Frailty according to the 2019 HFA-ESC definition in patients at risk for advanced heart failure: Insights from the HELP-HF registry.

AIMS: Frailty is highly prevalent in patients with heart failure (HF), but a concordant definition of this condition is lacking. The Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) proposed in 2019 a new multi-domain definition of frailty, but it has never been validated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients from the HELP-HF registry were stratified according to the number of HFA-ESC frailty domains fulfilled and to the cumulative deficits frailty index (FI) quintiles. Prevalence of frailty and of each domain was reported, as well as the rate of the composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization, its single components, and cardiovascular death in each group and quintile. Among 854 included patients, 37 (4.3%), 206 (24.1%), 365 (42.8%), 217 (25.4%), and 29 (3.4%) patients fulfilled zero, one, two, three, or four domains, respectively, while 179 patients had a FI < 0.21 and were considered not frail. The 1-year risk of adverse events increased proportionally to the number of domains fulfilled (for each criterion increase, all-cause death or HF hospitalization: hazard ratio [HR] 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-1.62; all-cause death: HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.46-2.02, HF hospitalizations: subHR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04-1.31; cardiovascular death: HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.45-2.15). Consistent results were found stratifying the cohort for FI quintiles. The FI as a continuous variable demonstrated higher discriminative ability than the number of domains fulfilled (area under the curve = 0.68 vs. 0.64, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Frailty in patients at risk for advanced HF, assessed via a multi-domain approach and the FI, is highly prevalent and identifies those at increased risk of adverse events. The FI was found to be slightly more effective in identifying patients at increased risk of mortality.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with tricuspid regurgitation and advanced heart failure.

AIMS: To evaluate the role of tricuspid regurgitation in advanced heart failure. METHODS: The multicenter observational HELP-HF registry enrolled consecutive patients with heart failure and at least one 'I NEED HELP' criterion evaluated at four Italian centers between January 2020 and November 2021. Patients with no data on tricuspid regurgitation and/or receiving tricuspid valve intervention during follow-up were excluded. The population was stratified by no/mild tricuspid regurgitation vs. moderate tricuspid regurgitation vs. severe tricuspid regurgitation. Variables independently associated with tricuspid regurgitation, as well as the association between tricuspid regurgitation and clinical outcomes were investigated. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Among the 1085 patients included in this study, 508 (46.8%) had no/mild tricuspid regurgitation, 373 (34.4%) had moderate tricuspid regurgitation and 204 (18.8%) had severe tricuspid regurgitation. History of atrial fibrillation, any prior valve surgery, high dose of furosemide, preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, moderate/severe mitral regurgitation and pulmonary hypertension were found to be independently associated with an increased likelihood of severe tricuspid regurgitation. Estimated rates of 1-year all-cause death were of 21.4, 24.5 and 37.1% in no/mild tricuspid regurgitation, moderate tricuspid regurgitation and severe tricuspid regurgitation, respectively (log-rank P  < 0.001). As compared with nonsevere tricuspid regurgitation, severe tricuspid regurgitation was independently associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.88, P  = 0.042), whereas moderate tricuspid regurgitation did not. CONCLUSION: In a contemporary, real-world cohort of patients with advanced heart failure, several clinical and echocardiographic characteristics are associated with an increased likelihood of severe tricuspid regurgitation. Patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation have an increased risk of mortality.

Clinical burden and predictors of non-cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in advanced heart failure.

BACKGROUND: The changing demographic of heart failure (HF) increases the exposure to non-cardiovascular (non-CV) events. We investigated the distribution of non-CV mortality/morbidity and the characteristics associated with higher risk of non-CV events in patients with advanced HF. METHODS: Patients from the HELP-HF registry were stratified according to the number of 2018 HFA-ESC criteria for advanced HF. Endpoints were non-CV mortality and non-CV hospitalization. Competing risk analyses were performed assessing the association between HFA-ESC criteria and study outcomes and the additional predictors of non-CV endpoints. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and forty-nine patients were included (median age 77 years-IQR 69-83). At 6, 12, 18 and 22 months, cumulative incidence of CV vs non-CV mortality was 13% vs 5%, 17% vs 8%, 20% vs 12%, 23% vs 12%, and of CV vs non-CV hospitalization was 26% vs 11%, 38% vs 17%, 45% vs 20%, 50% vs 21%. HFA-ESC criteria were associated with increasing adjusted risk of CV death, whereas no association was observed for CV hospitalization, non-CV death and non-CV hospitalization. Predictors of non-CV death were age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, preserved ejection fraction, >1 HF hospitalization and hemoglobin. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced HF are exposed to high, even though not predominant, burden of non-CV outcomes. HFA-ESC criteria aid to stratify the risk of CV death, but are not associated with lower competing risk of non-CV outcomes. Alternative factors can be useful to define the patients with advanced HF at risk of non-CV events in order to better select patients for treatments specifically reducing CV risk.

