Search

Background Imaging has become a routine part of heart failure (HF) investigation. Echocardiography is a first-line test in HF given its availability and it provides valuable diagnostic and prognostic information. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is an emerging clinical tool in the management of patients with non-ischemic heart failure. Current ACC/AHA/CCS/ESC guidelines advocate its role in the detection of a variety of cardiomyopathies but there is a paucity of high quality evidence to support these recommendations. The primary objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic yield of routine cardiac magnetic resonance versus standard care (that is, echocardiography with only selective use of CMR) in patients with non-ischemic heart failure. The primary hypothesisis that the routine use of CMR will lead to a more specific diagnostic characterization of the underlying etiology of non-ischemic heart failure. This will lead to a reduction in the non-specific diagnoses of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy and HF with preserved ejection fraction. Design Tertiary care sites in Canada and Finland, with dedicated HF and CMR programs, will randomize consecutive patients with new or deteriorating HF to routine CMR or selective CMR. All patients will undergo a standard clinical echocardiogram and the interpreter will assign the most likely HF etiology. Those undergoing CMR will also have a standard examination and will be assigned a HF etiology based upon the findings. The treating physician's impression about non-ischemic HF etiology will be collected following all baseline testing (including echo ± CMR). Patients will be followed annually for 4 years to ascertain clinical outcomes, quality of life and cost. The expected outcome is that the routine CMR arm will have a significantly higher rate of infiltrative, inflammatory, hypertrophic, ischemic and 'other' cardiomyopathy than the selective CMR group. Discussion This study will be the first multicenter randomized, controlled trial evaluating the role of CMR in non-ischemic HF. Non-ischemic HF patients will be randomized to routine CMR in order to determine whether there are any gains over management strategies employing selective CMR utilization. The insight gained from this study should improve appropriate CMR use in HF. NCT01281384. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Limited comparative studies assessing the health-related quality of life (HRQL) in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved vs. low ejection fraction (LVEF) have been disparate. Aims: The aims of this study were a) to characterize HRQL in a large population of HF patients with preserved and low LVEF and b) to determine the factors associated with worse HRQL. Methods: Patients with symptomatic HF (NYHA Class II–IV) enrolled in the Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) HRQL study completed the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire at randomization. Patients were stratified into 2 HF cohorts: preserved LVEF (>40%) and low LVEF (≤40%). Results: In 2709 of the eligible 2744 (98.6%) patients, the summary scores ranged from 0 to 105 (mean 40.9). There were no differences in overall responses of HF patients with preserved vs. low LVEF (41.1 vs. 40.8). Independent factors associated with worse HRQL in both populations included female gender, younger age, higher body mass index, lower systolic blood pressure, greater symptom burden, and worse functional status. Conclusions: In symptomatic HF patients, HRQL is equally impaired in both preserved and low LVEF populations. Targeting improvement in symptoms and HRQL is an important treatment objective in all HF patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]