Search

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

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.

AimsTo assess heart failure (HF) in-hospital quality of care and outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods and resultsPatients hospitalized for HF with ejection fraction (EF)

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

AimsWe 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 resultsWe 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%).ConclusionsThe 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.

BackgroundHealth status outcomes are increasingly being promoted as measures of health care quality, given their importance to patients. In heart failure (HF), an American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force proposed using the proportion of patients with preserved health status as a quality measure but not as a performance measure because risk adjustment methods were not available.MethodsWe built risk adjustment models for alive with preserved health status and for preserved health status alone in a prospective registry of outpatients with HF with reduced ejection fraction across 146 US centers between December 2015 and October 2017. Preserved health status was defined as not having a ≥5-point decrease in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score at 1 year. Using only patient-level characteristics, hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models were developed for 1-year outcomes and validated using data from 1 to 2 years. We examined model calibration, discrimination, and variability in sites' unadjusted and adjusted rates.ResultsAmong 3932 participants (median age [interquartile range] 68 years [59-75], 29.7% female, 75.4% White), 2703 (68.7%) were alive with preserved health status, 902 (22.9%) were alive without preserved health status, and 327 (8.3%) had died by 1 year. The final risk adjustment model for alive with preserved health status included baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary, age, race, employment status, annual income, body mass index, depression, atrial fibrillation, renal function, number of hospitalizations in the past 1 year, and duration of HF (optimism-corrected C statistic=0.62 with excellent calibration). Similar results were observed when deaths were ignored. The risk standardized proportion of patients alive with preserved health status across the 146 sites ranged from 62% at the 10th percentile to 75% at the 90th percentile. Variability across sites was modest and changed minimally with risk adjustment.ConclusionsThrough leveraging data from a large, outpatient, observational registry, we identified key factors to risk adjust sites' proportions of patients with preserved health status. These data lay the foundation for building quality measures that quantify treatment outcomes from patients' perspectives.

AimsImproving the health status (symptoms, function, and quality of life) of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a primary treatment goal. Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) improve short-term health status in clinical practice, but the sustainability of these improvements is unknown.Methods and resultsIn CHAMP-HF, a multicentre observational study of outpatients with HFrEF, patients initiated on ARNI were propensity score matched 1:2 to patients not using ARNI with Cox regression modelling time to ARNI initiation, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables, medical history, medications, and baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores. Repeated measures models for the overall KCCQ score and each domain compared the health status trajectories of patients initiated on ARNI vs. not. Among 3930 participants, 746 (19.0%) began ARNI, of whom 576 were matched to 1152 non-ARNI patients. Prior to matching, participants initiated on ARNI were younger, non-Hispanic, had lower EFs, more commonly had a history of ventricular arrhythmia, were less likely to be taking an ACEI/ARB, and more likely to be treated with beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. There were no differences after matching. In the matched cohort, participants initiated on ARNI experienced improved health status by 3 months that persisted through 12 months [KCCQ Overall Summary Score (OSS) = 73.4 vs. 70.8; P

BackgroundFew contemporary data exist evaluating care patterns and outcomes in heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of kidney function.ObjectivesThis study sought to characterize differences in quality of care and outcomes in patients hospitalized for HF by degree of kidney dysfunction.MethodsGuideline-directed medical therapies were evaluated among patients hospitalized with HF at 418 sites in the GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) registry from 2014 to 2019 by discharge CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration)-derived estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). We additionally evaluated the risk-adjusted association of admission eGFR with in-hospital mortality.ResultsAmong 365,494 hospitalizations (age 72 ± 15 years, left ventricular ejection fraction [EF]: 43 ± 17%), median discharge eGFR was 51 ml/min/1.73 m2 (interquartile range: 34 to 72 ml/min/1.73 m2), 234,332 (64%) had eGFR

ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services uses a new peer group-based payment system to compare hospital performance as part of its Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, which classifies hospitals into quintiles based on their share of dual-eligible beneficiaries for Medicare and Medicaid. However, little is known about the association of a hospital's share of dual-eligible beneficiaries with the quality of care and outcomes for patients with heart failure (HF).ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between a hospital's proportion of patients with dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid and HF quality of care and outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study evaluated 436 196 patients hospitalized for HF using the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017. The analysis included patients 65 years or older with available data on dual-eligibility status. Hospitals were divided into quintiles based on their share of dual-eligible patients. Quality and outcomes were analyzed using unadjusted and adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2020, to January 1, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was 30-day all-cause readmission. The secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 30-day HF readmissions, 30-day all-cause mortality, and HF process of care measures.ResultsA total of 436 196 hospitalized HF patients 65 years or older from 535 hospital sites were identified, with 258 995 hospitalized patients (median age, 81 years; interquartile range, 74-87 years) at 455 sites meeting the study criteria and included in the primary analysis. A total of 258 995 HF hospitalizations from 455 sites were included in the primary analysis of the study. Hospitals in the highest dual-eligibility quintile (quintile 5) tended to care for patients who were younger, were more likely to be female, belonged to racial minority groups, or were located in rural areas compared with quintile 1 sites. After multivariable adjustment, hospitals with the highest quintile of dual eligibility were associated with lower rates of key process measures, including evidence-based β-blocker prescription, measure of left ventricular function, and anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. Differences in clinical outcomes were seen with higher 30-day all-cause (adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.14-1.35) and HF (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.27) readmissions in higher dual-eligible quintile 5 sites compared with quintile 1 sites. Risk-adjusted in-hospital and 30-day mortality did not significantly differ in quintile 1 vs quintile 5 hospitals.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, hospitals with a higher share of dual-eligible patients provided care with lower rates of some of the key HF quality of care process measures and with higher 30-day all-cause or HF readmissions compared with lower dual-eligibility quintile hospitals.

Background Regional patient characteristics, care quality, and outcomes may differ based on a variety of factors among patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF). Regional disparities in outcomes of cardiovascular disease have been suggested across various regions in the United States. This study examined whether there are significant differences by region in quality of care and short-term outcomes of hospitalized patients with HF across the United States. Methods and Results We examined regional demographics, quality measures, and short-term outcomes across 4 US Census Bureau regions in patients hospitalized with HF and enrolled in the GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) registry from 2010 to 2016. Differences in length of stay and mortality by region were examined with multivariable logistic regression. The study included 423 333 patients hospitalized for HF in 488 hospitals. Patients in the Northeast were significantly older. Completion of achievement measures, with few exceptions, were met with similar frequency across regions. Multivariable analysis demonstrated significantly lower in-hospital mortality in the Midwest compared with the Northeast (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51-0.8; P

BackgroundPostdischarge mortality following hospitalization for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has remained high and unchanged over the past 2 decades, despite effective therapies for HFrEF. We aimed to explore whether these patterns could in part be explained by changes in longitudinal risk profile and HF severity over time.MethodsAmong patients hospitalized for HF in the GWTG-HF registry from January 2005 to December 2018 with available data, we evaluated GWTG-HF and ADHERE risk scores, observing in-hospital mortality per-year. The risk profiles and outcomes were described overall and by subgroups based on ejection fraction (EF), diabetes mellitus (DM), sex, and age.ResultsOverall, 335,735 patients were included (50% HFrEF, 46% DM, 48% female, mean age 74 years). In-hospital mortality increased by 2.0% per year from 2005 to 2018. There was no significant change in mean GWTG-HF risk score overall or when stratified by EF groups (P = 0.46 HFrEF, p = 0.26 HF mid-range EF [HFmrEF], and P = 0.72 HF preserved EF [HFpEF]), age, sex, or presence of DM. The observed/expected ratio based on the GWTG-HF risk score was 0.93 (0.91-0.96), 0.83 (0.77-0.90), 0.92 (0.89-95) for HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, respectively. Similar findings were seen when risk was assessed using ADHERE risk score.ConclusionsThere were no significant changes in average risk profiles among hospitalized HF patients over the study duration. These data do not support the notion that worsening risk profile explains the lack of improved outcomes despite therapeutic advances, underscoring the importance of aggressive implementation of guideline-recommended therapies and investigation of novel treatments.

