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

AimsHeart failure (HF) remains a major public health problem with increasing prevalence in China. This study evaluated the clinical performance and quality measures for HF management to identify gaps in the standardization of care for patients hospitalized for HF in China.Methods and resultsFollowing the results of China-HF stage I (2012-2015), the second stage of the China-HF was launched in 2017. Among 113 hospitals with ≥100 cases, the China-HF Stage II assessed the quality of care measures for HF and compared results with previous data in China and the US-based Get with The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registries. In total, 34 938 patients hospitalized with HF were enrolled from January 2017 to October 2020. Echocardiographic left ventricular function and natriuretic peptide test were performed in 93.7% and 93.0% of the cases, respectively. Adherence to standardized guidelines in China-HF stage II was higher than that in the China-HF stage I, but generally lower than GWTG-HF registry with 78.2% of eligible patients was prescribed oral diuretics, 78.7% renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors, and 82.2% beta-blockers. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization devices were implanted in 3.9% and 14.6%, respectively. In contrast, the proportion of eligible patients discharged with spironolactone (87.8%) was higher than GWTG-HF. The median length of hospitalization was 9 (6, 12) days, and 938 (2.8%) patients died or withdrew from treatment during hospitalization.ConclusionsDespite significant improvements in the use of guideline-recommended testing and therapy, there remain major gaps in quality of care for patients hospitalized for HF in China that are generally larger than gaps observed in the United States.

The majority of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs) test interventions in selected patient populations under explicitly protocol-defined settings. Although these 'explanatory' trial designs optimize conditions to test the efficacy and safety of an intervention, they limit the generalizability of trial findings in broader clinical settings. The concept of 'pragmatism' in RCTs addresses this concern by providing counterbalance to the more idealized situation underpinning explanatory RCTs and optimizing effectiveness over efficacy. The central tenets of pragmatism in RCTs are to test interventions in routine clinical settings, with patients who are representative of broad clinical practice, and to reduce the burden on investigators and participants by minimizing the number of trial visits and the intensity of trial-based testing. Pragmatic evaluation of interventions is particularly important in cardiovascular diseases, where the risk of death among patients has remained fairly stable over the past few decades despite the development of new therapeutic interventions. Pragmatic RCTs can help to reveal the 'real-world' effectiveness of therapeutic interventions and elucidate barriers to their implementation. In this Review, we discuss the attributes of pragmatism in RCT design, conduct and interpretation as well as the general need for increased pragmatism in cardiovascular RCTs. We also summarize current challenges and potential solutions to the implementation of pragmatism in RCTs and highlight selected ongoing and completed cardiovascular RCTs with pragmatic trial designs.

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)

AimsRecent trials have evaluated sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure (HF). We sought to assess the robustness of findings from these trials using the fragility index (FI).Methods and resultsFragility index is defined as the minimum number of patients that must be moved from the 'non-event' to the 'event' group to turn a statistically significant result to non-significant. In addition to FI, fragility quotient [(FQ); FI divided by the sample size] was calculated to assess the proportion of events that must be moved to change the significance. For statistically non-significant outcomes, reverse fragility index (RFI) and reverse fragility quotient (RFQ) were calculated. Robustness of findings after pooling data from all three trials was also assessed. A robust reduction in first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality was seen with dapagliflozin (FI = 62 and FQ = 0.013), empagliflozin (FI = 50 and FQ = 0.013), and sotagliflozin (FI = 60 and FQ = 0.049). Dapagliflozin nominally improved all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, with modest FI (n = 8 and 5) and FQ (0.002 and 0.001). Empagliflozin and sotagliflozin did not demonstrate statistically significant reductions in all-cause mortality, with modest RFI (empagliflozin: RFI = 26 and RFQ = 0.007; sotagliflozin: RFI = 6 and RFQ = 0.005). A similar trend was seen with cardiovascular mortality (empagliflozin: RFI = 24 and RFQ = 0.006; sotagliflozin: RFI = 7 and RFQ = 0.006). Upon meta-analysis, the result for first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality was robust (FI = 95 and FQ = 0.010). The reductions in all-cause (FI = 12 and FQ = 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (FI = 9 and FQ = 0.001), while statistically significant, were fragile.ConclusionImprovement in the composite outcome of first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death was highly concordant and robust across sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor trials. In contrast, secondary endpoints of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were statistically fragile, underscoring the need to power trials for mortality to fully understand the benefit of therapies on fatal events.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have recently been recommended as a foundational therapy for patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) because of their favourable effects on mortality, clinical events and quality of life. While clinical practice guidelines have recommended dapagliflozin or empagliflozin in all patients with HFrEF, or sotagliflozin in those with HFrEF and concomitant diabetes, the timing and practical integration of these drugs in clinical practice is less well defined. We propose that these drugs are candidates for early, upfront administration to patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF and for patients hospitalized with HF. Growing evidence has established early benefits, with clinically meaningful reductions in clinical events that reach statistical significance within days to weeks, following dapagliflozin, empagliflozin or, in diabetic patients, sotagliflozin initiation. Secondly, although major clinical trials have tested these drugs in patients already receiving background HF therapy, secondary analyses showed that their efficacy is independent of that. Third, SGLT2 inhibitors are generally safe and well tolerated, with clinical trial data reporting minimal effects on blood pressure, glycaemia-related adverse events, and no excess in acute kidney injury. Rather, they exert renal protective effects and reduce risk of hyperkalaemia, properties that favour initiation, tolerance and persistence of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. This review supports the early initiation of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin (or sotagliflozin limited to patients with diabetes) to rapidly improve clinical outcome and quality of life of HFrEF patients.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor therapy is well suited for initiation during the heart failure hospitalization, owing to clinical benefits that accrue rapidly within days to weeks, a strong safety and tolerability profile, minimal to no effects on blood pressure, and no excess risk of adverse kidney events. There is no evidence to suggest that deferring initiation to the outpatient setting accomplishes anything beneficial. Instead, there is compelling evidence that deferring in-hospital initiation exposes patients to excess risk of early postdischarge clinical worsening and death. Lessons from other heart failure with reduced ejection fraction therapies highlight that deferring initiation of guideline-recommended medications to the U.S. outpatient setting carries a >75% chance they will not be initiated within the next year. Recognizing that 1 in 4 patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure die or are readmitted within 30 days, clinicians should embrace the in-hospital period as an optimal time to initiate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor therapy and treat this population with the urgency it deserves.