Role of ejection fraction in patients at risk for advanced heart failure: insights from the HELP-HF registry.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) (HFrEF), mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF), and preserved EF (HFpEF) may all progress to advanced HF, but the impact of EF in the advanced setting is not well established. Our aim was to assess the prognostic impact of EF in patients with at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HF and at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' criterion from four centres were included in this analysis. Outcomes were assessed in patients with HFrEF (EF ≤ 40%), HFmrEF (EF 41-49%), and HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%) and with EF analysed as a continuous variable. The prognostic impact of medical therapy for HF in patients with EF < 50% and EF > 50% was also evaluated. All-cause death was the primary endpoint, and cardiovascular death was a secondary endpoint. Among 1149 patients enrolled [mean age 75.1 ± 11.5 years, 67.3% males, 67.6% hospitalized, median follow-up 260 days (inter-quartile range 105-390 days)], HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF were observed in 699 (60.8%), 122 (10.6%), and 328 (28.6%) patients, and 1 year mortality was 28.3%, 26.2%, and 20.1, respectively (log-rank P = 0.036). As compared with HFrEF patients, HFpEF patients had a lower risk of all-cause death [adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj ) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.94, P = 0.022], whereas no difference was noted for HFmrEF patients. After multivariable adjustment, a lower risk of all-cause death (HRadj for 5% increase 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.99, P = 0.017) and cardiovascular death (HRadj for 5% increase 0.94, 95% CI 0.88-1.00, P = 0.049) was observed at higher EF values. Beta-blockers and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors or sacubitril/valsartan were associated with lower mortality in both EF < 50% and EF ≥ 50% groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HF and at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF, left ventricular EF is still of prognostic value.

Guideline-directed medical therapy in severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: An analysis from the HELP-HF registry.

AIM: Persistent symptoms despite guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and poor tolerance of GDMT are hallmarks of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, real-world data on GDMT use, dose, and prognostic implications are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 699 consecutive patients with HFrEF and at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF enrolled in a multicentre registry. Beta-blockers (BB) were administered to 574 (82%) patients, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ACEi/ARB/ARNI) were administered to 381 (55%) patients and 416 (60%) received mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA). Overall, ≥50% of target doses were reached in 41%, 22%, and 56% of the patients on BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and MRA, respectively. Hypotension, bradycardia, kidney dysfunction and hyperkalaemia were the main causes of underprescription and/or underdosing, but up to a half of the patients did not receive target doses for unknown causes (51%, 41%, and 55% for BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and MRA, respectively). The proportions of patients receiving BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI were lower among those fulfilling the 2018 HFA-ESC criteria for advanced HF. Treatment with BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI were associated with a lower risk of death or HF hospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-0.84, and HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.95, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In a large, real-world, contemporary cohort of patients with severe HFrEF, with at least one marker for advanced HF, prescription and uptitration of GDMT remained limited. A significant proportion of patients were undertreated due to unknown reasons suggesting a potential role of clinical inertia either by the prescribing healthcare professional or by the patient. Treatment with BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI was associated with lower mortality/morbidity.

