2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from August 2022 to March 2023 to identify clinical studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery" have been updated with new evidence consolidated to guide clinicians; clinicians should be advised this guideline supersedes the previously published 2014 guideline. In addition, evidence-based management strategies, including pharmacological therapies, perioperative monitoring, and devices, for cardiovascular disease and associated medical conditions, have been developed.

Effect of Torsemide Versus Furosemide on Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. METHODS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months. RESULTS: Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P=0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P=0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P=0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P=0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Effect of Torsemide vs Furosemide After Discharge on All-Cause Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Although furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in patients with heart failure, some studies suggest a potential benefit for torsemide. Objective: To determine whether torsemide results in decreased mortality compared with furosemide among patients hospitalized for heart failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial that recruited 2859 participants hospitalized with heart failure (regardless of ejection fraction) at 60 hospitals in the United States. Recruitment occurred from June 2018 through March 2022, with follow-up through 30 months for death and 12 months for hospitalizations. The final date for follow-up data collection was July 2022. Interventions: Loop diuretic strategy of torsemide (n = 1431) or furosemide (n = 1428) with investigator-selected dosage. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in a time-to-event analysis. There were 5 secondary outcomes with all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization and total hospitalizations assessed over 12 months being highest in the hierarchy. The prespecified primary hypothesis was that torsemide would reduce all-cause mortality by 20% compared with furosemide. Results: TRANSFORM-HF randomized 2859 participants with a median age of 65 years (IQR, 56-75), 36.9% were women, and 33.9% were Black. Over a median follow-up of 17.4 months, a total of 113 patients (53 [3.7%] in the torsemide group and 60 [4.2%] in the furosemide group) withdrew consent from the trial prior to completion. Death occurred in 373 of 1431 patients (26.1%) in the torsemide group and 374 of 1428 patients (26.2%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.89-1.18]). Over 12 months following randomization, all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization occurred in 677 patients (47.3%) in the torsemide group and 704 patients (49.3%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83-1.02]). There were 940 total hospitalizations among 536 participants in the torsemide group and 987 total hospitalizations among 577 participants in the furosemide group (rate ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.84-1.07]). Results were similar across prespecified subgroups, including among patients with reduced, mildly reduced, or preserved ejection fraction. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure, torsemide compared with furosemide did not result in a significant difference in all-cause mortality over 12 months. However, interpretation of these findings is limited by loss to follow-up and participant crossover and nonadherence. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

Ascertaining Death Events in a Pragmatic Clinical Trial: Insights From the TRANSFORM-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Death ascertainment can be challenging for pragmatic clinical trials that limit site follow-up activities to usual clinical care. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used blinded aggregate data from the ongoing ToRsemide comparison with furoSemide FOR Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) pragmatic clinical trial in patients with heart failure to evaluate the agreement between centralized call center death event identification and the United States National Death Index (NDI). Of 2284 total patients randomized through April 12, 2021, 1480 were randomized in 2018-2019 and 804 in 2020-2021. The call center identified 416 total death events (177 in 2018-2019 and 239 in 2020-2021). The NDI 2018-2019 final file identified 178 death events, 165 of which were also identified by the call center. The study's inter-rater reliability metric (Cohen's kappa coefficient, 0.920; 95% confidence interval, 0.889-0.951) demonstrates a high level of agreement. The time between a death event and its identification was less for the call center (median, 47 days; interquartile range, 11-103 days) than for the NDI (median, 270 days; interquartile range, 186-391 days). CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial agreement between deaths identified by a centralized call center and the NDI. However, the time between a death event and its identification is significantly less for the call center.

Index and follow-up costs of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study (ENGAGE PAS).

