Cardiac Rehabilitation in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Pathophysiology, Benefits and Precautions.

Heart failure (HF) is a highly comorbid condition associated with significant mortality, despite advances in current medical management. Patients suffering from HF represent a high needs disease care population in whom structured, long-term chronic disease care delivery models, such as cardiac rehabilitation (CR), have been shown to be highly cost effective in reducing hospitalizations and improving quality of life. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is affecting a growing number of Canadians and health care costs secondary to this condition are rising, with further increases over the next decade to be expected. Cardiac rehabilitation is a guideline-directed medical therapy for patients living with HFrEF, and with increasing numbers of HF patients across the World, there is a prescient need to revisit the benefits, safety, and the prescription of this intervention for the health care professionals treating this condition. Certainly, there is a clinical need for HF practitioners to better understand the pathophysiological benefits of CR with respect to exercise training, as well as the prudent precautions required to facilitate the safe delivery of this highly cost-effective patient intervention.

2022 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guideline for Use of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and SGLT2 Inhibitors for Cardiorenal Risk Reduction in Adults.

This guideline synthesizes clinical trial data supporting the role of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) for treatment of heart failure (HF), chronic kidney disease, and for optimizing prevention of cardiorenal morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. It is on the basis of a companion systematic review and meta-analysis guided by a focused set of population, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO) questions that address priority cardiorenal end points. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and a modified Delphi process were used. We encourage comprehensive assessment of cardiovascular (CV) patients with routine measurement of estimated glomerular filtration rate, urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c), and documentation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) when evaluating symptoms of HF. For patients with HF, we recommend integration of SGLT2i with other guideline-directed pharmacotherapy for the reduction of hospitalization for HF when LVEF is > 40% and for the reduction of all-cause and CV mortality, hospitalization for HF, and renal protection when LVEF is ≤ 40%. In patients with albuminuric chronic kidney disease, we recommend integration of SGLT2i with other guideline-directed pharmacotherapy to reduce all-cause and CV mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for HF. We provide recommendations and algorithms for the selection of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2i for patients with type 2 diabetes and either established atherosclerotic CV disease or risk factors for atherosclerotic CV disease to reduce all-cause and CV mortality, nonfatal stroke, and for the prevention of hospitalization for HF and decline in renal function. We offer practical advice for safe use of these diabetes-associated agents with profound cardiorenal benefits.

Treatment Inertia in Patients With Familial Hypercholesterolemia.

Background We studied care gap in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) with respect to lipid-lowering therapy. Methods and Results We enrolled patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or FH and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol >2.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. During follow-up physicians received online reminders of treatment recommendations of 2009 patients (median age, 63 years, 42% women), 52.4% had CVD only, 31.7% FH only, and 15.9% both CVD and FH. Patients with FH were younger and more likely to be women and non-White with significantly higher baseline low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol level (mmol/L) as compared with patients with CVD (FH 3.92±1.48 versus CVD 2.96±0.94, P<0.0001). Patients with FH received less statin (70.6% versus 79.2%, P=0.0001) at baseline but not ezetimibe (28.1% versus 20.4%, P=0.0003). Among patients with FH only, 45.3% were at low-density lipoprotein target (≥ 50% reduction from pre-treatment level or low-density lipoprotein <2.5 mmol/L) at baseline and increasing to 65.8% and 73.6% by visit 2 and 3, respectively. Among patients with CVD only, none were at recommended level (≤2.0 mmol/L) at baseline and 44.3% and 53.3% were at recommended level on second and third visit, respectively. When primary end point was analyzed as a difference between baseline and last available follow-up observation, only 22.0% of patients with FH only achieved it as compared with 45.8% with CVD only (P<0.0001) and 55.2% with both FH+CVD (P<0.0001). Conclusions There is significant treatment inertia in patients with FH including those with CVD. Education focused on patients with FH should continue to be undertaken.

Does management of lipid lowering differ between specialists and primary care: Insights from GOAL Canada.

BACKGROUND: We studied whether significant differences in care gaps exist between specialists and primary care physicians (PCPs). METHODS: GOAL Canada enrolled patients with CVD or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and LDL-C > 2.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. During follow-up, physicians received online reminders of treatment recommendations based on Canadian Guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 177 physicians (58% PCPs) enrolled 2009 patients; approximately half of the patients were enrolled by each physician group. Patients enrolled by specialists were slightly older (mean age 63 years vs 62), female (45% vs 40%), Caucasian (77% vs 65%), and had a slightly higher systolic pressure and lower heart rate. Patients enrolled by specialists had less frequent history of FH, diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease and liver disease but more frequent history of coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation and premature family history of CVD. There was no significant baseline difference in LDL-C, HDL-C or non-HDL-C, although total cholesterol and triglycerides were slightly higher in patients managed by PCPs. At baseline, PCPs were more likely to use statins (80% vs 73%, P = .0002) and other therapies such as niacin or fibrate (10% vs 6%, P = .0006) but similar use of ezetimibe (24% vs 27%, P = .15). At the end of follow-up, specialists used less statins (70% vs 77%, P = .0005) and other therapies (6% vs 10%, P = .007) but more ezetimibe (45% vs 38%, P = .01) and the same frequency of PCSK9i (28% vs 27%, P = .65). The proportion of patients achieving the recommended LDL-C level of 2.0 mmol/L or below (primary endpoint) was similar at last available visit between specialists and PCPs (44% vs 42%, P = .32). CONCLUSION: Despite minor differences in the clinical profile of their patients, both PCPs and specialists actively participate in the management of lipid-lowering therapy in high-risk CVD patients and experience similar challenges and care gaps.

