Impact of Insurance Status and Region on Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Prescription During Heart Failure Hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: An angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) is the preferred renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Among eligible patients, insurance status and prescriber concern regarding out-of-pocket costs may constrain early initiation of ARNI and other new therapies. OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors sought to evaluate the association of insurance and other social determinants of health with ARNI initiation at discharge from HFrEF hospitalization. METHODS: The authors analyzed ARNI initiation from January 2017 to June 2020 among patients with HFrEF eligible to receive RAS inhibitor at discharge from hospitals in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. The primary outcome was the proportion of ARNI prescription at discharge among those prescribed RAS inhibitor who were not on ARNI on admission. A logistic regression model was used to determine the association of insurance status, U.S. region, and their interaction, as well as self-reported race, with ARNI initiation at discharge. RESULTS: From 42,766 admissions, 24,904 were excluded for absolute or relative contraindications to RAS inhibitors. RAS inhibitors were prescribed for 16,817 (94.2%) of remaining discharges, for which ARNI was prescribed in 1,640 (9.8%). Self-reported Black patients were less likely to be initiated on ARNI compared to self-reported White patients (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.50-0.81). Compared to Medicare beneficiaries, patients with third-party insurance, Medicaid, or no insurance were less likely to be initiated on ARNI (OR: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31-0.72], OR: 0.41 [95% CI: 0.25-0.67], and OR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.08-0.47], respectively). ARNI therapy varied by hospital region, with lowest utilization in the Mountain region. An interaction was demonstrated between the impact of insurance disparities and hospital region. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized between 2017 and 2020 for HFrEF who were prescribed RAS inhibitor therapy at discharge, insurance status, geographic region, and self-reported race were associated with ARNI initiation.

Changing Strategy Between Bridge to Transplant and Destination LVAD Therapy After the First 3 Months: Analysis of the STS-INTERMACS Database.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been implanted as bridge to transplantation (BTT), bridge to candidacy (BTC) or destination therapy (DT) on the basis of relative and absolute contraindications to transplantation. Multiple factors may lead to changes in the strategy of support after LVAD implantation. METHODS: Based on INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) 2012-2020 data, 11,262 patients survived to 3 months on continuous-flow LVADs with intent of BTT or DT. Preimplant characteristics and early events post-LVAD were analyzed in relation to changes in BTT or DT strategy during the next 12 months. RESULTS: Among 3216 BTT patients at 3 months, later transplant delisting or death without transplant occurred in 536 (16.7%) and was more common with age, profiles 1-2, renal dysfunction, and independently for prior cardiac surgery (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.04-1.51; P = 0.02). Post-LVAD events of infections, gastrointestinal bleeding, stroke, and right heart failure as defined by inotropic therapy, predicted delisting and death, as did in-hospital location at 3 months (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.20-2.33; P = 0.0024). Of 8046 patients surviving to 3 months with the intent of destination therapy, 750 (9.3%) subsequently underwent listing or transplantation, often with initial histories of acute HF (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.27-2.27; P = 0.0012) or malnutrition-cachexia (1.73, 95% CI 1.14-2.63; P = 0.0099). Multiple gastrointestinal bleeding events (≥ 4) with LVAD increased transition from BTT to DT (HR 4.22, 95% CI 1.46-12.275; P = 0.0078) but also from DT to BTT (HR 5.17, 95% CI 1.92-13.9; P = 0.0011). CONCLUSIONS: Implant strategies change over time in relation to preimplant characteristics and adverse events post implant. Preimplant recognition of factors predicting later change in implant strategy will refine initial triage, whereas further reduction of post-LVAD complications will expand options, including eventual consideration of heart transplantation.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. STRUCTURE: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. STRUCTURE: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Early US experience with cardiac donation after circulatory death (DCD) using normothermic regional perfusion.