ObjectivesThis study compared the characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries who were hospitalized for heart failure (HF) and then discharged home who received home health care (HHC) to the characteristics of those who did not, and examined associations among HHC and readmission and mortality rates.BackgroundAfter hospitalization for HF, some patients receive HHC. However, the use of HHC over time, the factors associated with its use, and the post-discharge outcomes after receiving it are not well studied.MethodsThis study 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.ResultsFrom 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

BackgroundIn PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-pro BNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode), the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) was well-tolerated and led to improved outcomes. We aim to determine the representativeness of the PIONEER-HF trial among patients hospitalized for ADHF using real-world data.MethodsThe study population was derived from all patients discharged alive for ADHF in the Get With The Guidelines-HF registry from 2006 to 2018 with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; all HFrEF with ADHF). We then determined the proportion of patients meeting PIONEER-HF eligibility criteria (PIONEER-HF eligible) and those meeting a set of limited eligibility criteria (actionable cohort). Rates of HF readmissions and all-cause mortality were then compared between the all HFrEF with ADHF, PIONEER-HF eligible, and actionable cohorts using linked Medicare claims data.ResultsA total of 99 767 patients with HFrEF in Get With The Guidelines-HF were hospitalized for ADHF. PIONEER-HF inclusion criteria were met by 71 633 (71.8%) patients, and both inclusion and exclusion criteria were met by 20 704 (20.8%) patients. Further, 68 739 (68.9%) patients met the criteria for the actionable cohort. Among the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid-linked patients, the HF rehospitalization rate at 1 year was 35.1% (95% CI, 34.5-35.8) for all HFrEF with ADHF patients, 32.6% (95% CI, 31.3-33.9) for the PIONEER-HF eligible cohort, and 33.1% (95% CI, 32.3-33.9) for the actionable cohort. The 1-year all-cause mortality was 36.7% (95% CI, 36.1-7.4) for all HFrEF with ADHF patients, 31.6% (95% CI, 30.3-32.9) for the PIONEER-HF eligible cohort, and 32.2% (95% CI, 31.4-33.0) for the actionable cohort.ConclusionsPatient characteristics and clinical outcomes for patients eligible for PIONEER-HF only modestly differ when compared with those encountered in routine practice, suggesting that the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan should be routinely considered for patients with HFrEF hospitalized for ADHF.

AimsSodium-glucose co-transporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and high cardiovascular risk in two large clinical outcome trials: empagliflozin in EMPA-REG OUTCOME and canagliflozin in CANVAS. The scope of eligibility for SGLT-2 inhibitors (empagliflozin and canagliflozin) among patients with type 2 DM and HF, based on clinical trial criteria and current US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labelling criteria, remains unknown.Methods and resultsUsing data from the US Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)-Heart Failure registry, we evaluated the proportion of patients with DM and HF eligible for SGLT-2 inhibitor therapy based on the clinical trial criteria and the US FDA labelling criteria. The GWTG-HF registry is a quality improvement registry of patients admitted in hospital with HF in the USA. We included GWTG-HF registry participants meeting eligibility criteria hospitalized between August 2014 and 30 June 2017 from sites fully participating in the registry. The initial inclusion time point reflects when both drugs had FDA approval. Among the 139 317 patients (out of 407 317) with DM hospitalized with HF (in 460 hospitals; 2014 to 2017), the median age was 71 years, 47% (n = 65 685) were female, and 43% (n = 59 973) had HF with reduced ejection fraction. Overall, 43% (n = 59 943) were eligible for the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, 45% (n = 62 818) were eligible for the CANVAS trial, and 34% (n = 47 747) of patients were eligible for either SGLT-2 inhibitors based on the FDA labelling criteria. Among the FDA-eligible patients, 91.5% (n = 43 708) were eligible for either the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial or the CANVAS trial. Patients who were FDA eligible, compared with those who were not, were younger (70.0 vs. 72.0 years of age), more likely to be male (57.7 vs. 50.3%), and had less burden of co-morbidities.ConclusionsThe majority of patients with DM who are hospitalized with HF are not eligible for SGLT-2 inhibitor therapies. Ongoing studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of SGLT-2 inhibitors among patients with HF may potentially broaden the population that may benefit from these therapies.

