PREDICT HF: Risk stratification in advanced heart failure using novel hemodynamic parameters.

BACKGROUND: Invasive hemodynamics are fundamental in assessing patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Several novel hemodynamic parameters have been studied; however, the relative prognostic potential remains ill-defined. HYPOTHESIS: Advanced hemodynamic parameters provide additional prognostication beyond the standard hemodynamic assessment. METHODS: Patients from the PRognostic Evaluation During Invasive CaTheterization for Heart Failure (PREDICT-HF) registry who underwent right heart catheterization (RHC) were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was survival to orthotopic heart transplant (OHT) or durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or death within 6 months of RHC. RESULTS: Of 846 patients included, 176 (21%) met the primary endpoint. In a multivariate model that included traditional hemodynamic variables, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) (OR: 1.10, 1.04-1.15, p < .001), and cardiac index (CI) (OR: 0.86, 0.81-0.92, p < .001) were shown to be predictive of adverse outcomes. In a separate multivariate model that incorporated advanced hemodynamic parameters, cardiac power output (CPO) (OR: 0.76, 0.71-0.83, p < .001), aortic pulsatility index (API) (OR: 0.94, 0.91-0.96, p < .001), and pulmonary artery pulsatility index (OR: 1.02, 1.00-1.03, p .027) were all significantly associated with the primary outcome. Positively concordant API and CPO afforded the best freedom from the endpoint (94.7%), whilst negatively concordant API and CPO had the worst freedom from the endpoint (61.5%, p < .001). Those with discordant API and CPO had similar freedom from the endpoint. CONCLUSION: The advanced hemodynamic parameters API and CPO are independently associated with death or the need for OHT or LVAD within 6 months. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these parameters and elucidate their role in patients with advanced HF.

Variation in Hemodynamic Assessment and Interpretation: A Call to Standardize the Right Heart Catheterization.

BACKGROUND: Invasive hemodynamic measurement via right heart catheterization has shown divergent data in its role in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) and cardiogenic shock. We hypothesized that variation in data acquisition technique and interpretation might contribute to these observations. We sought to assess differences in hemodynamic acquisition and interpretation by operator subspecialty as well as level of experience. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual-level responses to how physicians both collect and interpret hemodynamic data at the time of right heart catheterization was solicited via a survey distributed to international professional societies in HF and interventional cardiology. Data were stratified both by operator subspecialty (HF specialists or interventional cardiologists [IC]) and operator experience (early career [≤10 years from training] or late career [>10 years from training]) to determine variations in clinical practice. For the sensitivity analysis, we also look at differences in each subgroup. A total of 261 responses were received. There were 141 clinicians (52%) who self-identified as HF specialists, 99 (38%) identified as IC, and 20 (8%) identified as other. There were 142 early career providers (54%) and late career providers (119 [46%]). When recording hemodynamic values, there was considerable variation in practice patterns, regardless of subspecialty or level of experience for the majority of the intracardiac variables. There was no agreement or mild agreement among HF and IC as to when to record right atrial pressures or pulmonary capillary wedge pressures. HF cardiologists were more likely to routinely measure both Fick and thermodilution cardiac output compared with IC (51% vs 29%, P < .001), something mirrored in early career vs later career cardiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation exists between the acquisition and interpretation of right heart catheterization measurements between HF and IC, as well as those early and late in their careers. With the growth of the heart team approach to management of patients in cardiogenic shock, standardization of both assessment and management practices is needed.