GOAL Canada: Physician Education and Support Can Improve Patient Management.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of statins, approximately 40% to 50% of Canadian patients with known cardiovascular disease do not achieve the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal. Guidelines Oriented Approach to Lipid lowering (GOAL) is an investigator-initiated study aiming to ascertain the use of second- and third-line therapy and its impact on LDL-C goal achievement in a real-world setting. METHODS: GOAL enrolled patients with clinical vascular disease or familial hypercholesterolemia and LDL-C > 2.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. During follow-up, physicians managed patients as clinically indicated but with online reminders of guideline recommendations. RESULTS: Of 2009 patients enrolled (median age 63 years, 42% were female), baseline total cholesterol was 5.5 ± 1.4 mmol/L, LDL-C was 3.3 ± 1.3 mmol/L, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 4.1 ± 1.4 mmol/L, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 1.3 ± 0.4 mmol/L, and triglycerides were 2.0 ± 1.5 mmol/L. Lipid-lowering therapy used at baseline was statin therapy in 76% (with 24% statin intolerant) and ezetimibe in 25%. During follow-up, the proportion of patients achieving an LDL-C level of < 2.0 mmol/L increased significantly to 50.8% as a result of additional lipid-lowering therapy. Patients achieving the recommended LDL-C level were more likely to not be statin intolerant (83.8% vs 70.7%, P < 0.0001) and to be taking a high-efficacy type and dose of statin (52.4% vs 35.9%, P < 0.0001). The 3 top reasons for not using the recommended therapy with ezetimibe were patient refusal in 33%, not needed in 22%, and intolerance in 20%, whereas for PCSK9i the reasons were cost in 26%, not needed in 27%, or patient refusal in 25%. CONCLUSION: The results indicate the feasibility of optimizing management, resulting in achievement of the guideline-recommended LDL-C level. This has the potential to translate into reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of Canadian patients.

CONTEXTE: Malgré l'utilisation répandue des statines, environ 40 à 50 % des patients canadiens atteints d'une maladie cardiovasculaire connue n'atteignent pas les taux cibles de cholestérol à lipoprotéines de basse densité (C-LDL). L'étude GOAL ( G uidelines O riented A pproach to L ipid lowering) est une étude entreprise par un chercheur afin d'évaluer, en contexte réel, l'utilisation de traitements de deuxième et de troisième intention et les effets de ceux-ci sur l'atteinte des taux cibles de C-LDL. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Des patients atteints d'une maladie vasculaire clinique ou d'une hypercholestérolémie familiale, présentant un taux de C-LDL > 2,0 mmol/l malgré un traitement par une statine à la dose maximale tolérée, ont été inscrits à l'étude GOAL. Pendant la période de suivi, les médecins prenaient en charge le traitement de leurs patients selon les besoins cliniques, mais en recevant par voie électronique des rappels des recommandations formulées dans les lignes directrices. RÉSULTATS: Chez les 2009 patients inscrits à l'étude (âge médian : 63 ans; femmes : 42 %), les taux initiaux moyens étaient les suivants : cholestérol total initial : 5,5 ± 1,4 mmol/l, C-LDL : 3,3 ± 1,3 mmol/l, C non HDL (autre que le cholestérol à lipoprotéines de haute densité) : 4,1 ± 1,4 mmol/l, C-HDL (des lipoprotéines de haute densité) : 1,3 ± 0,4 mmol/l et triglycérides : 2,0 ± 1,5 mmol/l. Le traitement hypolipidémiant utilisé au début de l'étude était composé d'une statine chez 76 % des participants (24 % des patients ne toléraient pas les statines) et d'ézétimibe chez 25 %. Pendant la période de suivi, la proportion de patients atteignant un taux de C-LDL < 2,0 mmol/l a augmenté de façon significative, jusqu'à atteindre 50,8 %, en raison de l'utilisation d'hypolipidémiants additionnels. Les patients atteignant les taux cibles de C-LDL étaient plus susceptibles de ne pas être intolérants aux statines (83,8 % vs 70,7 %, p < 0,0001) et de prendre un type et une dose de statine hautement efficaces (52,4 % vs 35,9 %, p < 0,0001). Les trois principales raisons évoquées pour expliquer le fait de n'avoir pas eu recours au traitement recommandé par l'ézétimibe étaient le refus du patient (33 %), l'absence de besoin (22 %) et l'intolérance (20 %), alors que dans le cas des inhibiteurs de la PCSK9, les raisons données étaient plutôt le coût élevé (26 %), l'absence de besoin (27 %) et le refus du patient (25 %). CONCLUSION: Les résultats de cette étude montrent la faisabilité de l'optimisation de la prise en charge, qui entraîne l'atteinte des taux de C-LDL recommandés dans les lignes directrices. Ces résultats pourraient se traduire par des réductions de la morbidité et de la mortalité d'origine cardiovasculaire chez les patients canadiens.

