Outcomes following cardiac resynchronisation therapy in older people.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients may be less likely to receive cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) for the management of heart failure. We aimed to describe the differences in clinical response, complications, and subsequent outcomes following CRT implantation compared to younger patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of unselected, consecutive patients implanted with CRT devices between March 2008 and July 2017. We recorded complications, symptomatic and echocardiographic response, hospitalisation for heart failure, and all-cause mortality comparing patients aged <70, 70-79 and ≥ 80 years. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventy-four patients (median age 76 years [interquartile range 68-81], 73.3% male) received CRT. At baseline, patients aged ≥80 years had worse symptoms, were more likely to have co-morbidities, and less likely to be receiving comprehensive medical therapy, although left ventricular function was similar. Older patients were less likely to receive CRT-defibrillators compared to CRT-pacemakers. Complications were infrequent and not more common in older patients. Age was not a predictor of symptomatic or echocardiographic response to CRT (67.2%, 71.2% and 62.6% responders in patients aged <70, 70-79 and ≥ 80 years, respectively; P = 0.43), and time to first heart failure hospitalisation was similar across age groups (P = 0.28). Ten-year survival was lower for older patients (49.9%, 23.9% and 6.8% in patients aged <70, 70-79 and ≥ 80 years, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of CRT on symptoms and left ventricular function were not different in older patients despite a greater burden of co-morbidities and less optimal medical therapy. These findings support the use of CRT in an ageing population.

Suboptimal Dosing of ß-Blockers in Chronic Heart Failure: A Missed Opportunity?

BACKGROUND: The evidence base for the benefits of ß-blockers in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) suggests that higher doses are associated with better outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to report the proportion of patients receiving optimized doses of ß-blockers, outcomes, and factors associated with suboptimal dosing. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of 390 patients with HFrEF undergoing clinical and echocardiography assessment at baseline and at 1 year. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-seven patients (61%) were receiving optimized doses (≥5-mg/d bisoprolol equivalent), 72 (18%) could not be up-titrated (because of heart rate < 60 beats/min or systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg), and the remaining 81 (21%) should have been. Survival was similarly reduced in those who could not and should have been receiving 5 mg/d or greater, and patient factors did not explain the failure to attain optimized dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with HFrEF are not receiving optimal dosing of ß-blockers, and in around half, there was no clear contraindication in terms of heart rate or blood pressure.

Personalized Rate-Response Programming Improves Exercise Tolerance After 6 Months in People With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Heart Failure: A Phase II Study.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is characterized by blunting of the positive relationship between heart rate and left ventricular (LV) contractility known as the force-frequency relationship (FFR). We have previously described that tailoring the rate-response programming of cardiac implantable electronic devices in patients with HFrEF on the basis of individual noninvasive FFR data acutely improves exercise capacity. We aimed to examine whether using FFR data to tailor heart rate response in patients with HFrEF with cardiac implantable electronic devices favorably influences exercise capacity and LV function 6 months later. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trial in patients with stable symptomatic HFrEF taking optimal guideline-directed medical therapy and with a cardiac implantable electronic device (cardiac resynchronization therapy or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). Participants were randomized on a 1:1 basis between tailored rate-response programming on the basis of individual FFR data and conventional age-guided rate-response programming. The primary outcome measure was change in walk time on a treadmill walk test. Secondary outcomes included changes in LV systolic function, peak oxygen consumption, and quality of life. RESULTS: We randomized 83 patients with a mean±SD age 74.6±8.7 years and LV ejection fraction 35.2±10.5. Mean change in exercise time at 6 months was 75.4 (95% CI, 23.4 to 127.5) seconds for FFR-guided rate-adaptive pacing and 3.1 (95% CI, -44.1 to 50.3) seconds for conventional settings (analysis of covariance; P=0.044 between groups) despite lower peak mean±SD heart rates (98.6±19.4 versus 112.0±20.3 beats per minute). FFR-guided heart rate settings had no adverse effect on LV structure or function, whereas conventional settings were associated with a reduction in LV ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase II study, FFR-guided rate-response programming determined using a reproducible, noninvasive method appears to improve exercise time and limit changes to LV function in people with HFrEF and cardiac implantable electronic devices. Work is ongoing to confirm our findings in a multicenter setting and on longer-term clinical outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02964650.