OBJECTIVE: Trials for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) report lower perioperative mortality and morbidity, but also higher costs compared with open repair. However, few studies have examined the subsequent cost of follow-up evaluations and interventions. Therefore, we present the index and 5-year follow-up costs of EVAR from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study. METHODS: From August 2011 to June 2012, 178 patients were enrolled in the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study de novo cohort and treated with the Medtronic Endurant stent graft system (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif), of whom 171 (96%) consented for inclusion in the economic analysis and 177 participated in the quality-of-life (QOL) assessment over a 5-year follow-up period. Cost data for the index and follow-up hospitalizations were tabulated directly from hospital bills and categorized by Uniform Billing codes. Surgeon costs were calculated by Current Procedural Terminology codes for each intervention. Current Procedural Terminology codes were also used to calculate imaging and clinic follow-up reimbursement as surrogate to cost based on year-specific Medicare payment rates. Additionally, we compared aneurysm-related versus nonaneurysm-related subsequent hospitalization costs and report EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions. RESULTS: The mean hospital cost per person for the index EVAR was $45,304 (interquartile range [IQR], $25,932-$44,784). The largest contributor to the overall cost was operating room supplies, which accounted for 50% of the total cost at a mean of $22,849 per person. One hundred patients had 233 additional post index admission inpatient admissions; however, only 32 readmissions (14%) were aneurysm related, with a median cost of $13,119 (IQR, $4570-$24,153) compared with a nonaneurysm-related median cost of $6609 (IQR, $1244-$26,466). Additionally, 32 patients were admitted a total of 37 times for additional procedures after index admission, of which 14 (38%) were aneurysm-related. The median cost of hospitalization for aneurysm-related subsequent intervention was $22,023 (IQR, $13,177-$47,752), compared with a median nonaneurysm-related subsequent intervention cost of $19,007 (IQR, $8708-$33,301). After the initial 30-day visit, outpatient follow-up imaging reimbursement averaged $550 per person per year ($475 for computed tomography scans, $75 for the abdomen), whereas annual office visits averaged $107 per person per year, for a total follow-up reimbursement of $657 per person per year. There were no significant differences in the five EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions at each follow-up compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Costs associated with index EVAR are driven primarily by cost of operating room supplies, including graft components. Subsequent admissions are largely not aneurysm related; however, cost of aneurysm-related hospitalizations is higher than for nonaneurysm admissions. These data will serve as a baseline for comparison with open repair and other devices.

A reappraisal of loop diuretic choice in heart failure patients.

The health and economic burden of heart failure is significant and continues to grow each year. Loop diuretics are an integral part of symptom management in heart failure. Furosemide is used disproportionately compared with other loop diuretics, and there is currently no guidance for physicians regarding which agent to choose. However, there exist pharmacologic differences as well as other mechanistic differences that appear to favor torsemide use over furosemide. Compared with furosemide, torsemide improves surrogate markers of heart failure severity such as left ventricular function, plasma brain natriuretic peptide levels, and New York Heart Association functional class and may also reduce hospitalizations, readmissions, and mortality. Data suggest that these benefits could be mediated through torsemide's ability to positively affect the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Specifically, torsemide has been shown to inhibit aldosterone secretion, synthesis, and receptor binding in vitro, as well as decrease transcardiac extraction of aldosterone, myocardial collagen production, and cardiac fibrosis in patients with heart failure. We identified pertinent literature using keyword MEDLINE searches and cross-referencing prior bibliographies. We summarize the available data suggesting potential benefits with torsemide over furosemide, and call attention to the need for a reappraisal of diuretic use in heart failure patients and also for a well-powered, randomized control trial assessing torsemide versus furosemide use.

Torsemide versus furosemide in heart failure patients: insights from Duke University Hospital.

