Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction after pharmacological up-titration in new-onset heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have reported suboptimal up-titration of heart failure (HF) therapies in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Here, we report on the achieved doses after nurse-led up-titration, reasons for not achieving the target dose, subsequent changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and mortality. METHODS: From 2012 to 2018, 378 HFrEF patients with a recent (< 3 months) diagnosis of HF were referred to a specialised HF-nurse led clinic for protocolised up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). The achieved doses of GDMT at 9 months were recorded, as well as reasons for not achieving the optimal dose in all patients. Echocardiography was performed at baseline and after up-titration in 278 patients. RESULTS: Of 345 HFrEF patients with a follow-up visit after 9 months, 69% reached ≥ 50% of the recommended dose of renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitors, 73% reached ≥ 50% of the recommended dose of beta-blockers and 77% reached ≥ 50% of the recommended dose of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The main reasons for not reaching the target dose were hypotension (RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers), bradycardia (beta-blockers) and renal dysfunction (RAS inhibitors). During a median follow-up of 9 months, mean LVEF increased from 27.6% at baseline to 38.8% at follow-up. Each 5% increase in LVEF was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.84 (0.75-0.94, p = 0.002) for mortality and 0.85 (0.78-0.94, p = 0.001) for the combined endpoint of mortality and/or HF hospitalisation after a mean follow-up of 3.3 years. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that protocolised up-titration in a nurse-led HF clinic leads to high doses of GDMT and improvement of LVEF in patients with new-onset HFrEF.

Heart failure patients' future expectations and their association with disease severity, quality of life, depressive symptoms and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although treatment of heart failure (HF) patients has improved, prognosis still remains poor. Current HF Guidelines recommend communication about prognosis with all patients. Little is known about HF patients' awareness of their shortened life expectancy. AIM: To explore HF patients' future expectations and to examine whether these expectations are associated with disease severity, quality of life, depressive symptoms and clinical outcomes. METHOD: Patients randomised to the intervention groups of the COACH study, who were at the end of HF hospitalisation, were asked about their future expectations. Patients were divided into three groups: patients expecting improvement/stabilisation, patients expecting deterioration and those not knowing what to expect. Depressive symptoms were measured by CES-D and quality of life with the Ladder of Life and RAND-36. RESULTS: Six hundred and seventy eight patients (age 70 ± 12; 41% female patients; LVEF 33% ± 15) participated in the study. Most patients (56%, N = 380) expected improvement or stabilisation, 8% (N = 55) expected deterioration and 21% (N = 144) did not know what to expect for the future. Patients who expected to deteriorate were significantly older, experienced a lower quality of life and more depressive symptoms compared with patients in the other two groups. They also had a higher mortality rate, both after 18 and 36 months, and had more HF admissions. No association with severity of the disease (NYHA-class, LVEF, BNP levels) was found. CONCLUSION: Many hospitalised HF patients are not aware of their poor prognosis. Depressive symptoms, poor quality of life, increased mortality and rehospitalisation were related to expected deterioration. Improvement of communication about prognosis with HF patients is needed in the future.

[Value of basic and intensive management of patients with heart failure; results of a randomised controlled clinical trial]. / Waarde van lichte en intensieve begeleiding van patiënten met hartfalen; resultaten van het COACH-onderzoek.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of 2 nurse-directed programmes of different intensity for the counselling and follow-up of patients hospitalised for heart failure, compared with standard care by a cardiologist. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised clinical trial (www.trialregister.nl: NCT 98675639). METHOD: A total of 1023 patients were randomized after hospitalisation for heart failure to 1 of 3 treatment strategies: standard care provided by a cardiologist, follow-up care from a cardiologist with basic counselling and support by a nurse specialising in heart failure, or follow-up care from a cardiologist with intensive counselling and support by a nurse specialising in heart failure. Primary end points were the time to rehospitalisation due to heart failure or death and the number of days lost to rehospitalisation or death during the 18-month study period. Data were analysed on an intent-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 71 years, 38% were women, 50% had mild heart failure and 50% had severe heart failure. During the study, 411 patients (40%) were rehospitalised due to heart failure or died from any cause: 42% in the control group, and 41% and 38% in the basic and intensive support groups, respectively (differences not significant). The time to rehospitalisation or death was similar in the 3 groups: hazard ratios for the basic and intensive support groups versus the control group were 0.96 (95% CI: 0.76-1.21; p = 0.73) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.73-1.17; p = 0.53), respectively. The number of days lost to rehospitalisation or death was 39,960 in the control group; this number was 15% less in the intervention groups, but the difference was not significant. However, there was a trend toward lower mortality in the intervention groups. In all 3 groups, more visits occurred than planned, which may have had a considerable effect on care, notably in the control group. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicated that the provision of additional counselling and support by a nurse specialising in heart failure as an adjuvant to intensive follow-up care provided by a cardiologist does not always lead to a reduction in rehospitalisation frequency.

Self-reported versus 'true' adherence in heart failure patients: a study using the Medication Event Monitoring System.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to (non)pharmacological treatment is important in heart failure (HF) patients, since it leads to better clinical outcome. Although self-reported and objectively measured medication adherence in HF patients have been compared in previous studies, none of these studies have used an evidence-based cutpoint to differentiate between adherence and non-adherence. METHODS: In 37 HF patients (mean age 68 ± 10 years, 27 % female, 40 % NYHA functional class III-IV), medication (ACEi/ARB) adherence was objectively measured using the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS). Adherence to and importance of taking medication was also assessed by self-report using the Revised HF Compliance Questionnaire. RESULTS: All patients reported that adherence was (highly) important to them and that they 'always' took their medication as prescribed (i.e. 100 % adherence). However, when measured by the MEMS, only 76 % of all patients were adherent. Non-adherent patients more often had a complex medication regimen (78 % vs. 21 %, P < .01), more often depressive symptoms (75 % vs. 29 %, P = .04) and a shorter history of HF (8 vs. 41 months, P = .04), compared with adherent patients. CONCLUSIONS: Medication adherence measured by the MEMS was remarkably lower than self-reported adherence. Given the evidence of its importance, further efforts are needed to improve adherence to the pharmacological regimen in HF patients.