Background Limited data exist to guide treatment for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation, including the important decision regarding rate versus rhythm control. Methods and Results We analyzed the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry linked to Medicare claims data from 2008 to 2014 to describe current treatments for rate versus rhythm control and subsequent outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation using inverse probability weighted analysis. Rhythm control was defined as use of an antiarrhythmic medication, cardioversion, or AF ablation or surgery. Rate control was defined as use of any combination of β-blocker, calcium channel blocker, and digoxin without evidence of rhythm control. Among 15 682 fee-for-service Medicare patients, at the time of discharge, 1857 were treated with rhythm control and 13 825 with rate control, with minimal differences in baseline characteristics between groups. There was higher all-cause death at 1 year in the rate control compared with the rhythm control group (37.5% and 30.8%, respectively, P

ObjectivesThis study sought to describe the short-term health status benefits of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).BackgroundAlthough therapy with sacubitril/valsartan, a neprilysin inhibitor, improved patients' health status (compared with enalapril) at 8 months in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) study, the early impact of ARNI on patients' symptoms, functions, and quality of life is unknown.MethodsHealth status was assessed by using the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) in 3,918 outpatients with HFrEF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% across 140 U.S. centers in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry. ARNI therapy was initiated in 508 patients who were matched 1:2 to 1,016 patients who were not initiated on ARNI (no-ARNI), using a nonparsimonious time-dependent propensity score (6 sociodemographic factors, 23 clinical characteristics), prior KCCQ overall summary (KCCQ-OS) score, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker status.ResultsMultivariate linear regression demonstrated a greater mean improvement in KCCQ-OS in patients initiated on ARNI therapy (5.3 ± 19 vs. 2.5 ± 17.4, respectively; p

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the degree to which U.S. patients enrolled in a heart failure (HF) trial represent patients in routine U.S. clinical practice according to race and sex.BackgroundBlack patients and women are frequently under-represented in HF clinical trials. However, the degree to which black patients and women enrolled in trials represent such patients in routine practice is unclear.MethodsThe ASCEND-HF (Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure) trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to receive nesiritide or placebo from May 2007 to August 2010 and was neutral for clinical endpoints. This analysis compared non-Hispanic white (n = 1,494) and black (n = 1,012) patients enrolled in ASCEND-HF from the U.S. versus non-Hispanic white and black patients included in a U.S. hospitalized HF registry (i.e., Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure [GWTG-HF]) during the ASCEND-HF enrollment period and meeting trial eligibility criteria.ResultsAmong 79,291 white and black registry patients, 49,063 (62%) met trial eligibility criteria (white, n = 37,883 [77.2%]; black, n = 11,180 [22.8%]). Women represented 35% and 49% of the ASCEND-HF and trial-eligible GWTG-HF cohorts, respectively. Compared with trial-enrolled patients, trial-eligible GWTG-HF patients tended to be older with higher blood pressure and higher ejection fraction. Trial-eligible patients had higher in-hospital mortality (2.3% vs. 1.3%), 30-day readmission (20.2% vs. 16.8%), and 180-day mortality (21.2% vs. 18.6%) than those enrolled in the trial (all p