Furosemide has historically been the primary loop diuretic in heart failure patients despite data suggesting potential advantages with torsemide. We used the Duke Echocardiography Lab Database to investigate patients admitted with heart failure to Duke Hospital from 2000 to 2010 who were discharged on either torsemide or furosemide. We described baseline characteristics based on discharge diuretic and assessed the relationship with all-cause mortality through 5 years. Of 4580 patients, 86% (n = 3955) received furosemide and 14% (n = 625) received torsemide. Patients receiving torsemide were more likely to be female and had more comorbidities compared with furosemide-treated patients. Survival was worse in torsemide-treated patients [5-year Kaplan-Meier estimated survival of 41.4% (95% CI: 36.7-46.0) vs. 51.5% (95% CI: 49.8-53.1)]. After risk adjustment, torsemide use was no longer associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio 1.16; 95% CI: 0.98-1.38; P = 0.0864). Prospective trials are needed to investigate the effect of torsemide versus furosemide because of the potential for residual confounding.

Reduced length of hospital stay in colorectal surgery after implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal approach to perioperative care that combines a range of interventions to enable early mobilization and feeding after surgery. We investigated the feasibility, clinical effectiveness, and cost savings of an ERAS program at a major U. S. teaching hospital. METHODS: Data were collected from consecutive patients undergoing open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery during 2 time periods, before and after implementation of an ERAS protocol. Data collected included patient demographics, operative, and perioperative surgical and anesthesia data, need for analgesics, complications, inpatient medical costs, and 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS: There were 99 patients in the traditional care group, and 142 in the ERAS group. The median length of stay (LOS) was 5 days in the ERAS group compared with 7 days in the traditional group (P < 0.001). The reduction in LOS was significant for both open procedures (median 6 vs 7 days, P = 0.01), and laparoscopic procedures (4 vs 6 days, P < 0.0001). ERAS patients had fewer urinary tract infections (13% vs 24%, P = 0.03). Readmission rates were lower in ERAS patients (9.8% vs 20.2%, P = 0.02). DISCUSSION: Implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal surgery at a tertiary medical center was associated with a significantly reduced LOS and incidence of urinary tract infection. This is consistent with that of other studies in the literature and suggests that enhanced recovery programs could be implemented successfully and should be considered in U.S. hospitals.

Torsemide vs Furosemide Among Patients With New-Onset vs Worsening Chronic Heart Failure: A Substudy of the TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Differences in clinical profiles, outcomes, and diuretic treatment effects may exist between patients with de novo heart failure (HF) and worsening chronic HF (WHF). Objectives: To compare clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of torsemide vs furosemide in patients hospitalized with de novo HF vs WHF. Design, Setting, and Participants: All patients with a documented ejection fraction who were randomized in the Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) trial, conducted from June 18 through March 2022, were included in this post hoc analysis. Study data were analyzed March to May 2023. Exposure: Patients were categorized by HF type and further divided by loop diuretic strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points included all-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes over 12 months, as well as change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS). Results: Among 2858 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [14.0] years; 1803 male [63.1%]), 838 patients (29.3%) had de novo HF, and 2020 patients (70.7%) had WHF. Patients with de novo HF were younger (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [14.5] years vs 66.1 [13.5] years), had a higher glomerular filtration rate (mean [SD], 68.6 [24.9] vs 57.0 [24.0]), lower levels of natriuretic peptides (median [IQR], brain-type natriuretic peptide, 855.0 [423.0-1555.0] pg/mL vs 1022.0 [500.0-1927.0] pg/mL), and tended to be discharged on lower doses of loop diuretic (mean [SD], 50.3 [46.2] mg vs 63.8 [52.4] mg). De novo HF was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 12 months (de novo, 65 of 838 [9.1%] vs WHF, 408 of 2020 [25.4%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66; P < .001). Similarly, lower all-cause first rehospitalization at 12 months and greater improvement from baseline in KCCQ-CSS at 12 months were noted among patients with de novo HF (median [IQR]: de novo, 29.94 [27.35-32.54] vs WHF, 23.68 [21.62-25.74]; adjusted estimated difference in means: 6.26; 95% CI, 3.72-8.81; P < .001). There was no significant difference in mortality with torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo (No. of events [rate per 100 patient-years]: torsemide, 27 [7.4%] vs furosemide, 38 [10.9%]; aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-1.14; P = .15) or WHF (torsemide 212 [26.8%] vs furosemide, 196 [24.0%]; aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32; P = .42; P for interaction = .10), In addition, no significant differences in hospitalizations, first all-cause hospitalization, or total hospitalizations at 12 months were noted with a strategy of torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo HF or WHF. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, de novo HF was associated with better clinical and patient-reported outcomes when compared with WHF. Regardless of HF type, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide with respect to 12-month clinical or patient-reported outcomes.

