Search

Background: Although clinical studies have demonstrated the association between a single N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurement and clinical outcomes in chronic heart failure, the biomarker is frequently measured serially in clinical practice., Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the added prognostic value of repeated NT-proBNP measurements compared with single measurements alone for chronic heart failure patients., Methods: In the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure) study, 894 study participants with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were enrolled at 45 outpatient sites in the United States and Canada. Repeated NT-proBNP levels were measured over a 2-year study period. Associations between repeated NT-proBNP measurements and trial endpoints were assessed using a joint longitudinal and survival model., Results: After adjustment for baseline covariates, each doubling of the baseline NT-proBNP level was associated with a HR of 1.17 (95% CI: 1.08-1.28; P = 0.0003) for the primary trial endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Serial measurements increased the adjusted HR for the primary trial endpoint to 1.66 (95% CI: 1.50-1.84; P < 0.0001), and a similar increased risk was observed across secondary trial endpoints. In joint modeling, an increase in NT-proBNP occurred weeks before the onset of adjudicated events., Conclusions: Repeated NT-proBNP measurements are a strong predictor of outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with an increase in concentration occurring well before event onset. These results may support routine NT-proBNP monitoring to assist in clinical decision making. (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure [GUIDE-IT]; NCT01685840)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The GUIDE-IT trial was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Additional substudies were supported by Roche Diagnostics. The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the present study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr O’Connor has received grant or research support from Merck; and has received consulting fees from Merck, Bayer, and Abiomed. Dr Fiuzat has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Ezekowitz has received research grant support and consulting fees from Bayer, Merck, Servier, Amgen, Sanofi, Novartis, Cytokinetics, American Regent, Otsuka, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr Piña has participated on Advisory Boards for Vifor and AstraZeneca; and is a Steering Committee member for Novartis. Dr Whellan has received grants from National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Merck, Amgen, Cytokinetcis, and Norvo Nordisk; has acted as a consultant to Cytokinetics and Novo Nordisk; and has served on Clinical Endpoint Committees/Data and Safety Monitoring Boards for CVRx and National Institutes of Health. Dr Mark reports grant support to institution from HeartFlow and Merck. Dr Felker has received research grants from National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Merck, Cytokinetics, and CSL-Behring; has acted as a consultant to Novartis, Amgen, BMS, Cytokinetics, Innolife, Medtronic, Cardionomic, Boehringer-Ingelheim, American Regent, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, Reprieve, Myovant, Sequana, Windtree Therapuetics, Rocket Pharma, and Whiteswell; and has served on Clinical Endpoint Committees/Data and Safety Monitoring Boards for Amgen, Merck, Medtronic, EBR Systems, V-Wave, and LivaNova. Dr Desai works under contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures used for public reporting and pay for performance programs; and reports research grants and consulting for Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Novartis, SCPharmaceuticals, and Vifor. Dr Januzzi is a Trustee of the American College of Cardiology and a Director at Jana Care and Imbria; has received grant support from Abbott, Applied Therapeutics, HeartFlow Inc, Innolife, and Roche Diagnostics, has received consulting income from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Beckman-Coulter, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Merck, Quidel, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens; and participates in Clinical Endpoint Committees/Data and Safety Monitoring boards for Abbott, AbbVie, Bayer, CVRx, Pfizer, and Takeda. Dr Ahmad has received consulting fees from Sanofi, Amgen, and Cytokinetics; and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: A majority of clinical decisions use the electronic health record (EHR) and there is an unmet need to use its capability to help providers to make evidence-based decisions that improve care for heart failure patients. These electronic nudges are rooted in the human psychology of decision-making and often target specific cognitive biases. This review outlines the development of novel EHR nudges and specific lessons learned from each experience to inform the development of future interventions., Recent Findings: There have been several randomized clinical trials examining the impact of EHR alerts on quality of care for heart failure patients. These interventions have targeted both clinicians and patients. There are features of each trial that inform best practices and future directions for EHR nudges. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated that some EHR alerts can improve care for heart failure patients. These trials utilized default options, involved clinicians in the alert design process, provided actionable recommendations, and aimed to minimize disruptions to typical workflow. Alerts aimed at improving care should be examined in a randomized fashion in order to evaluate their impact on clinician satisfaction and patient care., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background Because of discrepancies between donor supply and recipient demand, the cardiac transplantation process aims to prioritize the most medically urgent patients. It remains unknown how recipients with the lowest medical urgency compare to others in the allocation process. We aimed to examine differences in clinical characteristics, organ allocation patterns, and outcomes between cardiac transplantation candidates with the lowest and highest medical urgency. Methods and Results We performed a retrospective analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Patients listed for cardiac transplantation between January 2011 and May 2020 were stratified according to status at time of transplantation. Baseline recipient and donor characteristics, waitlist survival, and posttransplantation outcomes were compared in the years before and after the 2018 allocation system change. Lower urgency patients in the old system were older (58.5 versus 56 years) and more likely female (54.4% versus 23.8%) compared with the highest urgency patients, and these trends persisted in the new system ( P <0.001, all). Donors for the lowest urgency patients were more likely older, female, or have a history of cytomegalovirus, hepatitis C, or diabetes ( P <0.01, all). The lowest urgency patients had longer waitlist times and under the new allocation system received organs from shorter distances with decreased ischemic times (178 miles versus 269 miles, 3.1 versus 3.5 hours; P <0.001, all). There was no difference in posttransplantation survival ( P <0.01, all). Conclusions Patients transplanted as lower urgency receive hearts from donors with additional comorbidities compared with higher urgency patients, but outcomes are similar at 1 year.

Background Patients with obesity and advanced heart failure face unique challenges on the path to heart transplantation. There are limited data on waitlist and transplantation outcomes in this population. We aimed to evaluate the impact of obesity on heart transplantation outcomes, and to investigate the effects of the new organ procurement and transplantation network allocation system in this population. Methods and Results This cohort study of adult patients listed for heart transplant used the United Network for Organ Sharing database from January 2006 to June 2020. Patients were stratified by body mass index (BMI) (18.5-24.9, 25-29.9, 30-34.9, 35-39.9, and 40-55 kg/m 2 ). Recipient characteristics and donor characteristics were analyzed. Outcomes analyzed included transplantation, waitlist death, and posttransplant death. BMI 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m 2 was used as the reference compared with progressive BMI categories. There were 46 645 patients listed for transplantation. Patients in higher BMI categories were less likely to be transplanted. The lowest likelihood of transplantation was in the highest BMI category, 40 to 55 kg/m 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.19 [0.05-0.76]; P =0.02). Patients within the 2 highest BMI categories had higher risk of posttransplantation death (HR, 1.29; P <0.001 and HR, 1.65; P <0.001, respectively). Left ventricular assist devices among patients in obese BMI categories decreased after the allocation system change ( P <0.001, all). After the change, patients with obesity were more likely to undergo transplantation (BMI 30-35 kg/m 2 : HR, 1.31 [1.18-1.46], P <0.001; BMI 35-55 kg/m 2 : HR, 1.29 [1.06-1.58]; P =0.01). Conclusions There was an inverse relationship between BMI and likelihood of heart transplantation. Higher BMI was associated with increased risk of posttransplant mortality. Patients with obesity were more likely to undergo transplantation under the revised allocation system.