BACKGROUND: Given the shortage of suitable donor hearts for cardiac transplantation and the growing interest in donation after circulatory death (DCD), our institution recently began procuring cardiac allografts from DCD donors. METHODS: Between October 2020 and March 2021, 15 patients with heart failure underwent cardiac transplantation using DCD allografts. Allografts were procured using a modified extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuit for thoracic normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) and were subsequently transported using cold static storage. Data collection and analysis were performed with institutional review board approval. RESULTS: The mean age of the DCD donors was 23 ± 7 years and average time on TA-NRP was 56 ± 8 minutes. Total ischemic time was 183 ± 31 minutes and distance from transplant center was 373 ± 203 nautical miles. Recipient age was 55 ± 14 years, with 8 (55.3%) recipients on durable left ventricular assist device support. Post-transplant, 6 (40%) recipients experienced mild left ventricle primary graft dysfunction (PGD-LV), 3 (20%) recipients experienced moderate PGD-LV, and no recipients experienced severe PGD-LV. Postoperative transthoracic echocardiogram demonstrated left ventricular ejection fraction >55% in all recipients. One recipient (6.6%) developed International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation 2R acute cellular rejection on first biopsy. At last follow-up, all 15 recipients were alive past 30-days. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac DCD provides an opportunity to increase the availability of donor hearts for transplantation. Utilizing TA-NRP with cold static storage, we have extended the cold ischemic time of DCD allografts to almost 3 hours, allowing for inter-hospital organ transport.

Impact of increased donor distances following adult heart allocation system changes: A single center review of 1-year outcomes.

BACKGROUND: On October 18, 2018, several changes to the donor heart allocation system were enacted. We hypothesize that patients undergoing orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) under the new allocation system will see an increase in ischemic times, rates of primary graft dysfunction, and 1-year mortality due to these changes. METHODS: In this single-center retrospective study, we reviewed the charts of all OHT patients from October 2017 through October 2019. Pre- and postallocation recipient demographics were compared. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 184 patients underwent OHT. Recipient demographics were similar between cohorts. The average distance from donor increased by more than 150 km (p = .006). Patients in the postallocation change cohort demonstrated a significant increase in the rate of severe left ventricle primary graft dysfunction from 5.4% to 18.7% (p = .005). There were no statistically significant differences in 30-day mortality or 1-year survival. Time on the waitlist was reduced from 203.8 to 103.7 days (p = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in heart allocation resulted in shorter waitlist times at the expense of longer donor distances and ischemic times, with an associated negative impact on early post-transplantation outcomes. No significant differences in 30-day or 1-year mortality were observed.

Remote Hemodynamic-Guided Therapy of Patients With Recurrent Heart Failure Following Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Background Patients with recurring heart failure (HF) following cardiac resynchronization therapy fare poorly. Their management is undecided. We tested remote hemodynamic-guided pharmacotherapy. Methods and Results We evaluated cardiac resynchronization therapy subjects included in the CHAMPION (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in New York Heart Association Class III Heart Failure Patients) trial, which randomized patients with persistent New York Heart Association Class III symptoms and ≥1 HF hospitalization in the previous 12 months to remotely managed pulmonary artery (PA) pressure-guided management (treatment) or usual HF care (control). Diuretics and/or vasodilators were adjusted conventionally in control and included remote PA pressure information in treatment. Annualized HF hospitalization rates, changes in PA pressures over time (analyzed by area under the curve), changes in medications, and quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores) were assessed. Patients who had cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=190, median implant duration 755 days) at enrollment had poor hemodynamic function (cardiac index 2.00±0.59 L/min per m2), high comorbidity burden (67% had secondary pulmonary hypertension, 61% had estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2), and poor Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores (57±24). During 18 months randomized follow-up, HF hospitalizations were 30% lower in treatment (n=91, 62 events, 0.46 events/patient-year) versus control patients (n=99, 93 events, 0.68 events/patient-year) (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.96; P=0.028). Treatment patients had more medication up-/down-titrations (847 versus 346 in control, P<0.001), mean PA pressure reduction (area under the curve -413.2±123.5 versus 60.1±88.0 in control, P=0.002), and quality of life improvement (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire decreased -13.5±23 versus -4.9±24.8 in control, P=0.006). Conclusions Remote hemodynamic-guided adjustment of medical therapies decreased PA pressures and the burden of HF symptoms and hospitalizations in patients with recurring Class III HF and hospitalizations, beyond the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00531661.