Torsemide Versus Furosemide After Discharge in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: Findings From TRANSFORM-HF.

BACKGROUND: The TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization among patients randomized to a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide following a heart failure (HF) hospitalization. However, outcomes and responses to some therapies differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Thus, we sought to explore the effect of torsemide versus furosemide by baseline LVEF and to assess outcomes across LVEF groups. METHODS: We compared baseline patient characteristics and randomized treatment effects for various end points in TRANSFORM-HF stratified by LVEF: HF with reduced LVEF, ≤40% versus HF with mildly reduced LVEF, 41% to 49% versus HF with preserved LVEF, ≥50%. We also evaluated associations between LVEF and clinical outcomes. Study end points were all-cause mortality or hospitalization at 30 days and 12 months, total hospitalizations at 12 months, and change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score. RESULTS: Overall, 2635 patients (median 64 years, 36% female, 34% Black) had LVEF data. Compared with HF with reduced LVEF, patients with HF with mildly reduced LVEF and HF with preserved LVEF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in risk of clinical outcomes across the LVEF groups (adjusted hazard ratio for 12-month all-cause mortality, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39] for HF with mildly reduced LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17] for HF with preserved LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF; P=0.73). In addition, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide (1) for mortality and hospitalization outcomes, irrespective of LVEF group and (2) in changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score in any LVEF subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Despite baseline demographic and clinical differences between LVEF cohorts in TRANSFORM-HF, there were no significant differences in the clinical end points with torsemide versus furosemide across the LVEF spectrum. There was a substantial risk for all-cause mortality and subsequent hospitalization independent of baseline LVEF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Health Care Cost Reductions with Machine Learning-Directed Evaluations during Radiation Therapy - An Economic Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) may cost-effectively direct health care by identifying patients most likely to benefit from preventative interventions to avoid negative and expensive outcomes. System for High-Intensity Evaluation During Radiation Therapy (SHIELD-RT; NCT04277650) was a single-institution, randomized controlled study in which electronic health record-based ML accurately identified patients at high risk for acute care (emergency visit or hospitalization) during radiotherapy (RT) and targeted them for supplemental clinical evaluations. This ML-directed intervention resulted in decreased acute care utilization. Given the limited prospective data showing the ability of ML to direct interventions cost-efficiently, an economic analysis was performed. METHODS: A post hoc economic analysis was conducted of SHIELD-RT that included RT courses from January 7, 2019, to June 30, 2019. ML-identified high-risk courses (≥10% risk of acute care during RT) were randomized to receive standard of care weekly clinical evaluations with ad hoc supplemental evaluations per clinician discretion versus mandatory twice-weekly evaluations. The primary outcome was difference in mean total medical costs during and 15 days after RT. Acute care costs were obtained via institutional cost accounting. Physician and intervention costs were estimated via Medicare and Medicaid data. Negative binomial regression was used to estimate cost outcomes after adjustment for patient and disease factors. RESULTS: A total of 311 high-risk RT courses among 305 patients were randomized to the standard (n=157) or the intervention (n=154) group. Unadjusted mean intervention group supplemental visit costs were $155 per course (95% confidence interval, $142 to $168). The intervention group had fewer acute care visits per course (standard, 0.47; intervention, 0.31; P=0.04). Total mean adjusted costs were $3110 per course for the standard group and $1494 for the intervention group (difference in means, $1616 [95% confidence interval, $1450 to $1783]; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this economic analysis of a randomized controlled, health care ML study, mandatory supplemental evaluations for ML-identified high-risk patients were associated with both reduced total medical costs and improved clinical outcomes. Further study is needed to determine whether economic results are generalizable. (Funded in part by The Duke Endowment, The Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Duke Department of Radiation Oncology, and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health [R01CA277782]; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04277650.).