Clinical and prognostic implications of heart failure hospitalization in patients with advanced heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization is associated with poor outcomes in patients with heart failure, but its prognostic role in advanced heart failure is still unsettled. We evaluated the prognostic role of heart failure hospitalization in patients with advanced heart failure. METHODS: The multicenter HELP-HF registry enrolled consecutive patients with heart failure and at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker. Characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients who were hospitalized for decompensated heart failure (inpatients) or not (outpatients) at the time of enrolment. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality or first heart failure hospitalization. RESULTS: Among the 1149 patients included [mean age 75.1 ±â€Š11.5 years, 67.3% men, median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 35% (IQR 25-50%)], 777 (67.6%) were inpatients at the time of enrolment. As compared with outpatients, inpatients had lower LVEF, higher natriuretic peptides and a worse clinical profile. The 1-year rate of the primary endpoint was 50.9% in inpatients versus 36.8% in outpatients [crude hazard ratio 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39-2.07, P < 0.001]. At multivariable analysis, inpatient status was independently associated with a higher risk of the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio 1.54, 95% CI 1.23-1.93, P < 0.001). Among inpatients, the independent predictors of the primary endpoint were older age, lower SBP, heart failure association criteria for advanced heart failure and glomerular filtration rate 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 or less. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization for heart failure in patients with at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker is associated with an extremely poor prognosis supporting the need for specific interventions, such as mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation.

Detailed Assessment of the "I Need Help" Criteria in Patients With Heart Failure: Insights From the HELP-HF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The "I Need Help" markers have been proposed to identify patients with advanced heart failure (HF). We evaluated the prognostic impact of these markers on clinical outcomes in a real-world, contemporary, multicenter HF population. METHODS: We included consecutive patients with HF and at least 1 high-risk "I Need Help" marker from 4 centers. The impact of the cumulative number of "I Need Help" criteria and that of each individual "I Need Help" criterion was evaluated. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality or first HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 1149 patients enrolled, the majority had 2 (30.9%) or 3 (22.6%) "I Need Help" criteria. A higher cumulative number of "I Need Help" criteria was independently associated with a higher risk of the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio for each criterion increase, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.11-1.27]; P<0.001), and patients with >5 criteria had the worst prognosis. Need of inotropes, persistently high New York Heart Association classes III and IV or natriuretic peptides, end-organ dysfunction, >1 HF hospitalization in the last year, persisting fluid overload or escalating diuretics, and low blood pressure were the individual criteria independently associated with a higher risk of the primary end point. CONCLUSIONS: In our HF population, a higher number of "I Need Help" criteria was associated with a worse prognosis. The individual criteria with an independent impact on mortality or HF hospitalization were need of inotropes, New York Heart Association class or natriuretic peptides, end-organ dysfunction, multiple HF hospitalizations, persisting edema or escalating diuretics, and low blood pressure.

Ischemic Etiology in Advanced Heart Failure: Insight from the HELP-HF Registry.

In patients with advanced heart failure (HF), defined according to the presence of at least one I-NEED-HELP criterium, the updated 2018 Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) criteria for advanced HF identify a subgroup of patients with HF with worse prognosis, but whether ischemic etiology has a relevant prognostic impact in this very high-risk cohort is unknown. Patients from the HELP-HF registry were stratified according to ischemic etiology and presence of advanced HF based on 2018 HFA-ESC criteria. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization at 1 year. Secondary end points were all-cause death, HF hospitalization, and cardiovascular death at 1 year. Ischemic etiology was a leading cause of HF, in both patients with advanced and nonadvanced HF (46.1% and 42.4%, respectively, p = 0.337). The risk of the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 to 1.58) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.76) was increased in ischemic as compared with nonischemic patients. The risk of the primary end point was consistently higher in ischemic patients in both patients with advanced and nonadvanced HF (advanced HF, HR 1.50 95% CI 1.04 to 2.16; nonadvanced HF, HR 1.25 95% CI 1.01 to 1.56, pinteraction = 0.333), driven by an increased risk of mortality, mainly because of cardiovascular causes. In conclusion, ischemic etiology is the most common cause of HF in patients with at least one I-NEED-HELP marker and with or without advanced HF as defined by the 2018 HFA-ESC definition. In both patients with advanced and not-advanced HF, ischemic etiology carried an increased risk of worse prognosis.

