Uptake of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors in Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: The use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in Veterans Affairs (VA) patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) has not been reported previously. METHODS: VA electronic health record data were used to identify patients hospitalized for HF (primary or secondary diagnosis) from 01/2019-11/2022. Patients with SGLT2i allergy, advanced/end-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) or advanced HF therapies were excluded. We identified factors associated with discharge SGLT2i prescriptions for patients hospitalized due to HF in 2022. We also compared SGLT2i and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) prescription rates. Hospital-level variations in SGLT2i prescriptions were assessed via the median odds ratio. RESULTS: A total of 69,680 patients were hospitalized due to HF; 10.3% were prescribed SGLT2i at discharge (4.4% newly prescribed, 5.9% continued preadmission therapy). SGLT2i prescription increased over time and was higher in patients with HFrEF and primary HF. Among 15,762 patients hospitalized in 2022, SGLT2i prescription was more likely in patients with diabetes (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.09-2.47) and ischemic heart disease (aOR 1.14; 95% CI: 1.03-1.26). Patients with increased age (aOR 0.77 per 10 years; 95% CI: 0.73-0.80) and lower systolic blood pressure (aOR 0.94 per 10 mmHg; 95% CI: 0.92-0.96) were less likely to be prescribed SGLT2i, and SGLT2i prescription was not more likely in patients with CKD (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.98-1.16). The adjusted median odds ratio suggested a 1.8-fold variation in the likelihood that similar patients at 2 random VA sites were prescribed SGLT2i (range 0-21.0%). In patients with EF ≤ 40%, 30.9% were prescribed SGLT2i while 26.9% were prescribed ARNI (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: One-tenth of VA patients hospitalized for HF were prescribed SGLT2i at discharge. Opportunities exist to reduce variation in SGLT2i prescription rates across hospitals and to promote its use in patients with CKD and older age.

Donor selection for multiorgan transplantation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is limited data and guidance on donor selection for multiorgan transplantation. In this article, we review the current Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policy on multiorgan allocation and the ideal donor criteria for each specific organ, in order to provide a framework to guide donor selection for various scenarios of multiorgan transplantation, including heart-kidney, heart-lung, heart-liver and heart-kidney-liver transplant procedures. RECENT FINDINGS: Combined heart-kidney transplantation is the most common multiorgan transplant procedure and requires the most stringent HLA matching to ensure optimal graft survival. Using the virtual crossmatch and desensitization therapies can shorten waitlist times without increasing posttransplant rejection or mortality rates. The ideal heart-lung donor tends to be younger than other multiorgan transplants, and more tolerant to HLA mismatch, but ideally requires donors with no prior history of smoking, a short period of time on mechanical ventilation, adequate oxygenation and absence of pulmonary infection. The ideal heart-liver donor is often driven by criteria specific to the donor heart. Finally, several observational studies suggest that livers are more tolerant to HLA mismatch than other organs, and offer some degree of immune protection in combined organ transplants. SUMMARY: Multiorgan transplantation is a steadily growing field. The required short ischemic time for the donor heart is often the limiting factor, as well as the scarcity of appropriate donors available within geographical confines. In general, as with single organ transplantation, younger age, size matching, few medical comorbidities and HLA compatibility confer the best posttransplant outcomes.

Practices of Referring Patients to Advanced Heart Failure Centers.

