Search

Aims: The aim of the study was to assess the incidence and predictive factors of the development of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) category during a 1 year follow-up period in a heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patient population managed in a heart failure outpatient clinic., Methods and Results: The study evaluated data from patients enrolled in the Hungarian Heart Failure Registry (HHFR). The incidence and predictive factors of the development of the HFimpEF category after 1 year follow-up were assessed in the group of patients who had HFrEF at baseline. We evaluated the incidence and predictors of the development of HFimpEF after a 1 year follow-up in relation to time since diagnosis of HFrEF in patients diagnosed within 3 months, between 3 months and 1 year, and beyond 1 year. The predictive factors of the development of HFimpEF were analysed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Of the 833 HFrEF patients enrolled in the HHFR, the development of HFimpEF was observed in 162 patients (19.5%) during 1 year follow-up. In the whole patient population, independent predictors of the development of HFimpEF were female gender [odds ratio (OR): 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-2.96; P < 0.05], non-ischaemic aetiology (OR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.15-3.30; P < 0.05), and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) <60 mm (OR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.18-3.51; P < 0.05). The 1 year incidence of HFimpEF decreased in relation to time since diagnosis of HFrEF. The incidence of HFimpEF was 27.1% in patients diagnosed within 3 months, 18.4% in patients diagnosed between 3 months and 1 year, and 12.2% in patients diagnosed beyond 1 year. Non-ischaemic aetiology (OR: 4.76; 95% CI: 1.83-12.4; P < 0.01) and QRS width (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.71-0.94; P < 0.01) for patients diagnosed within 3 months, LVEDD (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.32-0.90; P < 0.05) and left atrial diameter ≤45 mm (OR: 5.44; 95% CI: 1.45-20.4; P < 0.05) for patients diagnosed between 3 months and 1 year, and LVEDD < 67 mm (OR: 2.71; 95% CI: 1.07-6.88; P < 0.05) for patients diagnosed beyond 1 year were found to be independent predictive factors., Conclusions: In our study, in this HFrEF patient population managed in a heart failure outpatient clinic, the 1 year incidence of HFimpEF was found to be ~20%. The 1 year incidence of HFimpEF decreased in relation to time since diagnosis of HFrEF. The most important predictors of the development of HFimpEF were female sex, non-ischaemic aetiology, narrower QRS width, and smaller diameter of the left ventricle and left atrium., (© 2023 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Kidney dysfunction (KD) is a main limiting factor of applying guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and reaching the recommended target doses (TD) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Hypothesis: We aimed to assess the success of optimization, long-term applicability, and adherence of neurohormonal antagonist triple therapy (TT:RASi [ACEi/ARB/ARNI] + βB + MRA) according to the KD after a HF hospitalization and to investigate its impact on prognosis., Methods: The data of 247 real-world, consecutive patients were analyzed who were hospitalized in 2019-2021 for HFrEF and then were followed-up for 1 year. The application and the ratio of reached TD of TT at hospital discharge and at 1 year were assessed comparing KD categories (eGFR: ≥90, 60-89, 45-59, 30-44, <30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ). Moreover, 1-year all-cause mortality and rehospitalization rates in KD subgroups were investigated., Results: Majority of the patients received TT at hospital discharge (77%) and at 1 year (73%). More severe KD led to a lower application ratio (p < .05) of TT (92%, 88%, 80%, 73%, 31%) at discharge and at 1 year (81%, 76%, 76%, 68%, 40%). Patients with more severe KD were less likely (p < .05) to receive TD of MRA (81%, 68%, 78%, 61%, 52%) at discharge and a RASi (53%, 49%, 45%, 21%, 27%) at 1 year. One-year all-cause mortality (14%, 15%, 16%, 33%, 48%, p < .001), the ratio of all-cause rehospitalizations (30%, 35%, 40%, 43%, 52%, p = .028), and rehospitalizations for HF (8%, 13%, 18%, 20%, 38%, p = .001) were significantly higher in more severe KD categories., Conclusions: KD unfavorably affects the application of TT in HFrEF, however poorer mortality and rehospitalization rates among them highlight the role of the conscious implementation and up-titration of GDMT., (© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC.)