Background: It remains unclear why depression is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). We examine the relationship between depression and clinical outcomes among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction managed with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT)., Methods and Results: Using the GUIDE-IT trial, 894 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction were stratified according to a history of depression, and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to examine the association with outcomes. There were 140 patients (16%) in the overall cohort who had depression. They tended to be female (29% vs 46%, P < .001) and White (67% vs 53%, P = .002). There were no differences in GDMT rates at baseline or at 90 days; nor were there differences in target doses of these therapies achieved at 90 days (NS, all). amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels at all time points were similar between the cohorts (P > .05, all). After adjustment, depression was associated with all-cause hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.81, P < .01), cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.07-2.68, P = .025), and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.03-2.32, P = .039)., Conclusions: Depression impacts clinical outcomes in HF regardless of GDMT intensity and amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. This finding underscores the need for a focus on mental health in parallel to achievement of optimal GDMT in these patients., Trial Registration: NCT01685840, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01685840., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine patterns of care and clinical outcomes among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the United States and Canada., Background: In the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment) trial, the use of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide-guided titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) was compared with usual care alone for patients with HFrEF in the United States and Canada. It remains unknown whether the country of enrollment had an impact on outcomes or GDMT use., Methods: A total of 894 patients at 45 sites across the United States and Canada with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) were enrolled in the trial. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates stratified by country of enrollment were developed for the trial outcomes, and log-rank testing was compared between the groups. GDMT use and titration were also compared., Results: U.S. patients were more likely to be younger, to be Black, to have higher body mass index, and to have histories of defibrillator placement or sleep apnea. Use of β-blockers was significantly higher in Canada at baseline (99.3% vs. 94.0%; p = 0.01) and 6 months (99.0% vs. 94.1%; p = 0.04), and use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was higher in Canada at 6 months (68.3% vs. 55.1%; p = 0.01). Canadian patients were less likely to experience the primary study endpoint (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45 to 0.93; p = 0.01) due to decreased rates of HF hospitalization (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.86; p = 0.003). The differences in outcomes were driven by increased heart failure hospitalization among U.S. Black patients., Conclusions: In GUIDE-IT, patients with HFrEF in Canada were significantly less likely to be hospitalized for heart failure. Differences in GDMT use, along with differences in sociodemographics and care delivery structures, may contribute to these differences, highlighting the importance of increasing diversity in clinical trials. (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment [GUIDE-IT]; NCT01685840)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The GUIDE-IT trial was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Additional substudies were supported by Roche Diagnostics. The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the present study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr. Januzzi is a trustee of the American College of Cardiology; has received grant support from Roche Diagnostics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and Applied Therapeutics; has received consulting income from Abbott, Janssen, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and participates in clinical endpoint committees and data and safety monitoring boards for Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, CVRx, Janssen, MyoKardia, and Takeda. Dr. Desai works under contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures used for public reporting and pay-for-performance programs; and has received research grants and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, The Medicines Company, Relypsa, Novartis, and SCPharmaceuticals. Dr. Felker has received research grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, Amgen, Bayer Merck, Cytokinetics, and Myokardia; has acted as a consultant to Novartis, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Cardionomic, Innolife, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbott, Eidos Therapeutics, Reprieve, and Sequana; and has served on clinical endpoint committees and data and safety monitoring boards for Amgen, Merck, Medtronic, EBR Systems, V-Wave, LivaNova, and Rocket Pharma. Dr. Fiuzat has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. O’Connor has received grant support from Roche Diagnostics and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ahmad is a consultant for Amgen, Cytokinetics, Relypsa, and Novartis. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The goal of this study was to describe outcomes of patients with bridge to heart transplantation (BTT) after changes were made to the donor heart allocation system., Background: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been used as a BTT. On October 18, 2018, the donor heart allocation system in the United States was updated., Methods: This study identified adults in the United Network for Organ Sharing database with durable, continuous-flow LVAD at listing or implanted while listed between April 2017 and April 2020. Baseline recipient and donor characteristics, waitlist survival, and post-transplantation outcomes were compared pre- and post-allocation system change., Results: A total of 1,794 patients met inclusion criteria: 983 in the pre-change period and 814 afterward. The number of patients listed with LVAD decreased nationally over time from 102 in April 2017 to 12 in April 2020 (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with LVAD at time of transplant decreased from 47% to 14%. Before the change, the majority were Status 1A (75.8%) at transplantation; afterward, most