Cardiac contractility modulation for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

There has been a progressive evolution in the management of patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), including cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) in those that fulfil pre-defined criteria. However, there exists a significant proportion with refractory symptoms in whom CRT devices are not clinically indicated or ineffective. Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a novel therapy that incorporates administration of non-excitatory electrical impulses to the interventricular septum during the absolute refractory period. Implantation is analogous to a traditional transvenous pacemaker system, but with the use of two right ventricular leads. Mechanistic studies have shown augmentation of left ventricular contractility and beneficial global effects on reverse remodeling, primarily through alterations in calcium handling. This appears to occur without increasing myocardial oxygen consumption. Data from clinical trials have shown translational improvements in functional capacity and quality of life, though long-term outcome data are lacking. This review explores the rationale, evidence base and limitations of this nascent technology.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of chronic heart failure.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an unprecedented challenge. Meeting this has resulted in changes to working practices and the impact on the management of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is largely unknown. We performed a retrospective, observational study contrasting patients diagnosed with HFrEF attending specialist heart failure clinics at a UK hospital, whose subsequent period of optimisation of medical therapy was during the COVID-19 pandemic, with patients diagnosed the previous year. The primary outcome was the change in equivalent dosing of ramipril and bisoprolol at 6-months. Secondary outcomes were the number and type of follow-up consultations, hospitalisation for heart failure and all-cause mortality. In total, 60 patients were diagnosed with HFrEF between 1 December 2019 and 30 April 2020, compared to 54 during the same period of the previous year. The absolute number of consultations was higher (390 vs 270; p = 0.69), driven by increases in telephone consultations, with a reduction in appointments with hospital nurse specialists. After 6-months, we observed lower equivalent dosing of ramipril (3.1 ± 3.0 mg vs 4.4 ± 0.5 mg; p = 0.035) and similar dosing of bisoprolol (4.1 ± 0.5 mg vs 4.9 ± 0.5 mg; p = 0.27), which persisted for ramipril (mean difference 1.0 mg, 95% CI 0.018-2.09; p = 0.046) and bisoprolol (mean difference 0.52 mg, 95% CI -0.23-1.28; p = 0.17) after adjustment for baseline dosing. We observed no differences in the proportion of patients who died (5.0% vs 7.4%; p = 0.59) or were hospitalised with heart failure (13.3% vs 9.3%; p = 0.49). Our study suggests the transition to telephone appointments and re-deployment of heart failure nurse specialists was associated with less successful optimisation of medical therapy, especially renin-angiotensin inhibitors, compared with usual care.

Advanced care planning during the COVID-19 pandemic: ceiling of care decisions and their implications for observational data.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies investigating risk factors in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not considered the confounding effects of advanced care planning, such that a valid picture of risk for elderly, frail and multi-morbid patients is unknown. We aimed to report ceiling of care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) decisions and their association with demographic and clinical characteristics as well as outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study conducted between 5th March and 7th May 2020 of all hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Ceiling of care and CPR decisions were documented using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process. Unadjusted and multivariable regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with ceiling of care decisions and death during hospitalisation. RESULTS: A total of 485 patients were included, of whom 409 (84·3%) had a documented ceiling of care; level one for 208 (50·9%), level two for 75 (18·3%) and level three for 126 (30·8%). CPR decisions were documented for 451 (93·0%) of whom 336 (74·5%) were 'not for resuscitation'. Advanced age, frailty, White-European ethnicity, a diagnosis of any co-morbidity and receipt of cardiovascular medications were associated with ceiling of care decisions. In a multivariable model only advanced age (odds 0·89, 0·86-0·93 p < 0·001), frailty (odds 0·48, 0·38-0·60, p < 0·001) and the cumulative number of co-morbidities (odds 0·72, 0·52-1·0, p = 0·048) were independently associated. Death during hospitalisation was independently associated with age, frailty and requirement for level two or three care. CONCLUSION: Ceiling of care decisions were made for the majority of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, broadly in line with known predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19, but with a focus on co-morbidities suggesting ICU admission might not be a reliable end-point for observational studies where advanced care planning is routine.