Risk for non-home discharge following surgery for ischemic mitral valve disease.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency and risk factors for non-home discharge (NHD) and its association with clinical outcomes and quality of life (QOL) at 1 year following cardiac surgery in patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR). METHODS: Discharge disposition was evaluated in 552 patients enrolled in trials of severe or moderate IMR. Patient and in-hospital factors associated with NHD were identified using logistic regression. Subsequently, association of NHD with 1-year mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), and QOL was assessed. RESULTS: NHD was observed in 30% (154/522) with 25% (n = 71/289) in moderate and 36% (n = 83/233) in patients with severe IMR (unadjusted P = .006), a difference not significant after including age (5-year change: adjusted odds ratio [adjOR], 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-1.72; P < .001), diabetes (adjOR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.27-2.94; P = .002), and previous heart failure (adjOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.06-2.52; P = .03). Odds of NHD were increased for patients with postoperative SAEs (adjOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.19-2.86; P = .01) but not based on type of cardiac surgery. Greater rates of death and SAEs were observed in NHD patients at 1 year: adjusted hazard ratio, 4.29 (95% CI, 2.14-8.59; P < .001) and adjusted rate ratio, 1.45 (95% CI, 1.03-2.02; P = .03), respectively. QOL did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: NHD is common following surgery for IMR, influenced by older age, diabetes, previous heart failure, and postoperative SAEs. These patients may be at greater risk of death and subsequent SAEs after discharge. Discussion of NHD with patients may have important implications for decision-making and guiding expectations following cardiac surgery.

Burden and Causes of Hospital Admissions in Heart Failure During the Last Year of Life.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the incidence and causes of hospitalization in the year preceding death of patients with heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations in HF are common, especially in the last period of the lives of patients with HF, but little is known about hospitalization burden and causes during this phase of the disease. METHODS: From Danish nationwide registries, we identified patients who died in the period 2001-2016 after having experienced HF for at least 1 year, and examined hospitalizations during the last year of life in age- and sex-stratified analyses. RESULTS: We included 32,157 patients. Median age at time of death was 81 years; 39% were women. A total of 26,561 (84%) patients were hospitalized at least once during the last year of life. The patients experienced a median of 2 (1 to 3) hospitalizations and spent 14 (3 to 31) days in the hospital. Of all hospitalizations (n = 80,362), 9,644 (12%) were due to HF, 14,738 (18%) due to other cardiovascular (CV) causes, and 51,696 (64%) due to non-CV causes (p < 0.001). The frequency of hospitalizations increased toward death, but the domination of non-CV causes remained consistent throughout the year, regardless of age and sex. If we included diagnoses covering renal insufficiency in the definition of HF hospitalizations, non-CV hospitalizations remained dominant (58%). CONCLUSIONS: During the last year alive, patients with HF were more often hospitalized due to non-CV causes rather than HF. These findings warrant more focus on a multidisciplinary approach toward end-of-life care in patients with HF.

Ambulatory Advanced Heart Failure in Women: A Report From the REVIVAL Registry.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to explore clinical characteristics and outcomes in women and men with ambulatory advanced heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND: Women have been underrepresented in studies of advanced HF and have an increased mortality on the transplant waiting list and early after mechanical circulatory support (MCS). An increased understanding of the differential burden of HF between women and men is required to inform the use of mechanical circulatory support in ambulatory advanced HF patients. METHODS: REVIVAL (Registry Evaluation for Vital Information on Ventricular Assist Devices in Ambulatory Life) is a prospective, observational study of 400 outpatients with chronic systolic HF, New York Heart Association functional class II to IV, and 1 additional high-risk feature. Clinical characteristics, quality of life, and functional capacity were compared between women and men, as was a primary composite endpoint of death, durable MCS, or urgent heart transplantation at 1 year. RESULTS: REVIVAL enrolled 99 women (25% of the cohort) who had similar age, ejection fraction, INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) profiles, medication use, and willingness to consider MCS as the men enrolled; however, women reported significantly greater limitations in quality of life with respect to physical limitation, reduced 6-min walk distance, and more frequent symptoms of depression. Nevertheless, 1-year combined risk of death, durable MCS, or urgent transplantation did not differ between women and men (24% vs. 22%; p = 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest report to date of women with ambulatory advanced HF receiving contemporary therapies. Systematic elicitation of patient-reported outcome measures uncovered an added burden of HF in women and may be an appropriate target of augmented support and intervention.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs Database Annual Report: Evolving Indications, Outcomes, and Scientific Partnerships.

