Search

Objective: Plasma concentrations of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and troponin are often measured for diagnostic purposes when patients are admitted with heart failure, but their prognostic value when measured soon after admission is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the added prognostic value of admission measurements of BNP and troponins in patients with acute heart failure.Methods and Results: Multivariable prognostic models for death or any worsening heart failure (WHF) or rehospitalization for WHF by 30 days, 30-day death or rehospitalization for WHF, and 90-day mortality were constructed using baseline data from the Value of Endothelin Receptor Inhibition with Tezosentan in Acute heart failure Studies (VERITAS) including BNP and troponin I. Of 1347 patients, the median (interquartile range) value of BNP was 422 (156-945) pg/mL and 855 (63%) had measurable troponin I. By 30 days, 432 patients had died or experienced WHF. Clinical variables had only moderate predictive performance that was not substantially improved by BNP or troponin I (c-indices 0.6528 and 0.6595, respectively). By 30 days, 150 patients died or were rehospitalized for WHF. The c-index using clinical variables (0.6855) was not improved by adding biomarkers. By 90 days, 135 patients had died. The c-index for mortality was somewhat better than for composite outcomes (0.7394) but improved little with biomarkers (0.7461).Conclusion: Routine clinical data recorded at the time of admission in patients with acute heart failure are poor at predicting recurrent admissions but somewhat better at predicting mortality. Neither BNP nor troponin measured at admission improved predictions; measurement closer to discharge, or of other novel biomarkers, might perform differently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: It remains unclear if early administration of i.v. nesiritide in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure (AHF) is associated with improved clinical outcomes.Methods and Results: We analysed data from 7007 patients enrolled in ASCEND-HF to examine the associations between time to treatment with study medication (nesiritide or placebo) and clinical endpoints: (i) moderate to marked dyspnoea relief on a 7-point Likert scale at 6 h; (ii) 30-day all-cause mortality or re-hospitalization; and (iii) 30-day all-cause mortality. The median time to study drug administration was 16.7 h (25th, 75th percentiles = 6.5, 23.1), with significant regional variation (e.g. median of 13.0 h in Asia-Pacific vs. 18.4 h in North America). After risk adjustment, each hour delay in study medication after the first 10 h from initial hospital presentation was associated with modestly reduced odds of dyspnoea relief [(adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-0.99; P < 0.0001]. Every hour delay in study medication was associated with modestly higher all-cause mortality or re-hospitalization (unadjusted OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.02; P < 0.001) due to pre-randomization therapies and known predictors of 30-day outcomes (adjusted P = 0.12). There was no significant association between time to study drug and all-cause mortality (P > 0.08).Conclusion: In a large international AHF trial, time to treatment with study medication varied markedly across regions. Earlier administration of study medication was associated with modestly better dyspnoea relief, but not 30-day clinical outcomes. The association between timing of treatment with study medication and study endpoints may have implications for the interpretation of AHF studies and future trial design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and Academic Research Consortium (ARC), comprised of leading heart failure (HF) academic research investigators, patients, United States (US) Food and Drug Administration representatives, and industry members from the US and Europe. A series of meetings were convened to establish definitions and key concepts for the evaluation of HF therapies including optimal medical and device background therapy, clinical trial design elements and statistical concepts, and study endpoints. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel discussions as consensus recommendations focused on populations and endpoint definitions; it is not exhaustive or restrictive, but designed to stimulate HF clinical trial innovation., (© Copyright 2020 European Society of Cardiology and American College of Cardiology.)

Background: Gender disparities in authorship of heart failure (HF) guideline citations and clinical trials have not been examined., Methods: We identified authors of publications referenced in Class I Recommendations in United States (n=173) and European (n=100) HF guidelines and of publications of all HF trials with >400 participants (n=118) published between 2001 and 2016. Authors' genders were determined, and changes in authorship patterns over time were evaluated with linear regression and nonparametric testing., Results: The median proportion of women authors per publication was 20% (interquartile range [IQR], 8%-33%) in United States guidelines, 14% (IQR, 2%-20%) in European guidelines, and 11% (IQR, 4%-20%) in HF trials. The proportion of women authors increased modestly over time in United States and European guidelines' references (β=0.005 and 0.003, respectively, from 1986 to 2016; P <0.001) but not in HF trials (12.5% [IQR, 0%-20%] in 2001-2004 to 8.9% [IQR, 0%-20%] in 2013-2016; P >0.50). Overall proportions of women as first or last authors in HF trials (16%) did not change significantly over time ( P =0.60). North American HF trials had the highest likelihood of having a woman as first or senior author (24%). HF trials with a woman first or senior author were associated with a higher proportion of enrolled female participants (39% versus 26%, P =0.01)., Conclusions: In HF practice guidelines and trials, few women are authors of pivotal publications. Higher number of women authors is associated with higher enrollment of women in HF trials. Barriers to authorship and representation of women in HF guidelines and HF trial leadership need to be addressed.