(1) Background: Besides the use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), multidisciplinary heart failure (HF) outpatient care (HFOC) is of strategic importance in HFrEF. (2) Methods: Data from 257 hospitalised HFrEF patients between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Application and target doses of GDMT were compared between HFOC and non-HFOC patients at discharge and at 1 year. 1-year all-cause mortality (ACM) and rehospitalisation (ACH) rates were compared using the Cox proportional hazard model. The effect of HFOC on GDMT and on prognosis after propensity score matching (PSM) of 168 patients and the independent predictors of 1-year ACM and ACH were also evaluated. (3) Results: At 1 year, the application of RASi, MRA and triple therapy (TT: RASi + βB + MRA) was higher ( p < 0.05) in the HFOC group, as was the proportion of target doses of ARNI, βB, MRA and TT. After PSM, the composite of 1-year ACM or ACH was more favourable with HFOC (propensity-adjusted HR = 0.625, 95% CI = 0.401-0.974, p = 0.038). Independent predictors of 1-year ACM were age, systolic blood pressure, application of TT and HFOC, while 1-year ACH was influenced by the application of TT. (4) Conclusions: HFOC may positively impact GDMT use and prognosis in HFrEF even within the first year of its initiation.

Introduction: Renal dysfunction is a main limiting factor of applying and up-titrating guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Objective: Our retrospective monocentric observational study aimed to analyse the application ratio of combined neurohormonal antagonist therapy (RASi: ACEI/ARB/ARNI + βB + MRA) and 12-month all-cause mortality differences in terms of renal dysfunction among HFrEF patients hospitalized for heart failure., Method: We retrospectively analysed the cohort of consecutive HFrEF patients, hospitalized at the Heart Failure Unit of our tertiary cardiological centre in 2019-2021. The application ratio of discharge triple therapy (TT) in five groups established on admission eGFR parameters, representing severity of renal dysfunction (eGFR≥90, eGFR = 60-89, eGFR = 45-59, eGFR = 30-44, eGFR<30 ml/min/1.73 m2) was investigated with chi-square test, while 12-month mortality differences were analysed with Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test., Results: 257 patients were included. Median eGFR was 57 (39-75) ml/min/1.73 m2, 54% of patients had eGFR<60 ml/min/1.73 m2. The proportion of patients in eGFR≥90, 60-89, 45-59, 30-44, <30 ml/min/1.73 m2 subgroups was 12%, 34%, 18%, 21%, 15%, respectively. 2% of patients were on dialysis. Even though the application rate of TT was notably high (77%) in the total cohort, more severe renal dysfunction led to a significantly lower implementation rate of TT (94%, 86%, 91%, 70%, 34%; p<0.0001): the application rate of RASi (100%, 98%, 96%, 89%, 50%, p<0.0001), βB (94%, 88%, 96%, 79%, 68%; p = 0.003) and MRA therapy (97%, 99%, 98%, 94%, 82%; p = 0.001) differed significantly. 12-month all-cause mortality was 23% in the whole cohort. Mortality rates were higher in more severe renal dysfunction (3%, 15%, 22%, 31%, 46%; p<0.0001)., Conclusion: Even though the proportion of patients on TT in the whole cohort was remarkably high, renal dysfunction led to a significantly lower application ratio of TT, associating with worse survival. Our results highlight that despite renal dysfunction the application of HFrEF cornerstone pharmacotherapy is essential. Orv Hetil. 2023; 164(35): 1387-1396.

Introduction: Based on recently published randomized controlled trials, cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) seems to be an effective device-based therapeutic option in symptomatic chronic heart failure (HF) (CHF). The aim of the current study was to estimate what proportion of patients with CHF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% could be eligible for CCM based on the inclusion criteria of the FIX-HF-5C trial., Methods: Consecutive patients referred and followed up at our HF clinic due to HF with reduced or mid-range LVEF were retrospectively assessed. After a treatment optimization period of 3-6 months, the inclusion criteria of the FIX-HF-5C trial (New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV, 25% ≤ LVEF ≤45%, QRS <130 ms, and sinus rhythm) were applied to determine the number of patients eligible for CCM., Results: Of the 640 patients who were involved, the proportion of highly symptomatic patients in NYHA class III/IV decreased from 77.0% (n = 493) at baseline to 18.6% (n = 119) after the treatment optimization period (p < 0.001). Mean LVEF increased significantly from 29.0 ± 7.9% to 36.3 ± 9.9% (p < 0.001), while the proportion of patients with 25% ≤ LVEF ≤45% increased from 69.7% (n = 446) to 73.3% (n = 469) (p < 0.001). QRS duration was below 130 ms in 63.1% of patients, while 30.0% of patients had persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation. We found that the eligibility criteria for CCM therapy based on the FIX-HF-5C study were fulfilled for 23.0% (n = 147) of patients at baseline and 5.2% (n = 33) after treatment optimization., Conclusion: This single-center cohort study showed that 5% of patients with CHF and impaired LVEF immediately after treatment optimization fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the FIX-HF-5C study and would be candidates