Background Sacubitril/Valsartan has been highly efficacious in randomized trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in real-world US practice is unclear. Methods and Results This study included Medicare beneficiaries age ≥65 years who were hospitalized for HFrEF ≤40% in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry between October 2015 and December 2018, and eligible for sacubitril/valsartan. Associations between discharge prescription of sacubitril/valsartan and clinical outcomes were assessed after inverse probability of treatment weighting and adjustment for other HFrEF medications. Overall, 1551 (10.9%) patients were discharged on sacubitril/valsartan. Of those not prescribed sacubitril/valsartan, 7857 (62.0%) were prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker. Over 12-month follow-up, compared with a discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004) but not all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P=0.55) or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91-1.18; P=0.59). Patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan versus those without a prescription had lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79; 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

AimsDiscontinuation or non-publication of trials may hinder scientific progress and violates the commitment made to research participants. We sought to identify the prevalence of discontinuation and non-publication of heart failure (HF) clinical trials.Methods and resultsWe conducted a cross-sectional search of ClinicalTrials.gov to identify all completed and discontinued HF clinical trials. We limited our search to only include trials that were completed by 31 December 2017. Trials were investigated to identify reasons for discontinuation. Informative termination was defined as trial termination due to safety or efficacy concerns. Data pertaining to the trial phase, funding, intervention, enrolment, and trial completion date were extracted for each trial. A total of 572 trials were included. Of these, 21% (n = 118) were discontinued before completion. Patient accrual was the most frequently cited reason (n = 42; 36%) for trial discontinuation, followed by informative termination (n = 16; 14%) and funding (n = 14; 12%). Overall, 24 780 patients were enrolled in trials that were terminated. Of trials that were completed and not terminated, nearly one-third (n = 131/454; 29%) were not published. Seventy-nine (24%) trials were published within 12 months, 192 (59%) within 24 months, and 252 (78%) trials within 36 months.ConclusionsDiscontinuation and non-publication of HF trials is common. This raises ethical concerns towards participants who volunteer for research and are exposed to potential risks, inconvenience, and discomfort without furthering scientific progress.

AimsThis study aimed to investigate the reporting of subgroup analyses in heart failure (HF) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to determine the strength and credibility of subgroup claims.Methods and resultsAll primary HF RCTs published in nine high-impact journals from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2017 were included. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify factors that may favour the reporting of results in specific subgroups. Strength of the subgroup effect claimed was classified into (i) strong, (ii) likely, or (iii) suggestive. Credibility of subgroup claim was scored using a pre-specified 10 pointer criteria. Of the 261 HF RCTs studied, 107 (41%) reported subgroup analyses. Twenty-five (23%) RCTs claimed a subgroup effect for the primary outcome of which six (24%) made a strong claim, eight (32%) claimed a likely effect, and 11 (44%) suggested a possible subgroup effect. Seven of the 25 RCTs did not employ interaction testing for subgroup claims of the primary outcome. Three out of 10 pre-specified credibility criteria were satisfied by half of the trials. Fourteen trials justified the choice of subgroups, and 10 explicitly stated they were underpowered to detect differences within subgroups. Source of funding did not influence the frequency of reporting subgroup analyses (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.78-3.62, P = 0.52).ConclusionsAppropriate credibility criteria were rarely met even by HF RCTs that held strong subgroup claims. Subgroup analyses should be pre-specified, be adequately powered, present interaction terms, and be replicated in independent data before being integrated into clinical decision making.

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.