hospitalisation for CV causes. Outcomes were compared between statin-treated and non-statin-treated patients (at 30 days post-PCI) using propensity scores to balance for risk factors. Among 991 patients included in the inverse probability-weighted Cox model, statin use had no significant effect on the primary composite outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.68 to 1.56; p = 0.89], nor MACE (aHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.84; p = 0.99) or hospitalisation for CV causes (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.72; p = 0.57). Our results suggest that statin therapy may confer no significant benefits in patients with HF undergoing PCI. However, prospective randomised controlled trials are needed to provide more definitive answers.

Heart failure care and education require a multifaceted approach to ensure appropriate transition from inpatient to outpatient care.To explore the feasibility of a multidisciplinary heart failure care model, General Medicine Heart Failure Care Program (GM-HFCP), within a General Medical Unit (GMU).Prospective non-randomised before-and-after observational quality improvement intervention over a 6-month period was conducted. All consecutive patients admitted to GMU at Alfred Hospital, Melbourne with a diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure were included. Main outcome measures included changes in rates of pharmacologic prescription, non-pharmacologic ward-based management, patient education and action plan provision after intervention.In total, 108 patients were included (median age 84 (inter-quartile range 80-89) years, 47(44%) females). Significant improvements were noted in non-pharmacologic management for patient education regarding fluid restriction (12-30%, P = 0.04), weight monitoring (10-28%, P = 0.03), heart failure action plan on discharge (4-28%, P = 0.002) and salt restriction (6-32%, P = 0.002). The rates of prescription of heart failure medications remained similar between the pre- and post-implementation periods, particularly in patients with reduced ejection fraction by 'appropriateness of prescription' criteria. There were no differences in inpatient mortality or 30-day readmission rates in both groups.This prospective observational study demonstrated that it is possible to share the roles of a heart failure nurse amongst members of the multidisciplinary team, with similar rates of delivery of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic management aspects. However, further innovative improvements are needed to address certain aspects of heart failure care.

Aims Impaired renal function is associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with LV systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and heart failure. Renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors provide clinical benefit in these settings and often worsen renal function. It is not clear whether worsening renal function (WRF) in patients exposed to these agents predicts a worse prognosis or merely reflects the pharmacological action of the drug on the kidney. Methods and results We performed a meta-analysis of all RAAS inhibitor LVSD trials reporting on outcomes according to WRF (as per individual study definition) in both active intervention and placebo groups. Five major studies (SOLVD, SAVE, RALES, Val-HeFT and EPHESUS) contributed, with 20 573 patients. Compared with placebo, RAAS inhibitors reduced all-cause mortality overall [n = 20 573, relative risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86–0.95, P = 0.0003], in the group with no WRF (n = 18 209, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83–0.99, P = 0.04), and in the WRF group (n = 2364, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62–0.84, P

• The role of digoxin in HF in sinus rhythm with contemporaneous background therapies is unclear.

Advances in heart failure (HF) drug and device therapies over the past 3 decades have made major inroads into the lethality of this disease. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), as well

Aim Heart failure (HF) is a prothrombotic state, but current evidence does not support the routine use of aspirin, antiplatelet agents, or anticoagulation in these patients in sinus rhythm (SR). We conducted an updated meta-analysis comparing these medications on outcomes in HF. Methods and results All randomized trials in patients with chronic HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFREF) in sinus rhythm (SR; n >100), in which the effect of aspirin, antiplatelet agents, or anticoagulants was determined, were prospectively evaluated. Four trials met the entry criteria. Intervention time was 28 months. No difference in all-cause mortality was seen when aspirin was compared with warfarin [n = 3701, relative risk (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88–1.13, P = 0.94]. Compared with aspirin, significantly fewer strokes were seen with warfarin (n = 3701, RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41–0.85, P = 0.004), and fewer fatal and non-fatal ischaemic strokes (n = 3368, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32–0.73, P = 0.0006). Warfarin doubled the risk of major haemorrhage compared with aspirin (n = 3701, RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.45–2.80, P < 0.0001); however, intracranial haemorrhage was rare. There was no significant difference in HF hospitalizations with aspirin vs. warfarin (n = 3701, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79–1.71, P = 0.45). Conclusion With warfarin compared with aspirin in HFREF in SR, significant reductions in stroke risk were observed but no mortality benefit was seen. Major haemorrhage doubled but intracranial haemorrhage was rare. These findings suggest that overall the benefit of warfarin in HFREF in SR outweighs the risk. Aspirin use did not increase HF hospitalization as has been previously suggested.