were Status 2/3 (67.8%). Transplantation rates were not different (85.4% vs. 83.6%; p = 0.225), but waitlist time decreased in the post period (82 vs. 65 days; p = 0.004). Donors were more likely to be high risk (39.0% vs. 32.2%; p = 0.005), and both ischemic times and distance traveled increased (3.4 h vs. 3.1 h; p < 0.001; 199 miles vs. 82 miles; p < 0.001). Waitlist survival did not change, but post-transplantation survival was worse in patients with BTT post-change (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The number of patients with BTT on the transplant list decreased steadily and dramatically after the allocation system change. Although time to transplant decreased, there was an increase in post-transplant mortality. These data suggest that the risks and benefits of LVAD implantation as a BTT have changed under the new allocation system and that the appropriate indication for this treatment strategy warrants a re-evaluation., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr. Mulligan is the elected President of UNOS/OPTN and Chair of the Advisory Council on Transplantation to the Secretary of HHS to lead the oversight and policy development of organ transplantation in the United States. Dr. Formica is the President of the American Society of Transplantation; member of the OPTN/UNOS Membership and Professional Standards Committee; and member of the Visiting Committee for the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Dr. Rogers is the President-Elect of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Results and views in this paper do not represent views of these organizations. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate effects of atrial fibrillation (AF) on cardiac biomarkers and outcomes in a trial population of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction treated with optimal guideline-directed medical therapy., Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of 894 patients in the Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker-Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure (GUIDE-IT) trial (January 2013-July 2016). Patients were stratified by AF status and compared with regard to guideline-directed medical therapy use, longitudinal levels of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and outcomes including HF hospitalization and mortality., Results: After adjustment, AF was associated with a significant increase in the risk of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.61; P =0.04) and HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.68; P =.03) but with no difference in mortality during a median 15 months of follow-up. There were no significant differences in medication treatment between those with and those without AF. At 90 days, a higher proportion of patients with AF (89.4% vs 81.5%; P =.002) had an NT-proBNP level above 1000 pg/mL (to convert NT-proBNP values to pmol/L, multiply by 0.1182), and AF patients had higher NT-proBNP levels at all time points through 2 years of follow-up., Conclusion: Among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, prevalent AF was associated with higher NT-proBNP concentrations through 2 years of follow-up and higher risk for HF hospitalization despite no substantial differences in medical therapy., (© 2021 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Patients with comorbid conditions have a higher risk of mortality with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection, but the impact on heart failure patients living near a disease hotspot is unknown. Therefore, we sought to characterize the prevalence and outcomes of COVID-19 in a live registry of heart failure patients across an integrated health care system in Connecticut., Methods: In this retrospective analysis, the Yale Heart Failure Registry (NCT04237701) that includes 26,703 patients with heart failure across a 6-hospital integrated health care system in Connecticut was queried on April 16th, 2020 for all patients tested for COVID-19. Sociodemographic and geospatial data as well as, clinical management, respiratory failure, and patient mortality were obtained via the real-time registry. Data on COVID-19 specific care was extracted by retrospective chart review., Results: COVID-19 testing was performed on 900 symptomatic patients, comprising 3.4% of the Yale Heart Failure Registry (N = 26,703). Overall, 206 (23%) were COVID- 19+. As compared to COVID-19-, these patients were more likely to be older, black, have hypertension, coronary artery disease, and were less likely to be on renin angiotensin blockers (P<0.05, all). COVID-19- patients tended to be more diffusely spread across the state whereas COVID-19+ were largely clustered around urban centers. 20% of COVID-19+ patients died, and age was associated with increased risk of death [OR 1.92 95% CI (1.33-2.78); P<0.001]. Among COVID-19+ patients who were ≥85 years of age rates of hospitalization were 87%, rates of death 36%, and continuing hospitalization 62% at time of manuscript preparation., Conclusions: In this real-world snapshot of COVID-19 infection among a large cohort of heart failure patients, we found that a small proportion had undergone testing. Patients found to be COVID-19+ tended to be black with multiple comorbidities and clustered around lower socioeconomic status communities. Elderly COVID-19+ patients were very likely to be admitted to the hospital and experience high rates of mortality., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

In recent years, the mechanisms and clinical significance of vascular calcification have been increasingly investigated. For over a century, however, pathologists have recognized that vascular calcification is a form of heterotopic ossification. In this review, we aim to describe the pathology and molecular processes of vascular ossification, to characterize its clinical significance and treatment options, and to elucidate areas that require further investigation. The molecular mechanisms of vascular ossification involve the activation of regulators including bone morphogenic proteins and chondrogenic transcription factors and the loss of mineralization inhibitors like fetuin-A and pyrophosphate. Although few studies have examined the gross pathology of vascular ossification, the presence of these molecular regulators and evidence of microfractures and cartilage have been demonstrated on heart valves and atherosclerotic plaques. These changes are often triggered by common inflammatory and metabolic disorders like diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and chronic kidney disease. The increasing prevalence of these diseases warrants further research into the clinical significance of vascular ossification and future treatment options., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)