Search

Background and Aims In patients with chronic heart failure (HF), the MONITOR-HF trial demonstrated the efficacy of pulmonary artery (PA)-guided HF therapy over standard of care in improving quality of life and reducing HF hospitalizations and mean PA pressure. This study aimed to evaluate the consistency of these benefits in relation to clinically relevant subgroups. Methods The effect of PA-guided HF therapy was evaluated in the MONITOR-HF trial among predefined subgroups based on age, sex, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, left ventricular ejection fraction, HF aetiology, cardiac resynchronization therapy, and implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Outcome measures were based upon significance in the main trial and included quality of life-, clinical-, and PA pressure endpoints, and were assessed for each subgroup. Differential effects in relation to the subgroups were assessed with interaction terms. Both unadjusted and multiple testing adjusted interaction terms were presented. Results The effects of PA monitoring on quality of life, clinical events, and PA pressure were consistent in the predefined subgroups, without any clinically relevant heterogeneity within or across all endpoint categories (all adjusted interaction P -values were non-significant). In the unadjusted analysis of the primary endpoint quality-of-life change, weak trends towards a less pronounced effect in older patients (P interaction =.03; adjusted P interaction =.33) and diabetics (P interaction =.01; adjusted P interaction =.06) were observed. However, these interaction effects did not persist after adjusting for multiple testing. Conclusions This subgroup analysis confirmed the consistent benefits of PA-guided HF therapy observed in the MONITOR-HF trial across clinically relevant subgroups, highlighting its efficacy in improving quality of life, clinical, and PA pressure endpoints in chronic HF patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Heart failure (HF) is a chronic and progressive syndrome associated with a poor prognosis. While it may seem intuitive that the risk of adverse outcomes varies across the different stages of HF, an overview of these risks is lacking. This study aims to determine the risk of all‐cause mortality and HF hospitalizations associated with new‐onset HF, chronic HF (CHF), worsening HF (WHF), and advanced HF. Methods and results: We performed a systematic review of observational studies from 2012 to 2022 using five different databases. The primary outcomes were 30‐day and 1‐year all‐cause mortality, as well as 1‐year HF hospitalization. Studies were pooled using random effects meta‐analysis, and mixed‐effects meta‐regression was used to compare the different HF groups. Among the 15 759 studies screened, 66 were included representing 862 046 HF patients. Pooled 30‐day mortality rates did not reveal a significant distinction between hospital‐admitted patients, with rates of 10.13% for new‐onset HF and 8.11% for WHF (p = 0.10). However, the 1‐year mortality risk differed and increased stepwise from CHF to advanced HF, with a rate of 8.47% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.24–9.89) for CHF, 21.15% (95% CI 17.78–24.95) for new‐onset HF, 26.84% (95% CI 23.74–30.19) for WHF, and 29.74% (95% CI 24.15–36.10) for advanced HF. Readmission rates for HF at 1 year followed a similar trend. Conclusions: Our meta‐analysis of observational studies confirms the different risk for adverse outcomes across the distinct HF stages. Moreover, it emphasizes the negative prognostic value of WHF as the first progressive stage from CHF towards advanced HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Current heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend to prescribe four drug classes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). A clear challenge exists to adequately implement guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) regarding the sequencing of drugs and timely reaching target dose. It is largely unknown how the paradigm shift from a serial and sequential approach for drug therapy to early parallel application of the four drug classes will be executed in daily clinical practice, as well as the reason clinicians may not adhere to new guidelines. We present the design and rationale for the real‐world TITRATE‐HF study, which aims to assess sequencing strategies for GDMT initiation, dose titration patterns (order and speed), intolerance for GDMT, barriers for implementation, and long‐term outcomes in patients with de novo, chronic, and worsening HF. Methods and results: A total of 4000 patients with HFrEF, HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and HF with improved ejection fraction will be enrolled in >40 Dutch centres with a follow‐up of at least 3 years. Data collection will include demographics, physical examination and vital parameters, electrocardiogram, laboratory measurements, echocardiogram, medication, and quality of life. Detailed information on titration steps will be collected for the four GDMT drug classes. Information will include date, primary reason for change, and potential intolerances. The primary clinical endpoints are HF‐related hospitalizations, HF‐related urgent visits with a need for intravenous diuretics, all‐cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. Conclusions: TITRATE‐HF is a real‐world multicentre longitudinal registry that will provide unique information on contemporary GDMT implementation, sequencing strategies (order and speed), and prognosis in de novo, worsening, and chronic HF patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background We systematically reviewed the literature to answer the following research questions: (1) Does interleukin 6 (IL-6) (receptor) antagonist therapy reduce mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients compared to patients not treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists; and (2) is there an increased risk of side effects in COVID-19 patients treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists compared to patients not treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists? Methods We systematically searched PubMed, PMC PubMed Central, Medline, World Health Organization COVID-19 Database, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, and Academic Search Premier (through 30 June 2020). Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool the risk ratios and risk differences of individual studies. Risk of bias was appraised using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) checklist. Results The search strategy retrieved 743 unique titles, of which 10 studies (all on tocilizumab [TCZ]) comprising 1358 patients were included. Nine of 10 studies were considered to be of high quality. Meta-analysis showed that the TCZ group had lower mortality than the control group. The risk ratio was 0.27 (95% confidence interval [CI],.12–.59) and the risk difference was 12% (95% CI, 4.6%–20%) in favor of the TCZ group. With only a few studies available, there were no differences observed regarding side effects. Conclusions Our results showed that mortality was 12% lower for COVID-19 patients treated with TCZ compared with those not treated with TCZ. The number needed to treat was 11, suggesting that for every 11 (severe) COVID-19 patients treated with TCZ, 1 death is prevented. These results require confirmation by randomized controlled trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]