Prognostic utility of pulse pressure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: The RICA Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The prognostic role of pulse pressure (PP) in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is not well understood. Our aim was to evaluate it in acute and stable HF. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This work is a retrospective observational study of patients included in the RICA registry between 2008 and 2021. Blood pressure was collected on admission (decompensation) and 3 months later on an outpatient basis (stability). Patients were categorized according to whether the PP was greater or less than 50mmHg. All-cause mortality was assessed at 1year after admission. RESULTS: A total of 2291 patients were included, with mean age 80.1±7.7 years. 62.9% were women and 16.7% had a history of coronary heart disease. In the acute phase, there was no difference in mortality according to PP values, but in the stable phase PP<50mmHg was independently associated with all-cause mortality at 1-year follow-up (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.21-2.05, p=0.001), after adjusting for age, sex, New York Heart Association functional class, previous HF, chronic kidney disease, valvular heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, score on the Barthel and Pfeiffer scales, hemoglobin and sodium levels. CONCLUSIONS: Low stable-phase PP was associated with increased all-cause mortality in HF patients with preserved LVEF. However, PP was not useful as a prognostic marker of mortality in acute HF. Further studies are needed to assess the relationship of this variable with mortality in HF patients.

Benefits of a comprehensive care model in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: The UMIPIC program.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), in contrast to those with reduced ejection fraction, are older, have more comorbidities, and are not candidates for effective therapeutic measures. Therefore, they are at high risk for hospital admission and mortality. This study evaluated the benefit of a comprehensive continuous care program (UMIPIC program) in patients with HFpEF. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed data on 2401 patients with HFpEF attended to in internal medicine departments who form part of the RICA registry. They were divided into 2 groups: one was followed-up on in the UMIPIC program (UMIPIC group, n: 1011) and another received conventional care (RICA group, n: 1390). A total of 753 patients in each group were selected by propensity score matching and admissions and mortality were assessed during 12 months of follow-up after an episode of hospitalization due to HF. RESULTS: Compared to the RICA group, the UMIPIC group had a lower rate of HF admissions (19.2% versus 36.5%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45-0.68; p < 0.001) and mortality (12.6% versus 28%, respectively; HR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.31-0.51; p < 0.001). There were no differences in hospitalizations for non-HF causes. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the UMIPIC program, which is based on comprehensive continuous care, for patients with HFpEF and a high degree of comorbidity reduces both admissions and mortality in the first year of follow-up.

Morbidity and mortality in elderly patients with heart failure managed with a comprehensive care model vs. usual care: The UMIPIC program.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients with heart failure (HF) have a high degree of comorbidity which leads to fragmented care, with frequent hospitalizations and high mortality. This study evaluated the benefit of a comprehensive continuous care model (UMIPIC program) in elderly HF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively analyzed data from the RICA registry on 2862 patients with HF treated in internal medicine departments. They were divided into two groups: one monitored in the UMIPIC program (UMIPIC group, n: 809) and another which received conventional care (RICA group, n: 2.053). We evaluated HF readmissions during 12 months of follow-up and total mortality after episodes of HF hospitalization. UMIPIC patients were older with higher rates of comorbidity and preserved ejection fraction than the RICA group. However, the UMIPIC group had a lower rate of HF readmissions (17% vs. 26%, p < .001) and mortality (16% vs. 27%, respectively; p < .001). In addition, we selected 370 propensity score-matched patients from each group and the differences in HF readmissions (15% UMIPIC vs. 30% RICA; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.60; p < .001) and mortality (17% UMIPIC vs. 28% RICA; hazard ratio = 0.58; 95% CI 0.42-0.79; p = .001) were maintained. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the UMIPIC program, based on comprehensive continuous care of elderly patients with HF and high comorbidity, markedly reduce HF readmissions and total mortality.