Search

Background: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As pre-specified secondary endpoints, the TRANSFORM-HF trial compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. Methods: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2,859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on pre-specified secondary endpoints, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS) (assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months. Results: Baseline data were available for 2,787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2,624 (91.8%) patients for PHQ-2. Median baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12-months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P =0.96) or the proportion of patients with PHQ-2 score ≥3 (15.1% vs 13.2%: P =0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1-month (adjusted mean difference 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P =0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P =0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent prior to hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization. Conclusions: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, prior loop diuretic use, and baseline health status.

Randomized clinical trials are the foundation of evidence-based medicine and central to practice guidelines and patient care decisions. Nonetheless, randomized trials in heart failure (HF) populations have become increasingly difficult to conduct and are frequently associated with slow patient enrollment, highly selected populations, extensive data collection, and high costs. The traditional model for HF trials has become particularly difficult to execute in the United States, where challenges to site-based research have frequently led to modest U.S. representation in global trials. In this context, the TRANSFORM-HF (Torsemide Comparison with Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) trial aims to overcome traditional trial challenges and compare the effects of torsemide versus furosemide among patients with HF in the United States. Loop diuretic agents are regularly used by most patients with HF and practice guidelines recommend optimal use of diuretic agents as key to a successful treatment strategy. Long-time clinical experience has contributed to dominant use of furosemide for loop diuretic therapy, although preclinical and small clinical studies suggest potential advantages of torsemide. However, due to the lack of appropriately powered clinical outcome studies, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that torsemide should be routinely recommended over furosemide. Given this gap in knowledge and the fundamental role of loop diuretic agents in HF care, the TRANSFORM-HF trial was designed as a prospective, randomized, event-driven, pragmatic, comparative-effectiveness study to definitively compare the effect of a treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on long-term mortality, hospitalization, and patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. (TRANSFORM-HF: ToRsemide compArisoN With furoSemide FORManagement of Heart Failure [TRANSFORM-HF]; NCT03296813 )

The prognostic importance of Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade (EHMRG) score in assessing short term mortality in Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) patients has been validated in the past, however, few studies have examined acuity patterns in the CHF population across healthcare settings. We aim to understand acuity patterns of CHF patients across a large health system for better resource utilization.Retrospective chart review of adult patients with acute CHF in a large Metropolitan health system was performed in 3 community and 3 academic hospitals between January 2014 and January 2016. We collected demographic data, setting type, and calculated EHMRG score. Descriptive analysis of each hospital and mixed-effects negative binomial models were created to see patterns of acuity versus hospital volume.A total of 3312 Emergency Department (ED) visits among 2490 unique patients were included. Academic and community hospitals had 2168 patients and 1144 patients, respectively. Hospitals with higher volume treated a large amount of lower acuity patients. Academic hospitals had 30% of CHF ED visits in the lowest EHMRG quantile versus 20% at community hospital (p 0.0001). Compared to EHMRG quantile 5b, hospital volume was 17%, 8% and 5% higher in quantile 1, 2, and 3 with a p-value less than 0.05 (IRR = 1.17; 1.08;1.05), respectively, but were not significant compared to quantile 4 and 5a. Revisit rates were lower in academic hospitals; admission rates were lower in community hospitals.Academic hospitals had a higher number of Acute Heart Failure (AHF) patients, larger number of low acuity patients, higher admission rates, but less revisit rates to the ED as compared to community hospitals. We suggest acuity specific interventions will help decrease admission and revisit rates.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been proposed for the evaluation of patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH). However, there is no consensus on the optimal method for PH diagnosis using CMR.To compare the diagnostic ability of multiple CMR-derived indices for the detection of PH as determined by right heart catheterization (RHC).A total of 185 patients with known or suspected chronic PH who underwent cardiac CMR and RHC in ≤15 days were included. PH was defined as a mean pulmonary artery (PA) pressure ≥25 mmHg. Right ventricular (RV) volumes, RV ejection fraction (RVEF), PA areas, and PA average blood flow velocity were quantified with CMR. A novel index α was defined as the ratio between minimal PA area and RVEF.According to the RHC, PH was present in 152 patients. All CMR-derived parameters correlated with the degree of mean PA pressure, with α having the highest correlation coefficient (r=0.61, p0.001). Correlations were also highest for α in the patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH; r=0.55, p0.001) and non-PAH subgroup (r=0.61, p0.001). Diagnostic accuracy for the detection of PH, based on receiver operating curve analysis, was best for α (area under the curve=0.95). A cutoff value of 7.2 demonstrated a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 88%.An easily-obtainable and novel CMR index α that combines geometrical and functional information of the PA and the RV allows for the noninvasive diagnosis of PH with high accuracy, above other common CMR-derived parameters.

Background Scarce literature exists describing the patterns of readmission after continuous flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation. These carry significant cost and quality of life implications. We sought to describe the etiology and pattern of readmission among patients receiving CF-LVADs. Methods Frequency, reason, urgency, and duration of readmission as well as freedom from readmission were examined in a retrospective review of our institutional experience. As an indirect means of quality of life, the ratio of days out of hospital (OOH)/days alive with device was calculated. Results From 2006 to 2011, 71 adult patients implanted with a CF device were included. Indication for device implantation was bridge to transplant (n = 19), potential bridge to transplant (n = 25), or destination therapy (n = 27). Length of support averaged 359 days. Total support time was 69.7 patient years. One hundred fifty-five readmissions accounted for a total of 1,659 hospital days. Fifty-six patients were readmitted during the study period. Median time to first readmission was 48 days (range 2 to 663 days). Median length of stay was 5 days. The single most common etiology for readmission was gastrointestinal bleeding accounting for 14% of readmissions. Readmissions were urgent (87%), elective (10%), or life-threatening (3%). Patients on the average enjoyed 92% of their time OOH. Conclusions Patients undergoing CF-LVAD support are often readmitted within 6 months of discharge. Readmissions tend to be of short duration and the most common reason is for gastrointestinal bleeding. Importantly, following discharge after implant procedure, 51 patients spent at least 90% of days OOH.