A matter of sex-persistent predictive value of MECKI score prognostic power in men and women with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a multicenter study.

Background: A sex-based evaluation of prognosis in heart failure (HF) is lacking. Methods and results: We analyzed the Metabolic Exercise test data combined with Cardiac and Kidney Indexes (MECKI) score registry, which includes HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients. A cross-validation procedure was performed to estimate weights separately for men and women of all MECKI score parameters: left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), hemoglobin, kidney function assessed by Modification of Diet in Renal Disease, blood sodium level, ventilation vs. carbon dioxide production slope, and peak oxygen consumption (peakVO2). The primary outcomes were the composite of all-cause mortality, urgent heart transplant, and implant of a left ventricle assist device. The difference in predictive ability between the native and sex recalibrated MECKI (S-MECKI) was calculated using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve at 2 years and a calibration plot. We retrospectively analyzed 7,900 HFrEF patients included in the MECKI score registry (mean age 61 ± 13 years, 6,456 men/1,444 women, mean LVEF 33% ± 10%, mean peakVO2 56.2% ± 17.6% of predicted) with a median follow-up of 4.05 years (range 1.72-7.47). Our results revealed an unadjusted risk of events that was doubled in men compared to women (9.7 vs. 4.1) and a significant difference in weight between the sexes of most of the parameters included in the MECKI score. S-MECKI showed improved risk classification and accuracy (area under the ROC curve: 0.7893 vs. 0.7799, p = 0.02) due to prognostication improvement in the high-risk settings in both sexes (MECKI score >10 in men and >5 in women). Conclusions: S-MECKI, i.e., the recalibrated MECKI according to sex-specific differences, constitutes a further step in the prognostic assessment of patients with severe HFrEF.

Estimation of Right Atrial Pressure by Ultrasound-Assessed Jugular Vein Distensibility in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Clinical evaluation of central venous pressure is difficult, depends on experience, and is often inaccurate in patients with chronic advanced heart failure. We assessed the ultrasound-assessed internal jugular vein (JV) distensibility by ultrasound as a noninvasive tool to identify patients with normal right atrial pressure (RAP ≤7 mm Hg) in this population. METHODS: We measured JV distensibility as the Valsalva-to-rest ratio of the vein diameter in a calibration cohort (N=100) and a validation cohort (N=101) of consecutive patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who underwent pulmonary artery catheterization for advanced heart failure therapies workup. RESULTS: A JV distensibility threshold of 1.6 was identified as the most accurate to discriminate between patients with RAP ≤7 versus >7 mm Hg (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.64-0.84]) and confirmed in the validation cohort (receiver operating characteristic, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.73-0.92]). A JV distensibility ratio >1.6 had predictive positive values of 0.86 and 0.94, respectively, to identify patients with RAP ≤7 mm Hg in the calibration and validation cohorts. Compared with patients from the calibration cohort with a high JV distensibility ratio (>1.6; n=42; median RAP, 4 mm Hg; pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, 11 mm Hg), those with a low JV distensibility ratio (≤1.6; n=58; median RAP, 8 mm Hg; pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, 22 mm Hg; P<0.0001 for both) were more likely to die or undergo a left ventricular assist device implant or heart transplantation (event rate at 2 years: 42.7% versus 18.2%; log-rank P=0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-assessed JV distensibility identifies patients with chronic advanced heart failure with normal RAP and better outcomes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03874312.

Real-world data of patients affected by advanced heart failure treated with implantable cardioverter defibrillator and left ventricular assist device: Results of a multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (L-VAD) implantation is increasingly used in patients with heart failure (HF) and most patients also have an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Limited data are available on the incidence of ICD therapies and complications in this special setting. The aim of this study was to analyze the real-world incidence and predictors of ICD therapies, complications and interactions between ICD and L-VAD. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective observational study in patients with advanced HF implanted with ICD and a continuous-flow L-VAD, followed-up in five advanced HF centers in Northern Italy. RESULTS: A total of 234 patients (89.7% male, median age 59, 48.3% with ischemic etiology) were enrolled. After a median follow-up of 21 months, 66 patients (28.2%) experienced an appropriate ICD therapy, 22 patients (9.4%) an inappropriate ICD therapy, and 17 patients (7.3%) suffered from an interaction between ICD and L-VAD. The composite outcome of all ICD-related complications was reported in 41 patients (17.5%), and 121 (51.7%) experienced an L-VAD-related complication. At multivariable analysis, an active ventricular tachycardia (VT) zone and a prior ICD generator replacement were independent predictors of ICD therapies and of total ICD-related complications, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world patients with both L-VAD and ICD experience a high rate of ICD therapies and complications. Our findings suggest the importance of tailoring device programming in order to minimize the incidence of unnecessary ICD therapies, thus sparing the need for ICD generator replacement, a procedure associated to a high risk of complications.

Exploring the Prognostic Performance of MECKI Score in Heart Failure Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation Treated with Edoxaban.

INTRODUCTION: Risk stratification in heart failure (HF) is essential for clinical and therapeutic management. The Metabolic Exercise test data combined with Cardiac and Kidney Indexes (MECKI) score is a validated prognostic model for assessing cardiovascular risk in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). From the validation of the score, the prevalence of HF patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such as edoxaban, for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) has been increasing in recent years. This study aims to evaluate the reliability of the MECKI score in HFrEF patients treated with edoxaban for NVAF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included consecutive outpatients with HF and NVAF treated with edoxaban (n = 83) who underwent a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET). They were matched by propensity score with a retrospective group of HFrEF patients with NVAF treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) from the MECKI score registry (n = 844). The study endpoint was the risk of cardiovascular mortality, urgent heart transplantation, or Left Ventricle Assist Device (LVAD) implantation. RESULTS: Edoxaban patients were treated with a more optimized HF therapy and had different clinical characteristics, with a similar MECKI score. After propensity score, 77 patients treated with edoxaban were successfully matched with the MECKI-VKA control cohort. In both groups, MECKI accurately predicted the composite endpoint with similar area under the curves (AUC = 0.757 vs. 0.829 in the MECKI-VKA vs. edoxaban-treated group, respectively, p = 0.452). The two populations' survival appeared non-significantly different at the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: this study confirms the prognostic accuracy of the MECKI score in HFrEF patients with NVAF treated with edoxaban, showing improved predictive power compared to VKA-treated patients.