Heart failure (HF) is associated with chronic sympathetic activation. Renal denervation (RDN) aims to reduce sympathetic activity by ablating the renal sympathetic nerves. We investigated the effect of RDN in patients with chronic HF and concurrent renal dysfunction in a prospective, multicenter, single-arm feasibility study.Thirty-nine patients with chronic systolic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 40%, New York Heart Association class II-III,) and renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR; assessed with the use of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation] 75 mL • minRDN was associated with reductions in NT-proBNP and 120-minute glucose tolerance test in HF patients 12 months after RDN treatment. There was no deterioration in other indices of cardiac and renal function in this small feasibility study.

The extent and impact of under-prescribing of evidence-based pharmacological therapies among heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF) in contemporary practice is unclear. We sought to examine the prescribing patterns of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), β-blockers (BBs) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and to quantify the estimated 'treatment gap' among HFREF patients in the 'real-world' setting. The MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL databases were searched for registry- or survey-based studies which examined the prescribing rates of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, BBs and MRAs among HFREF patients. Searches were limited to those published in the years 2000-2015. A total of 23 reports, including 83,605 patients, were evaluated. Overall, ACE inhibitors/ARBs, BBs and MRAs were prescribed to 79.8, 81.4 and 36.4 % of patients, respectively. The estimated treatment gaps in the overall population were 13.1 % for ACE inhibitors/ARBs, 3.9 % for BBs and 16.8 % for MRAs. The proportion of patients who received ≥50 % of the guideline-recommended target doses was 72 % for ACE inhibitors, 51 % for ARBs, 49 % for BBs, 53 % for the combination of ACE inhibitors/ARBs and BBs and 83 % for MRAs. Prescribing these drugs according to contemporary guidelines was associated with lower mortality risk. Patients who were elderly, female and with comorbidities were less likely to receive optimal treatment as recommended by the guidelines. ACE inhibitors, ARBs, BBs and MRAs are under-prescribed in eligible HFREF patients. Efforts should be made to improve approaches to closing the treatment gap at both systems of care and individual levels.

Article history: Received 28 June 2015 Accepted 24 September 2015 Available online 31 January 2016 were required. Standard HF clinical status and quality of life (QoL) endpoints were evaluated, including the Cardiac Depression Scale (CDS), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) and Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36). Groups were compared using two-tailed paired t-test. Institutional ethics approval was obtained, each patient provided informed consent, and the studies conformed to the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Registration num

Background: The effectiveness of statins in improving clinical outcomes among high risk patients with heart failure (HF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ‘real world’ clinical practice remains unclear. We examined the association between use of statins and clinical outcomes

A key feature of chronic heart failure (HF) is the sustained activation of endogenous neurohormonal systems in response to impaired cardiac pumping and/or filling properties. The clinical use of neurohormonal blockers has revolutionised the care of HF patients over the past three decades. Drug therapy that is active against imbalance in both the autonomic and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone systems consistently reduces morbidity and mortality in chronic HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and in sinus rhythm. This article provides an assessment of the major neurohormonal systems and their therapeutic blockade in patients with chronic HF.

Drugs prescribed for non-cardiac conditions can have unexpected and serious cardiac effects. These

Aims The association between glucose lowering in diabetes mellitus and major cardiovascular (CV) outcomes is weak; indeed, some oral hypoglycemic agents are associated with increased CV events. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) are a new class of oral hypoglycemic agent that may have beneficial CV effects. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to appraise the CV safety and efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors. Methods Comprehensive search for prospective trials involving DPP-4 inhibitors. Trials included reported at least one of the outcomes examined, recruited minimum 100 patients and minimum follow-up 24 weeks. The risk ratio (RR) was calculated using the Mantel–Haenszel random-effects model for mortality and major cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Results Fifty trials enrolling 55,141 participants were included. Mean follow-up 45.3 weeks. DPP-4 inhibitors compared with all comparators (placebo and active) showed no difference in all-cause mortality (n = 50,982, RR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.91–1.13, P = 0.83), CV mortality (n = 48,151, RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.85–1.11, P = 0.70), acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n = 53,034 RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.87–1.08, P = 0.59), or stroke (n = 42,737, RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.81–1.18, P = 0.80), and a statistically significant increase in heart failure outcomes (n = 39,953, RR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.01–1.33, P = 0.04). Discussion Treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with placebo shows no increase in risk with regards to all-cause mortality, CV mortality, ACS, or stroke, but a statistically significant trend toward increased risk of HF outcomes. Conclusion These findings suggest no cardiovascular harm (or benefit) with DPP-4 inhibitors; further large-scale CV outcome studies will resolve the issue of excess HF risk.

