Search

Aims: Patients with advanced heart failure (AdHF) who are ineligible for heart transplantation (HTx) can become candidates for treatment with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in some countries, but not others. This reflects the lack of a systematic analysis of the usefulness of LVAD systems in this context, and of their benefits, limitations and cost-effectiveness. The SWEdish evaluation of left Ventricular Assist Device (SweVAD) study is a Phase IV, prospective, 1:1 randomized, non-blinded, multicentre trial that will examine the impact of assignment to mechanical circulatory support with guideline-directed LVAD destination therapy (GD-LVAD-DT) using the HeartMate 3 (HM3) continuous flow pump vs. guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) on survival in a population of AdHF patients ineligible for HTx.Methods: A total of 80 patients will be recruited to SweVAD at the seven university hospitals in Sweden. The study population will comprise patients with AdHF (New York Heart Association class IIIB-IV, INTERMACS profile 2-6) who display signs of poor prognosis despite GDMT and who are not considered eligible for HTx. Participants will be followed for 2 years or until death occurs. Other endpoints will be determined by blinded adjudication. Patients who remain on study-assigned interventions beyond 2 years will be asked to continue follow-up for outcomes and adverse events for up to 5 years.Conclusion: The SweVAD study will compare survival, medium-term benefits, costs and potential hazards between GD-LVAD-DT and GDMT and will provide a valuable reference point to guide destination therapy strategies for patients with AdHF ineligible for HTx. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poor health-related quality of life (HRQL) is common in heart failure (HF), but there are few data on HRQL in HF and the association between HRQL and mortality outside Western countries.Methods: We used the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) to record HRQL in 23 291 patients with HF from 40 countries in 8 different world regions in the G-CHF study (Global Congestive Heart Failure). We compared standardized KCCQ-12 summary scores (adjusted for age, sex, and markers of HF severity) among regions (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher score indicating better HRQL). We used multivariable Cox regression with adjustment for 15 variables to assess the association between KCCQ-12 summary scores and the composite of all-cause death, HF hospitalization, and each component over a median follow-up of 1.6 years.Results: The mean age of participants was 65 years; 61% were men; 40% had New York Heart Association class III or IV symptoms; and 46% had left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40%. Average HRQL differed between regions (lowest in Africa [mean± SE, 39.5±0.3], highest in Western Europe [62.5±0.4]). There were 4460 (19%) deaths, 3885 (17%) HF hospitalizations, and 6949 (30%) instances of either event. Lower KCCQ-12 summary score was associated with higher risk of all outcomes; the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for each 10-unit KCCQ-12 summary score decrement was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.17-1.20) for death. Although this association was observed in all regions, it was less marked in South Asia, South America, and Africa (weakest association in South Asia: HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.03-1.14]; strongest association in Eastern Europe: HR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.21-1.42]; interaction P<0.0001). Lower HRQL predicted death in patients with New York Heart Association class I or II and III or IV symptoms (HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.14-1.19] and HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.12-1.17]; interaction P=0.13) and was a stronger predictor for the composite outcome in New York Heart Association class I or II versus class III or IV (HR 1.15 [95% CI, 1.13-1.17] versus 1.09 [95% CI, [1.07-1.11]; interaction P<0.0001). HR for death was greater in ejection fraction ≥40 versus <40% (HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.20-1.26] and HR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.13-1.17]; interaction P<0.0001).Conclusion: HRQL is a strong and independent predictor of all-cause death and HF hospitalization across all geographic regions, in mildly and severe symptomatic HF, and among patients with preserved and reduced ejection fraction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03078166. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Guidelines recommend down-titration of loop diuretics (LD) once euvolaemia is achieved. In outpatients with heart failure (HF), we investigated LD dose changes in daily cardiology practice, agreement with guideline recommendations, predictors of successful LD down-titration and association between dose changes and outcomes.Methods and Results: We included 8130 HF patients from the ESC-EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry. Among patients who had dose decreased, successful decrease was defined as the decrease not followed by death, HF hospitalization, New York Heart Association class deterioration, or subsequent increase in LD dose. Mean age was 66 ± 13 years, 71% men, 62% HF with reduced ejection fraction, 19% HF with mid-range ejection fraction, 19% HF with preserved ejection fraction. Median [interquartile range (IQR)] LD dose was 40 (25-80) mg. LD dose was increased in 16%, decreased in 8.3% and unchanged in 76%. Median (IQR) follow-up was 372 (363-419) days. Diuretic dose increase (vs. no change) was associated with HF death [hazard ratio (HR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-2.08; P = 0.008] and nominally with cardiovascular death (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.96-1.63; P = 0.103). Decrease of diuretic dose (vs. no change) was associated with nominally lower HF (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.33-1.07; P = 0.083) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38-1.00; P = 0.052). Among patients who had LD dose decreased, systolic blood pressure [odds ratio (OR) 1.11 per 10 mmHg increase, 95% CI 1.01-1.22; P = 0.032], and absence of (i) sleep apnoea (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09-0.69; P = 0.008), (ii) peripheral congestion (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.80; P = 0.005), and (iii) moderate/severe mitral regurgitation (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37-0.87; P = 0.008) were independently associated with successful decrease.Conclusion: Diuretic dose was unchanged in 76% and decreased in 8.3% of outpatients with chronic HF. LD dose increase was associated with worse outcomes, while the LD dose decrease group showed a trend for better outcomes compared with the no-change group. Higher systolic blood pressure, and absence of (i) sleep apnoea, (ii) peripheral congestion, and (iii) moderate/severe mitral regurgitation were independently associated with successful dose decrease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM-HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes.Methods and Results: Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA Long-Term Heart Failure (HF-LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM-HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM-HF and guidelines. One-year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all-cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM-HF.Conclusions: Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA HF-LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM-HF enalapril group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]