BACKGROUND: Therapies for advanced heart failure (AHF) improve the likelihood of survival in a growing population of patients with stage D heart failure (HF). Successful implementation of these therapies is dependent upon timely and appropriate referrals to AHF centers. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients referred to 9 AHF centers for evaluation for AHF therapies. Patients' demographics, referring providers' characteristics, referral circumstances, and evaluation outcomes were collected. RESULTS: The majority of referrals (n = 515) were male (73.4%), and a majority of those were in the advanced state of the disease: very low left ventricular ejection fraction (<20% in 51.5%); 59.4% inpatient; and high risk Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profiles (74.5% profile 1-3). HF cardiologists (49.1%) were the most common originating referral source; the least common (4.9%) were electrophysiologists. Common clinical triggers for referral included worsening HF (30.0%), inotrope dependence (19.6%), hospitalization (19.4%), and cardiogenic shock (17.8%). Most commonly, AHF therapies were not offered because patients were too sick (38.0%-45.1%) or for psychosocial reasons (20.3%-28.6%). Compared to non-HF cardiologists, patients referred by HF cardiologists were offered an AHF therapy more often (66.8% vs 58.4%, P = 0.0489). Of those not offered any AHF therapy, 28.4% received home inotropic therapy, and 14.5% were referred to hospice. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter review of AHF referrals, HF cardiologists referred the most patients despite being a relatively small proportion of the overall clinician population. Late referral was prevalent in this high-risk patient population and correlates with worsened outcomes, suggesting a significant need for broad clinician education regarding the benefits, triggers and appropriate timing of referral to AHF centers for optimal patient outcomes.

Disparities in Practice Patterns by Sex, Race, and Ethnicity in Patients Referred for Advanced Heart Failure Therapies.

Advanced heart failure (HF) therapies improve survival in patients with stage D HF. We sought to evaluate differences by race/ethnicity and sex in advanced HF therapy referrals and decision-making across a multicenter survey. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients referred for evaluation for advanced HF therapies at 9 centers (n = 515) across the United States. The median age was 58 years, and 73% were male. White patients comprised 55.7% of referrals, whereas non-White patients comprised 44.3%. Non-ischemic etiology was more common in non-White patients (66.6% vs 47.4% p = 0.0005), and ischemic etiology was more common in men (37.8% vs 20.4% p = 0.0005). The primary reason for referral differed by race/ethnicity but not sex, with ventricular arrhythmias (7.6% vs 3%, p = 0.024) and pulmonary hypertension (3.4% vs 0.4% p = 0.018) being more common in White patients, whereas worsening HF was less common (25.4% vs 35.9%; p = 0.009). White patients were offered left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) (60.3% vs 54.7 p = 0.039) and heart transplants (51.8% vs 33.1% p = 0.0007) more often than non-White patients. The preference not to pursue LVAD therapy was more common in non-White patients (17.6% vs 9.6%; p = 0.049). Men were more often declined for a heart transplant because of psychosocial contraindications (34% vs 15%, p = 0.005). In conclusion, in this multicenter analysis of referrals for advanced HF therapies, we observed significant differences by race, ethnicity, and sex in both referral characteristics and evaluation outcomes. Further investigation is warranted to better understand why rates of LVAD and transplantation may be lower in non-White patients who are referred for advanced therapies.

Incidence of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Complications in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe the risk of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) complications in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). BACKGROUND: Patients with LVADs are predisposed to ventricular arrhythmias and frequently have CIEDs before receiving their LVAD. However, the role of CIED procedures such as generator changes (GC) are unclear in this population, given the potential complications of bleeding and infection. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter study from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2018. All patients with LVADs were screened and those who had a CIED GC, implantation, or revision were included in the study and followed until December 31, 2018. RESULTS: A total of 179 patients across 6 centers had a CIED procedure after LVAD implantation. The mean age was 59.5 ± 13.4, with the cohort comprising mostly men (78%), destination LVAD therapy (53.8%), and GC (66%). The 30-day primary composite endpoint of hematoma or device infection occurred in 34 (19%) patients. The secondary endpoints of rehospitalization within 30 days and appropriate device therapy during follow-up occurred in 40 (22%) and 42 (24%) patients respectively. Of the 126 patients without previous device therapy, 14.3% received appropriate therapy during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multicenter cohort, we report the incidence of complications for CIED procedures in the LVAD population; specifically, LVAD patients are at increased risk of pocket hematomas, without downstream risk of infection, and do experience a high rate of appropriate device therapies.