Long-term prognostic impact of subclinical myocardial dysfunction in patients recovered from COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular sequelae may occur in patients recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Recent studies have detected a considerable incidence of subclinical myocardial dysfunction-assessed with speckle-tracking echocardiography-and of long-COVID symptoms in these patients. This study aimed to define the long-term prognostic role of subclinical myocardial dysfunction and long-COVID condition in patients recovered from COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: We prospectively followed up 110 patients hospitalized at our institution due to COVID-19 pneumonia in April 2020 and then recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection. A 7-month clinical and echocardiographic evaluation was performed, followed by a 21-month clinical follow-up. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A subclinical myocardial dysfunction-defined as an impairment of left ventricular global longitudinal strain (≥-18%)-was identified at a 7-month follow-up in 37 patients (34%), was associated with an increased risk of long-term MACE with a good discriminative power (area under the curve: .73) and resulted in a strong independent predictor of extended MACE in multivariate regression analyses. Long-COVID condition was not associated with a worse long-term prognosis, instead. CONCLUSIONS: In patients recovered from COVID-19 pneumonia, a subclinical myocardial dysfunction is present in one-third of the whole population at 7-month follow-up and is associated with a higher risk of MACE at long-term follow-up. Speckle-tracking echocardiography is a promising tool to optimize the risk-stratification in patients recovered from COVID-19 pneumonia, while the definition of a long-COVID condition has no prognostic relevance.

Prognostic impact of the updated 2018 HFA-ESC definition of advanced heart failure: results from the HELP-HF registry.

AIMS: The Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) proposed a definition of advanced heart failure (HF) that has not been validated, yet. We assessed its prognostic impact in a consecutive series of patients with high-risk HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The HELP-HF registry enrolled consecutive patients with HF and at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker, evaluated at four Italian centres between 1st January 2020 and 30th November 2021. Patients meeting the HFA-ESC advanced HF definition were compared to patients not meeting this definition. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality or first HF hospitalization. Out of 4753 patients with HF screened, 1149 (24.3%) patients with at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker were included (mean age 75.1 ± 11.5 years, 67.3% male, median left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 35% [interquartile range 25%-50%]). Among them, 193 (16.8%) patients met the HFA-ESC advanced HF definition. As compared to others, these patients were younger, had lower LVEF, higher natriuretic peptides and a worse clinical profile. The 1-year rate of the primary endpoint was 69.3% in patients with advanced HF according to the HFA-ESC definition versus 41.8% in the others (hazard ratio [HR] 2.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-2.74, p < 0.001). The prognostic impact of the HFA-ESC advanced HF definition was confirmed after multivariable adjustment for relevant covariates (adjusted HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.57-2.50, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The HFA-ESC advanced HF definition had a strong prognostic impact in a contemporary, real-world, multicentre high-risk cohort of patients with HF.

[Feasibility and safety of same-day discharge after elective transcatheter interventions: experience of a high-volume center]. / Fattibilità e sicurezza della dimissione in giornata per procedure elettive di cardiologia interventistica in un centro ad alto volume.

BACKGROUND: Safety of same-day discharge (SSD) after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) has been demonstrated in several studies. However, SDD is rarely adopted in Italy, with a potential waste of resources and decrease of patient satisfaction. METHODS: In 2019 we implemented a strategy of SDD for all elective coronary procedures admitted to our Radial Unit. Patients were excluded from SDD in case of contraindications for radial access, known contrast allergy, known left main disease based on previous angiogram or coronary computed tomography scan, chronic total occlusions considered as target of revascularization. We assessed the feasibility and safety of this approach in consecutive patients treated at Humanitas Research Center. RESULTS: Out of 366 patients who were admitted electively to our Radial Unit, 152 (41.5%) underwent only diagnostic coronary angiography, while 214 underwent PCI. As expected, radial access was used in the vast majority of cases (361; 98.6%). Patients were mostly discharged in the same day (268; 73%), both after diagnostic (96.7%) and interventional (56.5%) procedures. Patients that were hospitalized at least for one night were older, had a higher cardiovascular risk profile and had a more complex coronary anatomy (left main or proximal left anterior descending artery disease, bifurcations, total occlusions). There were no significant differences between patients discharged and those who were admitted overnight with regards to 7- and 30-day hospital readmission. CONCLUSIONS: SSD is safe and feasible in the majority of patients after elective coronary procedures (both diagnostic angiography and PCI), and is not associated with increased hospital readmission at 7 and 30 days. On the basis of the current study, a wider SDD program will be implemented in 2020.