Heart failure (HF) therapy involves use of multiple medications. There is little guidance on the safety and impact on clinical outcomes of stopping HF medications.A comprehensive systematic search for studies of drug therapy withdrawal in HF was performed. Meta-analysis of the risk ratio (RR) was performed with the use of the Mantel-Haenszel random effects model for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies on withdrawal of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors and beta-blockers in HF are scarce and small, yet show relatively convincingly that such withdrawals have untoward effects on cardiac structure, symptoms, and major outcomes. Meta-analysis of 7 studies of digoxin withdrawal (2,987 participants) without background beta-blocker showed increased HF hospitalizations (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-1.46; P .0001), but no impact on all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90-1.12; P = .06) nor reduction in all-cause hospitalization (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98-1.09; P = .27). Diuretic withdrawal trials demonstrated an ongoing need for these agents in chronic HF. Studies in peripartum cardiomyopathy showed that medications could be successfully withdrawn after recovery.Current evidence discourages any attempt to discontinue RAAS inhibitors or beta-blockers in patients with stable HF, regardless of clinical and/or echocardiographic status. Formal withdrawal trials of other classes are needed.

Patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) are at high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have an important role in preventing SCD in selected patients with LVSD and chronic heart failure (CHF). Drug therapies for LVSD and CHF also appear to also be useful in reducing SCD. However, the magnitude of benefit of these approaches on SCD is uncertain. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis comparing the effect on SCD achieved by ICDs versus medical therapies, additional to standard background medical therapies including ACE inhibitors and/or beta-blockers (BBs).Our meta-analysis included trials of100 patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), i.e.,40%. Fourteen randomized controlled trials met the criteria for meta-analysis, 10 involving medical therapies (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRAs], ivabradine, n3-polyunsaturated fatty acid [PUFA], ferric carboxymaltose and aliskiren) and four involving ICDs. Results were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel random effects method.Drug therapy (n=36,172) reduced the risk of SCD overall (risk ratio (RR)=0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.82-0.98, p=0.02) when compared to placebo. MRAs alone were most effective in reducing SCD (n=11,032, RR=0.79 [0.68-0.91], p=0.001). ICD insertion greatly reduced SCD (n=4,269, RR=0.39 [0.30-0.51], p0.00001) compared with placebo. The difference in treatment effect between the ICD and drug therapy was significant (p0.002), and between ICD and MRAs (p0.002).Drug therapies when added to a standard background regimen comprising ACE inhibitor and/or BB reduced SCD overall and MRAs alone were most effective in this regard. ICDs were more effective than drugs in SCD abrogation. However, the added procedural morbidity and the cost of ICD need to be considered in decision-making re-approach to SCD reduction in the individual patient.

Patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) are at high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have an important role in preventing SCD in selected patients with LVSD & chronic heart failure (CHF). Drug therapies for LVSD & CHF also appear

Introduction: Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome that is secondary to an abnormality of cardiac structure or function. These clinical practice guidelines focus on the diagnosis and management of HF with recommendations that have been graded on the strength of evidence and the likely absolute benefit versus harm. Additional considerations are presented as practice points.Main recommendations:Blood pressure and lipid lowering decrease the risk of developing HF. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors decrease the risk of HF hospitalisation in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.An echocardiogram is recommended if HF is suspected or newly diagnosed.If an echocardiogram cannot be arranged in a timely fashion, measurement of plasma B-type natriuretic peptides improves diagnostic accuracy.Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists improve outcomes in patients with HF associated with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Additional treatment options in selected patients with persistent HF associated with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction include switching the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor to an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor; ivabradine; implantable cardioverter defibrillators; cardiac resynchronisation therapy; and atrial fibrillation ablation.Multidisciplinary HF disease management facilitates the implementation of evidence-based HF therapies. Clinicians should also consider models of care that optimise medication titration (eg, nurse-led titration).Changes in management as a result of the guideline: These guidelines have been designed to facilitate the systematic integration of recommendations into HF care. This should include ongoing audit and feedback systems integrated into work practices in order to improve the quality of care and outcomes of patients with HF.