Improving eSource Site Start-Up Practices.

Background: eSource software that copies patient electronic health record data into a clinical trial electronic case report form holds promise for increasing data quality while reducing data collection, monitoring and source document verification costs. Integrating eSource into multicenter clinical trial start-up procedures could facilitate the use of eSource technologies in clinical trials. Methods: We conducted a qualitative integrative analysis to identify eSource site start-up key steps, challenges that might occur in executing those steps, and potential solutions to those challenges. We then conducted a value analysis to determine the challenges and solutions with the greatest impacts for eSource implementation teams. Results: There were 16 workshop participants: 10 pharmaceutical sponsor, 3 academic site, and 1 eSource vendor representatives. Participants identified 36 Site Start-Up Key Steps, 11 Site Start-Up Challenges, and 14 Site Start-Up Solutions for eSource-enabled studies. Participants also identified 77 potential impacts of the Challenges upon the Site Start-Up Key Steps and 70 ways in which the Solutions might impact Site Start-Up Challenges. The most important Challenges were: (1) not being able to identify a site eSource champion and (2) not agreeing on an eSource approach. The most important Solutions were: (1) vendors accepting electronic data in the FHIR standard, (2) creating standard content for eSource-related legal documents, and (3) creating a common eSource site readiness checklist. Conclusions: Site start-up for eSource-enabled multi-center clinical trials is a complex socio-technical problem. This study's Start-Up Solutions provide a basic infrastructure for scalable eSource implementation.

Comparing the Accuracy of Traditional vs. FHIR®-Based Extraction of Electronic Health Record Data for Two Clinical Trials.

While pilots and production use of software based on the Health Level Seven (HL7®) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR®) standard are increasing in clinical research, we lack consistent evaluative data on important outcomes, such as data accuracy. We compared the accuracy of EHR collected, FHIR® extracted data (called EHR-to-eCRF data collection) to traditional clinical trial data collection. The accuracy rate for EHR-collected data was significantly higher than for the same data collected through traditional methods. It is possible that EHR-collected (FHIR® extracted) data can substantially improve data quality in clinical studies while decreasing the burden on study sites.

On-treatment analysis of torsemide versus furosemide for patients hospitalized for heart failure: A post-hoc analysis of TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: The TRANSFORM-HF trial demonstrated no significant outcome differences between torsemide and furosemide following hospitalization for heart failure (HF), but may have been impacted by non-adherence to the randomized diuretic. The current study sought to determine the treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide using an on-treatment analysis inclusive of all randomized patients except those confirmed non-adherent to study diuretic. METHODS AND RESULTS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF from June 2018 through March 2022. Patients were randomized to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide versus furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This post-hoc on-treatment analysis included all patients alive with either known or unknown diuretic status, and excluded patients confirmed to be non-adherent to study diuretic. This modified on-treatment definition was applied separately at time of hospital discharge and 30-day follow-up. All-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes were assessed over 12 months. Overall, 2570 (89.9%) and 2374 (83.0%) patients were included in on-treatment analyses at discharge and 30-day follow-up, respectively. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between torsemide and furosemide in patients on-treatment at discharge (17.5% vs. 17.8%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.22], p = 0.96) and at 30-day follow-up (14.5% vs. 15.0%; HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81-1.27], p = 0.90). All-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization was similar between torsemide and furosemide in patients who were on-treatment at discharge (58.3% vs. 61.3%; HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.82-1.03]) and 30-day follow-up (60.9% vs. 64.4%; HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.05]). In patients who were on-treatment at 30-day follow-up, there were 677 total hospitalizations in the torsemide group and 686 total hospitalizations in the furosemide group (rate ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.86-1.14], p = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: In TRANSFORM-HF, a post-hoc on-treatment analysis did not meaningfully differ from the original trial results. Among those deemed compliant with the assigned diuretic, there remained no significant difference in mortality or hospitalization after HF hospitalization with a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