Long-term performance of left ventricular leads in cardiac resynchronisation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) confers symptomatic and survival benefits in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). There remains a paucity of data on long-term performance of left ventricular (LV) leads, particularly with newer quadripolar lead designs. METHODS: This single-centre study utilised an electronic, outpatient HFrEF database to identify CRT recipients (2008-2014). The primary endpoint was temporal trend in LV pacing thresholds during follow-up. Secondary outcomes were complications relating to acute or chronic lead failure and device-related infections. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty patients were included, with mean (±SD) age of 74.2 years (±9.0) and median follow-up of 7.6 years (interquartile range 4-9). Mean LV threshold was 1.37 V (±0.73) at implant and remained stable over the study period. No differences were observed based upon lead manufacturer. Compared to non-quadripolar leads (n = 216), those of quadripolar designs (n = 64) had a lower threshold at 6 months (1.20 vs 1.37 V; P = .04) and at the end of the study period (1.32 vs 1.46 V; P = .04). Patients with HFrEF of ischaemic aetiology had higher thresholds at implant (1.46 vs 1.34 V; P = .05), and this persisted until the end of follow-up (1.49 vs 1.34 V; P = .03). There was low incidence of acute (0.71%; 2/280) and chronic lead failure (1.79%; 5/280), with four cases (1.43%) of device infection. CONCLUSIONS: LV leads in the context of CRT have excellent chronic stability and low rates of adverse events. Those with newer quadripolar lead designs have lower thresholds at initial follow-up and in the longer term.

Cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: is it time to scan with resynchronization on?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is recommended in international guidelines for patients with heart failure due to important left ventricular systolic dysfunction (or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction) and ventricular conduction tissue disease. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) represents the most powerful imaging tool for dynamic assessment of the volumes and function of cardiac chambers but is rarely utilized in patients with CRT due to limitations on the device, programming and scanning. In this review, we explore the known utility of CMR in this cohort with discussion of the risks and potential benefits of scanning whilst CRT is active, including a practical strategy for conducting high quality scans safely. Our contention is that imaging in patients with CRT could be improved further by keeping resynchronization therapy active with resultant benefits on research and also patient outcomes.

Vitamin D deficiency is an independent predictor of mortality in patients with chronic heart failure.

PURPOSE: Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations have been associated with adverse outcomes in selected populations with established chronic heart failure (CHF). However, it remains unclear whether 25[OH]D deficiency is associated with mortality and hospitalisation in unselected patients receiving contemporary medical and device therapy for CHF. METHODS: We prospectively examined the prevalence and correlates of 25[OH]D deficiency in 1802 ambulatory patients with CHF due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 45%) attending heart failure clinics in the north of England. RESULTS: 73% of patients were deficient in 25[OH]D (< 50 nmol/L). 25[OH]D deficiency was associated with male sex, diabetes, lower serum sodium, higher heart rate, and greater diuretic requirement. During a mean follow-up period of 4 years, each 2.72-fold increment in 25[OH]D concentration (for example from 32 to 87 nmol/L) is associated with 14% lower all-cause mortality (95% confidence interval (CI) 1, 26%; p = 0.04), after accounting for potential confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D deficiency is associated with increased mortality in patients with chronic heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Whether vitamin D supplementation will improve outcomes is, as yet, unproven.

Devices in heart failure; diagnosis, detection and disease modification.

Introduction/background: Implantable cardiac devices are widely used in chronic heart failure (CHF) therapy. This review covers current CHF treatment with electronic cardiac devices, areas of discussion and emerging technologies. Sources of data: A comprehensive search of available literature resources including Pubmed, MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. National and international guidelines were accessed. Areas of agreement: Excessive right ventricular pacing is detrimental to cardiac function. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is beneficial in specific individuals with CHF. Areas of controversy: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators might not benefit all. Optimizing CRT delivery. Remote monitoring seems not to be of benefit in CHF. Growing points: Device-based optimization. Areas timely for developing research: Personalization of device therapy. Focussing implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. What to do at implantable cardioverter defibrillator box change?