Factors Associated With Cardiorespiratory Fitness at Completion of Cardiac Rehabilitation: Identification of Specific Patient Features Requiring Attention.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine and compare predictors of postcardiac rehabilitation (CR) cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), improvements in a large cohort of subjects with varying baseline CRF levels completing CR for ischemic heart disease and to refine prediction models further by baseline CRF. METHODS: The Alberta Provincial Project for Outcomes Assessment in Coronary Heart disease (APPROACH) and TotalCardiology (TotalCardiology, Inc, Calgary, Alberta, Canada) databases were used retrospectively to obtain information on 10,732 (1955 [18.2%] female; mean age 60.4, standard deviation [SD] 10.5 years) subjects who completed the 12-week comprehensive CR program between 1996 and 2016. Peak metabolic equivalents (METs) were determined at program start and completion and identified patients at baseline with low fitness (L-Fit) (< 5 METs), moderate fitness (M-Fit, 5-8 METs), or high fitness (H-Fit, > 8 METs). Multivariable linear regression models were developed to predict METs at completion of the program. RESULTS: Across all fitness groups, mean baseline METs was the strongest predictor of CRF at completion of CR. Other factors-including sex, age, current smoking status, obesity, and diabetes-were highly predictive of post-CR CRF (all P < 0.05). Compared with H-fit patients, coronary artery bypass graft and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in L-Fit patients, and cerebrovascular disease in M-Fit patients had an additional negative effect on the overall model variance in post-CR CRF. CONCLUSION: Expected CRF at the end of CR is highly predictable, with several key patient factors being clear determinants of CRF. Although most identified patient factors are not modifiable, our analysis highlights populations that may require extra attention over the course of CR to attain maximal benefit.

Exploring the impact of financial barriers on secondary prevention of heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronary artery disease experience various barriers which impact their ability to optimally manage their condition. Financial barriers may result in cost related non-adherence to medical therapies and recommendations, impacting patient health outcomes. Patient experiences regarding financial barriers remain poorly understood. Therefore, we used qualitative methods to explore the experience of financial barriers to care among patients with heart disease. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study of participants in Alberta, Canada with heart disease (n = 13) who perceived financial barriers to care. We collected data using semi-structured face-to-face or telephone interviews inquiring about patients experience of financial barriers and the strategies used to cope with such barriers. Multiple analysts performed inductive thematic analysis and findings were bolstered by member checking. RESULTS: The aspects of care to which participants perceived financial barriers included access to: medications, cardiac rehabilitation and exercise, psychological support, transportation and parking. Some participants demonstrated the ability to successfully self-advocate in order to effectively navigate within the healthcare and social service systems. CONCLUSION: Financial barriers impacted patients' ability to self-manage their cardiovascular disease. Financial barriers contributed to non-adherence to essential medical therapies and health recommendations, which may lead to adverse patient outcomes. Given that it is such a key skill, enhancing patients' self-advocacy and navigation skills may assist in improving patient health outcomes.

2016 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidemia for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in the Adult.

Since the publication of the 2012 guidelines new literature has emerged to inform decision-making. The 2016 guidelines primary panel selected a number of clinically relevant questions and has produced updated recommendations, on the basis of important new findings. In subjects with clinical atherosclerosis, abdominal aortic aneurysm, most subjects with diabetes or chronic kidney disease, and those with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥ 5 mmol/L, statin therapy is recommended. For all others, there is an emphasis on risk assessment linked to lipid determination to optimize decision-making. We have recommended nonfasting lipid determination as a suitable alternative to fasting levels. Risk assessment and lipid determination should be considered in individuals older than 40 years of age or in those at increased risk regardless of age. Pharmacotherapy is generally not indicated for those at low Framingham Risk Score (FRS; <10%). A wider range of patients are now eligible for statin therapy in the FRS intermediate risk category (10%-19%) and in those with a high FRS (> 20%). Despite the controversy, we continue to advocate for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets for subjects who start therapy. Detailed recommendations are also presented for health behaviour modification that is indicated in all subjects. Finally, recommendation for the use of nonstatin medications is provided. Shared decision-making is vital because there are many areas in which clinical trials do not fully inform practice. The guidelines are meant to be a platform for meaningful conversation between patient and care provider so that individual decisions can be made for risk screening, assessment, and treatment.