Impact of baseline kidney dysfunction on oral diuretic efficacy following hospitalization for heart failure - insights from TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide showed no difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization. Clinicians have traditionally favoured torsemide in the setting of kidney dysfunction due to better oral bioavailability and longer half-life, but direct supportive evidence is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: The TRANSFORM-HF trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to a long-term strategy of torsemide versus furosemide, and enrolled patients across the spectrum of renal function (without dialysis). In this post-hoc analysis, baseline renal function during the index hospitalization was assessed as categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; <30, 30-<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2). The interaction between baseline renal function and treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide was assessed with respect to mortality and hospitalization outcomes, and the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS). Of 2859 patients randomized, 336 (11.8%) had eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, 1138 (39.8%) had eGFR 30-<60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 1385 (48.4%) had eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Baseline eGFR did not modify treatment effects of torsemide versus furosemide on all adverse clinical outcomes including individual components or composites of all-cause mortality and all-cause (re)-hospitalizations, both when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously (p-value for interaction all >0.108). Similarly, no treatment effect modification by eGFR was found for the change in KCCQ-CSS (p-value for interaction all >0.052) when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously. CONCLUSION: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, there was no significant difference in clinical and patient-reported outcomes between torsemide and furosemide, irrespective of renal function.

Evaluating registry-based trial economics: Results from the STRESS clinical trial.

Background: Registry-based trials have the potential to reduce randomized clinical trial (RCT) costs. However, observed cost differences also may be achieved through pragmatic trial designs. A systematic comparison of trial costs across different designs has not been previously performed. Methods: We conducted a study to compare the current Steroids to Reduce Systemic inflammation after infant heart surgery (STRESS) registry-based RCT vs. two established designs: pragmatic RCT and explanatory RCT. The primary outcome was total RCT design costs. Secondary outcomes included: RCT duration and personnel hours. Costs were estimated using the Duke Clinical Research Institute's pricing model. Results: The Registry-Based RCT estimated duration was 31.9 weeks greater than the other designs (259.5 vs. 227.6 weeks). This delay was caused by the Registry-Based design's periodic data harvesting that delayed site closing and statistical reporting. Total personnel hours were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design (52,488 vs 29,763 vs. 24,480 h, respectively). Total costs were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design ($10,140,263 vs. $4,164,863 vs. $3,268,504, respectively). Thus, Registry-Based total costs were 32 % of the Explanatory and 78 % of the Pragmatic design. Conclusion: Total costs for the STRESS RCT with a registry-based design were less than those for a pragmatic design and much less than an explanatory design. Cost savings reflect design elements and leveraging of registry resources to improve cost efficiency, but delays to trial completion should be considered.

2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from August 2022 to March 2023 to identify clinical studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery" have been updated with new evidence consolidated to guide clinicians; clinicians should be advised this guideline supersedes the previously published 2014 guideline. In addition, evidence-based management strategies, including pharmacological therapies, perioperative monitoring, and devices, for cardiovascular disease and associated medical conditions, have been developed.