The Surprise Question and clinician-predicted prognosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Surprise Question, 'Would you be surprised if this person died within the next year?' is a simple tool that can be used by clinicians to identify people within the last year of life. This review aimed to determine the accuracy of this assessment, across different healthcare settings, specialties, follow-up periods and respondents. METHODS: Searches were conducted of Medline, Embase, AMED, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception until 01 January 2024. Studies were included if they reported original data on the ability of the Surprise Question to predict survival. For each study (including subgroups), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy were determined. RESULTS: Our dataset comprised 56 distinct cohorts, including 68 829 patients. In a pooled analysis, the sensitivity of the Surprise Question was 0.69 ((0.64 to 0.74) I2=97.2%), specificity 0.69 ((0.63 to 0.74) I2=99.7%), positive predictive value 0.40 ((0.35 to 0.45) I2=99.4%), negative predictive value 0.89 ((0.87 to 0.91) I2=99.7%) and accuracy 0.71 ((0.68 to 0.75) I2=99.3%). The prompt performed best in populations with high event rates, shorter timeframes and when posed to more experienced respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The Surprise Question demonstrated modest accuracy with considerable heterogeneity across the population to which it was applied and to whom it was posed. Prospective studies should test whether the prompt can facilitate timely access to palliative care services, as originally envisioned. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD32022298236.

Is conduction system pacing a panacea for pacemaker therapy?

INTRODUCTION: While supported by robust evidence and decades of clinical experience, right ventricular apical pacing for bradycardia is associated with a risk of progressive left ventricular dysfunction. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction can result in limited electrical resynchronization due to anatomical constraints and epicardial stimulation. In both settings, directly stimulating the conduction system below the atrio-ventricular node (either the bundle of His or the left bundle branch area) has potential to overcome these limitations. Conduction system pacing has met with considerable enthusiasm in view of the more physiological electrical conduction pattern, is rapidly becoming the preferred option of pacing for bradycardia, and is gaining momentum as an alternative to conventional biventricular pacing. AREAS COVERED: This article provides a review of the current efficacy and safety data for both people requiring treatment for bradycardia and the management of heart failure with conduction delay and discusses the possible future roles for conduction system pacing in routine clinical practice. EXPERT OPINION: Conduction system pacing might be the holy grail of pacemaker therapy without the disadvantages of current approaches. However, hypothesis and enthusiasm are no match for robust data, demonstrating at least equivalent efficacy and safety to standard approaches.

Diabetes mellitus does not alter mortality or hospitalisation risk in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Time to rethink pathophysiological models of disease progression.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes is a common and adverse prognostic co-morbidity for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The effect of diabetes on long-term outcomes for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is less established. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of patients referred to a regional HF clinic with newly diagnosed with HFrEF and HFpEF according to the 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. The association between diabetes, all-cause mortality and hospitalisation was quantified using Kaplan-Meier or Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Between 1st May 2012 and 1st May 2013, of 960 unselected consecutive patients referred with suspected HF, 464 and 314 patients met the criteria for HFpEF and HFrEF respectively. Within HFpEF and HFrEF groups, patients with diabetes were more frequently male and in both groups patients with diabetes were more likely to be treated with ß-adrenoceptor antagonists and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. After adjustment for age, sex, medical therapy and co-morbidities, diabetes was associated with increased mortality in individuals with HFrEF (HR 1.46 95% CI: 1.05-2.02; p = .023), but not in those with HFpEF (HR 1.26 95% CI 0.92-1.72; p = .146). CONCLUSION: In unselected patients with newly diagnosed HF, diabetes is not an adverse prognostic marker in patients with HFpEF, but is in HFrEF.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy in pacemaker-dependent patients with left ventricular dysfunction.

