Implementation of evidence-based heart failure management: Regional variations between Japan and the USA.

The implementation of optimal medical therapy is a crucial step in the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Over the prior three decades, there have been substantial advancements in this field. Early and accurate detection and diagnosis of the disease allow for the appropriate initiation of optimal therapies. The initiation and uptitration of optimal medical therapy including renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, beta-blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor in the early stage would prevent the progression and morbidity of HF. Concurrently, individualized surveillance to recognize and treat signs of disease progression is critical given the progressive nature of HF, even among stable patients on optimal therapy. However, there remains a wide variation in regional practice regarding the initiation, titration, and long-term monitoring of this therapy. To cover the differences in approaches toward HFrEF management and the implementation of guideline-based medical therapy, we discuss the current evidence in this arena, differences in present guideline recommendations, and compare practice patterns in Japan and the USA using a case of new-onset HF as an example. We will discuss pros and cons of the way HF is managed in each region, and highlight potential areas for improvement in care.

Association of pre-hospital precipitating factors with short- and long-term outcomes of acute heart failure patients: A report from the WET-HF2 registry.

BACKGROUND: Interest in clinical course preceding heart failure (HF) exacerbation has grown, with a greater emphasis placed on patients' clinical factors including precipitant factor (PF). Large-scale studies with precise PF documentation and temporal-outcome variation remain limited. METHODS: We reviewed prospectively collected 2412 consecutive patient-level records from a multicenter Japanese registry of hospitalized patients with HF (West Tokyo Heart Failure2 Registry: 2018-2020). Patients were categorized based on PFs: behavioral (i.e., poor adherence to physical activity, medicine, or diet regimen), treatment-required (i.e., anemia, arrhythmia, ischemia, infection, thyroid dysfunction or other conditions as suggested exacerbating factors), and no-PF. The composite outcomes of HF rehospitalization and death within 1 year after discharge and HF rehospitalization were individually assessed. RESULTS: Median patient age was 78 years (interquartile range: 68-85 years), and 1468 (61%) patients had documented PFs, of which 356 (15%) were considered behavioral. The behavioral PF group were younger, more male and had past HF hospitalization history compared to those in the other groups (all p < 0.05). Although risk of in-hospital death was lower in the behavioral PF group, their risk of composite outcome was not significantly different from the treatment-required group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.19 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.93-1.51]) and the no-PF group (HR 1.28 [95%CI 1.00-1.64]). Furthermore, the risk of HF rehospitalization was higher in the behavioral PF group than in the other two groups (HR 1.40 [95%CI 1.07-1.83] and HR 1.39 [95%CI 1.06-1.83], respectively). CONCLUSION: Despite a better in-hospital prognosis, patients with behavioral PFs were at significantly higher risk of HF rehospitalization.