for CCM., (© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Recently published studies suggested that digoxin may increase mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, in the vast majority of former trials serum digoxin concentration (SDC) was not measured and therapy was not SDC-guided., Aim: To assess the impact of SDC-guided digoxin therapy on mortality in HFrEF patients., Methods: Data of 580 HFrEF patients were retrospectively analyzed. In patients on digoxin, SDC was measured every 3 months and digoxin dosage was SDC-guided (target SDC: 0.5-0.9 ng/mL). All-cause mortality of digoxin users and nonusers was compared after propensity score matching (PSM)., Results: After 7.1 ± 4.7 years follow-up period (FUP) all-cause mortality of digoxin users (n = 180) was significantly higher than nonusers (n = 297) (propensity-adjusted HR = 1.430; 95% CI = 1.134-1.804; P = .003). Patients having SDC of 0.9 to 1.1 ng/mL (n = 60) or > 1.1 ng/mL (n = 44) at any time during the FUP had an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.750; 95% CI = 1.257-2.436, P = .001 and HR = 1.687; 95% CI = 1.153-2.466, P = .007), while patients having a maximal SDC < 0.9 ng/mL (n = 76) had similar mortality risk (HR = 1.139; 95% CI = 0.827-1.570, P = .426), compared to digoxin nonusers., Conclusions: According to our propensity-matched analysis, SDC-guided digoxin therapy was associated with increased all-cause mortality in optimally treated HFrEF patients, especially with SDC ≥0.9 ng/mL. These results reinforce the expert opinion that digoxin in HFrEF can only be used among carefully selected patients with close SDC monitoring., (© 2020 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The mortality benefit of transradial primary PCI has been shown by several studies. Previous risk models have not considered access site as a candidate predictor and many of them were developed using low risk populations of randomized trials. We conducted a prospective cohort study to construct and validate an admission risk model including access site as candidate variable for predicting 30-day mortality after primary PCI., Methods: We analyzed data of 1255 patients using variables readily available at presentation. Predictor selection was based on backward logistic regression combined with bootstrap resampling. The model has been validated internally and temporally externally., Results: Thirty-day mortality was independently associated with older age, faster heart rate, need for life support on or prior to admission, and femoral access while it was inversely related to systolic blood pressure. ROC curve analysis revealed high discriminatory power, which was preserved in the validation set (c-statistic: 0.88 and 0.87, respectively). For the new score the acronym ALPHA (Age, Life support, Pressure, Heart rate, Access site) has been coined. Compared with previous models, our score achieved the highest c-statistic (0.87) followed by the GRACE 2.0 (0.86), APEX-AMI (0.86), and CADILLAC (0.85) models, the other scoring systems (TIMI, Zwolle, and PAMI) performed less well. The ALPHA, GRACE 2.0, APEX-AMI, and CADILLAC models predicted 30-day mortality better than the PAMI score (p=0.005, 0.004, 0.01, and 0.02, respectively)., Conclusions: Using this tool, mortality risk may be precisely assessed at admission and patients who may benefit most from transradial access may be identified., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Verapamil is traditionally applied prophylactically in transradial procedures to prevent radial artery spasm. However, verapamil may have side effects and is contraindicated in some clinical settings., Methods and Results: During an investigator-initiated, randomized, double-blind trial, we evaluated the need for preventive verapamil administration. After vascular access was established, patients received either 5 mg verapamil (n=297) or placebo (n=294). We compared the rate of access site conversions as primary end point using a superiority margin of 5%. Occurrence of code breaks (composite of conversions and unplanned use of verapamil), overall verapamil use, procedural and fluoroscopic times, contrast volume, and subjective pain were investigated as secondary end points. The rate of access site conversions was not different in the 2 arms (placebo 1.7% versus verapamil 0.7%, P=0.28, difference 1.0%, 95% CI for the difference -1.1% to 3.3%). Proportion of code breaks was similar in the 2 groups (3.4% versus 1.3%, P=0.11), whereas overall verapamil use was markedly lower in the placebo arm (2.0% versus 100%, P<0.0001). Procedural time (median [IQR] 16.0 minutes [9.0 to 30.0 minutes] versus 17.0 minutes [10.0 to 31.0 minutes], P=0.37), fluoroscopic time (4.4 minutes [2.1 to 9.6 minutes] versus 4.8 minutes [2.4 to 10.7 minutes], P=0.28), contrast volume (72.5 mL [48.0 to 146.0 mL] versus 75.5 mL [47.0 to 156.5 mL], P=0.74), and pain score (P for trend=0.12) were comparable in the 2 groups., Conclusions: The preventive use of verapamil may be unnecessary for transradial procedures. The omission of prophylactic verapamil may not only reduce the rate of potential complications related to the drug but also allow the safe extension of the transradial method to those with contraindications to verapamil., Clinical Trial Registration Url: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01402427.