AIMS: Heart failure and left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (LVSD) are common in patients with permanent pacemakers. The aim was to determine if cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) at the time of pulse generator replacement (PGR) is of benefit in patients with unavoidable RV pacing and LVSD. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty patients with unavoidable RV pacing, LVSD, and mild or no symptoms of heart failure, listed for PGR were randomized 1 : 1 to either standard RV-PGR (comparator) or CRT. The primary endpoint was the difference in change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) between RV-PGR and CRT groups from baseline to 6 months. Secondary endpoints included peak oxygen consumption, quality of life, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. At 6 months there was a difference in change in median (interquartile range) LVEF [9 (6-12) vs. -1.5 (-4.5 to -0.8)%; P < 0.0001] between the CRT and RV-PGR arms. There were also improvements in exercise capacity (P = 0.007), quality of life (P = 0.03), and NT-proBNP (P = 0.007) in those randomized to CRT. After 809 (729-880) days, 17 patients had died or been hospitalized (6 in CRT group and 11 in the comparator RV-PGR group) and two patients in the RV-PGR arm had required CRT for deteriorating heart failure. Patients with standard RV-PGR had more days in hospital during follow-up than those in the CRT group [4 (2-7) vs. 11 (6-16) days; P = 0.047]. CONCLUSION: Performing CRT in pacemaker patients with unavoidable RV pacing and LVSD but without severe symptoms of heart failure, at the time of PGR, improves cardiac function, exercise capacity, quality of life, and NT-pro-BNP levels.

Guideline-directed medical therapy is similarly effective in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: Current guidelines recommend that disease-modifying pharmacological therapies may be considered for patients who have heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). We aimed to describe the characteristics, outcomes, provision of pharmacological therapies and dose-related associations with mortality risk in HFmrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We explored data from two prospective observational studies, which permitted the examination of the effects of pharmacological therapies across a broad spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The combined dataset consisted of 2388 unique patients, with a mean age of 73.7 ± 13.2 years of whom 1525 (63.9%) were male. LVEF ranged from 5 to 71% (mean 37.2 ± 12.8%) and 1504 (63.0%) were categorised as having reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), 421 (17.6%) as HFmrEF and 463 (19.4%) as preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Patients with HFmrEF more closely resembled HFrEF than HFpEF. Adjusted all-cause mortality risk was lower in HFmrEF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.99); p = 0.040) and in HFpEF (HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.52-0.71); p < 0.001) compared to HFrEF. Adjusted all-cause mortality risk was lower in patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF who received the highest doses of beta-blockers or renin-angiotensin inhibitors. These associations were not evident in HFpEF. Once adjusted for relevant confounders, each mg equivalent of bisoprolol (HR 0.95 [95% CI 0.91-1.00]; p = 0.047) and ramipril (HR 0.95 [95%CI 0.90-1.00]; p = 0.044) was associated with incremental reductions in mortality risk in patients with HFmrEF. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacological therapies were associated with lower mortality risk in HFmrEF, supporting guideline recommendations which extend the indications of these agents to all patients with LVEF < 50%. HFmrEF more closely resembles HFrEF in terms of clinical characteristics and outcomes. Pharmacological therapies are associated with lower mortality risk in HFmrEF and HFrEF, but not in HFpEF.

Atrial secondary mitral regurgitation: prevalence, characteristics, management, and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence, clinical characteristics, management and long-term outcomes of patients with atrial secondary mitral regurgitation (ASMR) are not well described. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational study of consecutive patients with grade III/IV MR determined by transthoracic echocardiography. The aetiology of MR was grouped as being either primary (due to degenerative mitral valve disease), ventricular SMR (VSMR: due to left ventricular dilatation/dysfunction), ASMR (due to LA dilatation), or other. RESULTS: A total of 388 individuals were identified who had grade III/IV MR; of whom 37 (9.5%) had ASMR, 113 (29.1%) had VSMR, 193 had primary MR (49.7%), and 45 (11.6%) were classified as having other causes. Compared to MR of other subtypes, patients with ASMR were on average older (median age 82 [74-87] years, p < 0.001), were more likely to be female (67.6%, p = 0.004) and usually had atrial fibrillation (83.8%, p = 0.001). All-cause mortality was highest in patients with ASMR (p < 0.001), but similar to that in patients with VSMR once adjusted for age and sex (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-1.25). Hospitalisation for worsening heart failure was more commonly observed in those with ASMR or VSMR (p < 0.001) although was similar between these groups when age and sex were accounted for (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.34-1.58). For patients with ASMR, the only variables associated with outcomes were age and co-morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: ASMR is a prevalent and distinct disease process associated with a poor prognosis, with much of this related to older age and co-morbidities.