Background: The relationship between diuretic use or change in diuretic use and outcomes in chronic heart failure (HF) remains poorly defined. We evaluated the association between diuretic use and changes in health status, exercise capacity, and clinical events in a large randomized trial of subjects with HF., Methods: HF-ACTION randomized 2,331 outpatients with HF and ejection fraction ≤35% to aerobic exercise training versus usual care. We grouped patients according to loop diuretic use from baseline through 6 months: continued use, never use, initiated, and discontinued. The association between diuretic use and changes in health status, exercise capacity, and clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality/hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, and HF hospitalization) through 12 months was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models and generalized linear regression models, respectively., Results: A total of 2,004 (86%) patients had complete data on diuretic use. There was no association between diuretic status and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, 6-minute walk distance, or peak Vo 2 in adjusted analyses (all P > .05). A dose increase was associated with decrease in 6-minute walk distance (-4.25 m, SE 1.12 m, P < .001) and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall score (-0.56 m, SE 0.24 m, P = .02). There were no between-group differences for all-cause death or hospitalization comparing continuous use versus never use (adjusted HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.72-1.15; P = .432)., Conclusions: The initiation or discontinuation of diuretics over a 6-month time frame was not associated with a difference in mortality, hospitalizations, exercise, or health status outcomes, but a dose increase in HF patients was associated with worse exercise and health status outcomes., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) are at high risk for early mortality and rehospitalization. Risk stratification of ADHF using clinically available data on admission is increasingly important to integrate with clinical pathways. Our goal was to create a simple method of screening patients upon admission to identify those with increased risk of future adverse events., Methods: Using ASCEND-HF, a pragmatic clinical trial conducted in 398 sites globally, we developed and validated logistic regression risk models for (a) 30-day mortality/HF rehospitalization, (b) 30-day mortality/all-cause rehospitalization, (c) 30-day all-cause mortality, and (d) 180-day all-cause mortality. Fifty-one candidate variables were evaluated based on prior publications and clinical review. Final models were selected based on stepwise selection with entry and a staying criterion of P < .01. The 30-day mortality model was externally validated, and coefficients were converted to an additive risk score., Results: Among 7,141 patients, the median age was 67 years, 34% were female, and 80% had a left ventricular ejection fraction <40%. The models had between 5 and 12 risk factors with c-indices ranging from 0.68 to 0.75. A simplified score, including age, systolic blood pressure, sodium, blood urea nitrogen, and dyspnea at rest, discriminated 30-day mortality risk from 0.5% (score 0) to 53% (score 10)., Conclusions: Commonly available clinical variables provide simple risk stratification for clinical outcomes among patients with ADHF, and these models may be considered for integration into routine clinical care., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Translation of evidence-based heart failure (HF) therapies to clinical practice is incomplete and may vary internationally. We examined common measures of quality of care in patients enrolled in the international Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure trial., Methods and Results: Patients were admitted to 398 hospitals for acute HF in 5 regions (North America, n=3149; Latin America, n=658; Asia Pacific, n=1744; Central Europe, n=966; and Western Europe, n=490). Predefined quality indicators assessed at hospital discharge included the following: medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, β-blockers, aldosterone antagonists, hydralazine/nitrates, statin therapy, and warfarin), use (or planned use) of implantable intracardiac devices, and blood pressure control (<140/90 mm Hg). We determined regional variations in quality indicators as well as the temporal variation of these indicators during the course of the trial. There was significant variation in conformity among different quality indicators, ranging from 0% to 89%. Of all potential performance opportunities, 19 076 of 32 268 (59%) were met, with Central Europe highest at 64%, followed by North America (63%), Western Europe (61%), Latin America (56%), and Asia Pacific (51%; P<0.0001). North America, Central Europe, and Asia Pacific regions demonstrated a modest increase in quality indicator conformity over time, although there was no significant change in other regions., Conclusions: Quality of care for patients hospitalized with acute HF varies and remains suboptimal even within a randomized clinical trial, which included quality improvement interventions. Specific measures designed to improve performance measures should be implemented even within multicenter clinical trials.

Aims: Dyspnoea is the most common symptom leading to hospitalization for acute heart failure (AHF). Its early and persistent relief is an important goal of therapy, but little is known about its course, determinants, and prognostic significance., Methods and Results: In a post hoc analysis, we studied changes in dyspnoea and in-hospital course in 303 subjects with AHF enrolled in the PROTECT pilot trial. Changes in dyspnoea were assessed by patient self-report using a seven-point Likert scale daily to discharge and at Days 7 and 14. We defined dyspnoea relief as a moderate to marked improvement of dyspnoea at both 24 and 48 h, and treatment success as dyspnoea relief without worsening HF or renal function or death during the first 7 days. Dyspnoea relief occurred in 54% of the patients, while treatment success was achieved in 44% of the patients. By Day 14, only 75% of patients reported a moderate or marked improvement in dyspnoea. Both dyspnoea relief and treatment success were associated with greater improvement in signs of congestion, shorter hospitalization duration, and a lower 60-day mortality rate. Treatment success, but not dyspnoea relief, was also associated with a lower incidence of 60-day death or re-hospitalization for HF or renal failure., Conclusion: Half of patients admitted for AHF do not have substantial improvement in dyspnoea at 24 h and 25% do not have substantial improvement at 7 and 14 days from admission. Dyspnoea relief and treatment success are associated with shorter length of stay and lower 60-day mortality. These analyses should be confirmed in larger studies.

Background: The medical community has turned to disease management (DM) to bridge the gap between proven therapies and clinical practice for patients with heart failure (HF). The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of DM programs in reducing hospitalization and mortality in patients with HF on the basis of the results of existing trials., Methods: We compared the published results from 19 randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating HF DM programs. A random effects model was used to combine the hazards ratio for all-cause hospitalization across the studies evaluating specific types of HF DM programs., Results: We identified 19 relevant studies, with 5752 enrolled patients, which assessed the benefits of HF DM programs. The overall effect was a significant decrease in all-cause hospitalization for patients with HF. There was significant heterogeneity in the results (P < .0001)., Conclusions: The results of this analysis indicate that HF DM is an intervention that could significantly decrease hospitalization for patients with HF. However, due to differences in the types of strategies and the variety of health care settings in which they were evaluated, further studies of HF DM programs with multiple participating centers are required.