Economic analysis of endovascular repair versus surveillance for patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: The Positive Impact of EndoVascular Options for Treating Aneurysms Early (PIVOTAL) trial enrolled individuals with small (4.0- to 5.0-cm diameter) abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) and reported no difference in rupture or aneurysm-related death for patients who received early endovascular repair (EVAR) vs surveillance with serial imaging studies. We evaluated resource use, medical cost, and quality of life outcomes associated with the PIVOTAL treatment strategies. METHODS: This prospective economic and quality of life study was conducted within a randomized trial, with PIVOTAL sites participating in the quality of life (n = 67) and economic (n = 63) studies. The PIVOTAL trial randomized 728 patients (366 early EVAR and 362 surveillance). We used information from 701 quality of life (351 early EVAR and 350 surveillance) and 614 economic (314 early EVAR and 300 surveillance) study participants enrolled in the PIVOTAL trial. The main outcome measures were total medical costs and the aneurysm repair rate at 48 months. RESULTS: After 6 months, the rate of aneurysm repair was 96 vs 10 per 100 patients in the early EVAR and surveillance groups, respectively (difference, 86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 82-90; P < .0001), and total medical costs were greater in the early EVAR group ($33,471 vs $5520; difference, $27,951; 95% CI, $25,156-$30,746; P < .0001). In months 7 through 48, however, the rate of aneurysm repair was 54 per 100 patients in the surveillance group, and total medical costs were higher for patients in the surveillance vs the early EVAR group ($40,592 vs $15,197; difference, $25,394; 95% CI, $15,184-$35,605; P < .0001). At 48 months' follow-up, early EVAR patients had greater cumulative use of AAA repair (97 vs 64 per 100 patients; difference, 34; 95% CI, 21-46; P < .0001), but there was no difference in total medical costs ($48,669 vs $46,112; difference, $2557; 95% CI, -$8043 to $13,156; P = .64). After discounting at 3% per annum, total medical costs for early EVAR and surveillance patients remained similar ($47,765 vs $43,532; difference, 4232; 95% CI, -$5561 to $14,025; P = .40). There were no treatment-related differences in quality of life at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: A treatment strategy involving early repair of smaller AAA with EVAR is associated with no difference in total medical costs at 48 months vs surveillance with serial imaging studies. Longer follow-up is required to determine whether the late medical cost increases observed for surveillance will persist beyond 48 months.

A randomized trial of population-based clinical decision support to manage health and resource use for Medicaid beneficiaries.

To determine whether a clinical decision support system can favorably impact the delivery of emergency department and hospital services. Randomized clinical trial of three clinical decision support delivery modalities: email messages to care managers (email), printed reports to clinic administrators (report) and letters to patients (letter) conducted among 20,180 Medicaid beneficiaries in Durham County, North Carolina with follow-up through 9 months. Patients in the email group had fewer low-severity emergency department encounters vs. controls (8.1 vs. 10.6/100 enrollees, p < 0.001) with no increase in outpatient encounters or medical costs. Patients in the letter group had more outpatient encounters and greater outpatient and total medical costs. There were no treatment-related differences for patients in the reports group. Among patients <18 years, those in the email group had fewer low severity (7.6 vs. 10.6/100 enrollees, p < 0.001) and total emergency department encounters (18.3 vs. 23.5/100 enrollees, p < 0.001), and lower emergency department ($63 vs. $89, p = 0.002) and total medical costs ($1,736 vs. $2,207, p = 0.009). Patients who were ≥18 years in the letter group had greater outpatient medical costs. There were no intervention-related differences in patient-reported assessments of quality of life and medical care received. The effectiveness of clinical decision support messaging depended upon the delivery modality and patient age. Health IT interventions must be carefully evaluated to ensure that the resultant outcomes are aligned with expectations as interventions can have differing effects on clinical and economic outcomes.

Decision support for evidence-based pharmacotherapy detects adherence problems but does not impact medication use.

Although evidence-based pharmacotherapies are a principal component of patient care, 30-50% of patients do not take their medications as prescribed. We conducted a randomized trial of two clinical decision support (CDS) interventions in 2219 patients: patient adherence reports to providers (n=744), patient adherence reports to providers + email notices to care managers (n=736), and controls (739). At 18-month follow-up, there were no treatment-related differences in patient medication adherence (overall, by medication class, and by medical condition). There also were no treatment-related differences in patient clinical and economic outcomes. Thus, while this study's CDS information interventions were successfully delivered to providers and care managers, and were effective in identifying medication adherence deficits and in increasing care manager responses to medication adherences issues, these interventions were not able to alter patient medication behavior.