BACKGROUND: The Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (Intermacs), a joint effort among the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and others, was established in 2005 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The registry examined clinical outcomes and quality-of-life metrics of patients who received an Food and Drug Administration-approved durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device to treat advanced heart failure. On January 1, 2018, the Intermacs Database became part of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database, providing additional resources for quality assessment and improvement and scientific advancement. METHODS: The Intermacs Database Annual Report summarizes outcomes in patients (≥19 years of age) who underwent durable MCS implant between June 23, 2006, and December 31, 2017. Outcomes are presented for patients who underwent isolated continuous flow left ventricular assist device (CF LVAD) support, CF LVAD support with concomitant right ventricular assist device (RVAD) implant, or total artificial heart implant. Analyses of patients with CF LVADs are stratified by axial flow and centrifugal flow configurations. Because of the association of era with outcomes, the survival analyses are restricted to isolated CF LVADs implanted in the 2012 to 2016 era. RESULTS: There were 25,145 adult patients with MCS reported to Intermacs, of whom 18,539 (74%) received CF LVADs, 667 (2.6%) had an RVAD with CF LVAD, 339 received a total artificial heart (1.3%), and 20 (0.07%) received an isolated RVAD. Of the CF LVADs, mean age was 57 ± 1 years, 26% were listed for transplantation, and 51% were in cardiogenic shock (profile 1 to 2) preoperatively. CF LVADs included 14,527 axial flow (78%) and 4,012 centrifugal flow (22%) devices. Intermacs patient phenotype has evolved over time to include more patients with profile 3 (26% in 2006 to 2011 versus 35% in 2012 to 2016) and fewer patients with profile 2 (40% versus 35%), patients with better markers of preoperative renal and hepatic function, and more patients who received implants for destination therapy (29% versus 48%) indication. In 2017, centrifugal flow implants (51%) approximated that of axial flow devices (49%). Mean CF LVAD support duration was 20 months (31,563 patient-years). One-year survival for isolated CF LVADs was 83% and 5-year survival was 46%. One-year survivals for centrifugal versus axial flow devices were 85% and 84%, respectively. Patients who required concomitant RVAD support had 1- and 5-year survivals of 58% and 28%, respectively. Freedom from all-cause readmission was 70% at 1 month and 20% at 1 year. At 1 year, stroke occurred in 20% of patients on centrifugal flow and 13% of patients on axial flow support (p < 0.001), gastrointestinal bleeding affected 20% of patients with centrifugal flow devices and 25% of patients with axial flow devices (p < 0.001), and pump-related infection occurred in 28% of patients with centrifugal flow devices versus 25% of patients with axial flow devices (p = 0.01). Neurologic dysfunction (19% of deaths) and multisystem organ dysfunction (15%) were the most common causes of death. CONCLUSIONS: With the evolution of MCS, patient phenotype and outcomes are also changing over time. CF LVAD support is increasingly being used in the less ill patient phenotype and more patients are supported for destination therapy. Mean survival is now approaching 5 years, but adverse events, especially neurologic events, continue to have a detrimental impact on the success of CF LVAD support.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs database annual report: Evolving indications, outcomes, and scientific partnerships.

