Heart Failure Specialist Care and Long-Term Outcomes for Patients Admitted With Acute Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: For patients with acute heart failure (HF), specialist HF care during admission improves diagnosis and treatments. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to investigate the association of HF specialist care with in-hospital and longer term prognosis. METHODS: The authors used data from the National Heart Failure Audit from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022, linked to electronic records for hospitalization and deaths. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome measure and in-hospital mortality the secondary outcome measure. RESULTS: Data for 227,170 patients admitted to hospital with HF (median age: 81 years; IQR: 72-88 years), were analyzed. Approximately 80% of acute HF admissions received support from HF specialists. Thirty-nine percent of patients (n = 70,720) were seen by a multidisciplinary team (HF physicians and HF specialist nurses [HFSNd]), 22% (n = 40,330) were seen by HFSNs alone, and the remaining 39% (n = 71,700) were seen exclusively by specialist HF physicians. At discharge, more patients who received HF specialist care were prescribed medical therapy for HF and had specialized follow-up. Conversely, diuretic agents were prescribed to fewer patients. HF specialist care was independently associated with a higher rate of prescribing HF therapies at discharge and a lower likelihood of receiving diuretic therapy (OR: 0.90 [95% CI: 0.86-0.95]; P < 0.001). HF specialist care was associated with better long-term survival (HR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.87-0.90]; P < 0.001) and lower in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.0.88-0.97]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Receiving HF specialist care during admission for HF is associated with a higher rate of implementation of medical therapy, fewer discharges on diuretic therapy, and lower in-hospital and long-term mortality across the left ventricular ejection fraction spectrum, especially for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

A nationwide, population-based study on specialized care for acute heart failure throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the delivery of care for patients with heart failure (HF), leading to fewer HF hospitalizations and increased mortality. However, nationwide data on quality of care and long-term outcomes across the pandemic are scarce. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used data from the National Heart Failure Audit (NHFA) linked to national records for hospitalization and deaths. We compared pre-COVID (2018-2019), COVID (2020), and late/post-COVID (2021-2022) periods. Data for 227 250 patients admitted to hospital with HF were analysed and grouped according to the admission year and the presence of HF with (HFrEF) or without reduced ejection fraction (non-HFrEF). The median age at admission was 81 years (interquartile range 72-88), 55% were men (n = 125 975), 87% were of white ethnicity (n = 102 805), and 51% had HFrEF (n = 116 990). In-hospital management and specialized cardiology care were maintained throughout the pandemic with an increasing percentage of patients discharged on disease-modifying medications over time (p < 0.001). Long-term outcomes improved over time (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.95, p < 0.001), mainly driven by a reduction in cardiovascular death. Receiving specialized cardiology care was associated with better long-term outcomes both for those who had HFrEF (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.77-0.82, p < 0.001) and for those who had non-HFrEF (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.85-0.90, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the disruption of healthcare systems, the clinical characteristics of patients admitted with HF were similar and the overall standard of care was maintained throughout the pandemic. Long-term survival of patients hospitalized with HF continued to improve after COVID-19, especially for HFrEF.

Measuring congestion with a non-invasive monitoring device in heart failure and haemodialysis: CONGEST-HF.

AIMS: We examined the effectiveness of a novel cardiopulmonary management wearable sensor (worn for less than 5 mins) at measuring congestion and correlated the device findings with established clinical measures of congestion. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled three cohorts of patients: (1) patients with heart failure (HF) receiving intravenous diuretics in hospital; (2) patients established on haemodialysis, and (3) HF patients undergoing right heart catheterization (RHC). The primary outcomes in the respective cohorts were a Spearman correlation between (1) change in weight and change in thoracic impedance (TI) (from enrolment, 24 h after admission to discharge) in patients hospitalized for HF; (2) lung ultrasound B-lines and volume removed during dialysis with device measured TI, and (3) pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) and sub-acoustic diastolic, third heart sound (S3) in the patients undergoing RHC. A total of 66 patients were enrolled. In HF patients (n = 25), change in weight was correlated with both change in device TI (Spearman correlation [rsp] = -0.64, p = 0.002) and change in device S3 (rsp = -0.53, p = 0.014). In the haemodialysis cohort (n = 21), B-lines and TI were strongly correlated before (rsp = -0.71, p < 0.001) and after (rsp = -0.77, p < 0.001) dialysis. Volume of fluid removed by dialysis was correlated with change in device TI (rsp = 0.49, p = 0.024). In the RHC cohort (n = 20), PCWP measured at one time point and device S3 were not significantly correlated (rsp = 0.230, p = 0.204). There were no device-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: A non-invasive device was able to detect changes in congestion in patients with HF receiving decongestion therapy and patients having fluid removed at haemodialysis. The cardiopulmonary management device, which measures multiple parameters, is a potentially useful tool to monitor patients with HF to prevent hospitalizations.

British societies guideline on the management of emergencies in implantable left ventricular assist device recipients in transplant centres.

An implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is indicated as a bridge to transplantation or recovery in the United Kingdom (UK). The mechanism of action of the LVAD results in a unique state of haemodynamic stability with diminished arterial pulsatility. The clinical assessment of an LVAD recipient can be challenging because non-invasive blood pressure, pulse and oxygen saturation measurements may be hard to obtain. As a result of this unusual situation and complex interplay between the device and the native circulation, resuscitation of LVAD recipients requires bespoke guidelines. Through collaboration with key UK stakeholders, we assessed the current evidence base and developed guidelines for the recognition of clinical deterioration, inadequate circulation and time-critical interventions. Such guidelines, intended for use in transplant centres, are designed to be deployed by those providing immediate care of LVAD patients under conditions of precipitous clinical deterioration. In summary, the Joint British Societies and Transplant Centres LVAD Working Group present the UK guideline on management of emergencies in implantable LVAD recipients for use in advanced heart failure centres. These recommendations have been made with a UK resuscitation focus but are widely applicable to professionals regularly managing patients with implantable LVADs.

Review of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on chronic heart failure.

Guidelines are more accessible than ever and represent an important tool in clinical practice. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has developed recommendations for heart failure diagnosis and management based not only on morbidity and mortality trial outcome data but also in-depth economic analysis, with a focus on generalisability to UK National Health Service clinical practice. There is broad consistency in structure and content between NICE guidelines and those produced by major cardiovascular organisations such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology. However, important differences do exist-largely attributable to publication timing-a factor that is enhanced by the rapid pace of heart failure research. This article reviews the most recent iteration of NICE chronic heart failure guidelines and compares them with major guidelines on an international scale. Variations in recommendations will be explored including implications for NICE guideline updates in the future.

2023 Focused Update of the 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Co-ordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Co-ordinator) (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Jozef Bartunek (Belgium), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Sergio Buccheri (Sweden), Elisabetta Cerbai (Italy), Erwan Donal (France), Frank Edelmann (Germany), Gloria Färber (Germany), Bettina Heidecker (Germany), Borja Ibanez (Spain), Stefan James (Sweden), Lars Køber (Denmark), Konstantinos C. Koskinas (Switzerland), Josep Masip (Spain), John William McEvoy (Ireland), Robert Mentz (United States of America), Borislava Mihaylova (United Kingdom), Jacob Eifer Møller (Denmark), Wilfried Mullens (Belgium), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Jens Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Agnes A. Pasquet (Belgium), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Bianca Rocca (Italy), Xavier Rossello (Spain), Leyla Elif Sade (United States of America/Türkiye), Hannah Schaubroeck (Belgium), Elena Tessitore (Switzerland), Mariya Tokmakova (Bulgaria), Peter van der Meer (Netherlands), Isabelle C. Van Gelder (Netherlands), Mattias Van Heetvelde (Belgium), Christiaan Vrints (Belgium), Matthias Wilhelm (Switzerland), Adam Witkowski (Poland), and Katja Zeppenfeld (Netherlands) All experts involved in the development of this Focused Update have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and simultaneously published in a supplementary document to the Focused Update. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines See the European Heart Journal online for supplementary documents that include evidence tables.

A novel, small-volume subcutaneous furosemide formulation delivered by an abdominal patch infusor device in patients with heart failure: results of two phase I studies.

AIMS: Subcutaneous (SC) furosemide has potential advantages over intravenous (IV) furosemide by enabling self-administration or administration by a lay caregiver, such as facilitating early discharge, preventing hospitalizations, and in palliative care. A high-concentration, pH-neutral furosemide formulation has been developed for SC administration via a small patch infusor pump. We aimed to compare the bioavailability, pharmacokinetic (PK), and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of a new SC furosemide formulation with conventional IV furosemide and describe the first use of a bespoke mini-pump to administer this formulation. METHODS AND RESULTS: A novel pH-neutral formulation of SC furosemide containing 80 mg furosemide in ∼2.7 mL (infused over 5 h) was investigated. The first study was a PK/PD study of SC furosemide compared with 80 mg IV furosemide administered as a bolus in ambulatory patients with heart failure (HF). The primary outcome was absolute bioavailability of SC compared with IV furosemide. The second study investigated the same SC furosemide preparation delivered by a patch infusor in patients hospitalized with HF. Primary outcome measures were treatment-emergent adverse events, infusion site pain, device performance, and PK measurements.The absolute bioavailability of SC furosemide in comparison to IV furosemide was 112%, resulting in equivalent diuresis and natriuresis. When SC furosemide was administered via the patch pump, there were no treatment-emergent adverse events and 95% of participants reported no/minor discomfort at the infusion site. CONCLUSION: The novel preparation of SC furosemide had similar bioavailability to IV furosemide. Administration via a patch pump was feasible and well tolerated.