BACKGROUND: The Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (Intermacs), a joint effort among the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and others, was established in 2005 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The registry examined clinical outcomes and quality-of-life metrics of patients who received an Food and Drug Administration-approved durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device to treat advanced heart failure. On January 1, 2018, the Intermacs Database became part of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database, providing additional resources for quality assessment and improvement and scientific advancement. METHODS: The Intermacs Database Annual Report summarizes outcomes in patients (≥19 years of age) who underwent durable MCS implant between June 23, 2006, and December 31, 2017. Outcomes are presented for patients who underwent isolated continuous flow left ventricular assist device (CF LVAD) support, CF LVAD support with concomitant right ventricular assist device (RVAD) implant, or total artificial heart implant. Analyses of patients with CF LVADs are stratified by axial flow and centrifugal flow configurations. Because of the association of era with outcomes, the survival analyses are restricted to isolated CF LVADs implanted in the 2012 to 2016 era. RESULTS: There were 25,145 adult patients with MCS reported to Intermacs, of whom 18,539 (74%) received CF LVADs, 667 (2.6%) had an RVAD with CF LVAD, 339 received a total artificial heart (1.3%), and 20 (0.07%) received an isolated RVAD. Of the CF LVADs, mean age was 57 ± 1 years, 26% were listed for transplantation, and 51% were in cardiogenic shock (profile 1 to 2) preoperatively. CF LVADs included 14,527 axial flow (78%) and 4,012 centrifugal flow (22%) devices. Intermacs patient phenotype has evolved over time to include more patients with profile 3 (26% in 2006 to 2011 versus 35% in 2012 to 2016) and fewer patients with profile 2 (40% versus 35%), patients with better markers of preoperative renal and hepatic function, and more patients who received implants for destination therapy (29% versus 48%) indication. In 2017, centrifugal flow implants (51%) approximated that of axial flow devices (49%). Mean CF LVAD support duration was 20 months (31,563 patient-years). One-year survival for isolated CF LVADs was 83% and 5-year survival was 46%. One-year survivals for centrifugal versus axial flow devices were 85% and 84%, respectively. Patients who required concomitant RVAD support had 1- and 5-year survivals of 58% and 28%, respectively. Freedom from all-cause readmission was 70% at 1 month and 20% at 1 year. At 1 year, stroke occurred in 20% of patients on centrifugal flow and 13% of patients on axial flow support (p < 0.001), gastrointestinal bleeding affected 20% of patients with centrifugal flow devices and 25% of patients with axial flow devices (p < 0.001), and pump-related infection occurred in 28% of patients with centrifugal flow devices versus 25% of patients with axial flow devices (p = 0.01). Neurologic dysfunction (19% of deaths) and multisystem organ dysfunction (15%) were the most common causes of death. CONCLUSIONS: With the evolution of MCS, patient phenotype and outcomes are also changing over time. CF LVAD support is increasingly being used in the less ill patient phenotype and more patients are supported for destination therapy. Mean survival is now approaching 5 years, but adverse events, especially neurologic events, continue to have a detrimental impact on the success of CF LVAD support.

Risk stratification of cervical disease using detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) E4 protein and cellular MCM protein in clinical liquid based cytology samples.

BACKGROUND: While human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing offers high sensitivity for the detection of significant cervical disease, its specificity is suboptimal given the high prevalence of transient HPV infections (CIN1 or less). Biomarkers to identify those suffering from low grade disease from those with high grade disease could save healthcare costs and reduce patient anxiety. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present work was to develop and test an immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based dual viral and cellular biomarker strategy which was applicable to liquid based cytology (LBC) samples. STUDY DESIGN: We developed a novel IHC assay for detection of HPV E4 and cellular minichromosome maintenance (MCM) proteins in routinely taken cervical LBC samples using cytospin-prepared slides. The assay was applied to a prospective cohort of Scottish women referred to a colposcopy clinic due to preceding cytological abnormalities. The performance of the biomarkers for detection of clinically insignificant (CIN1 or less) versus significant disease was determined. RESULTS: A total of 81 women were recruited representing 64 cases of <=CIN1 and 28 of CIN2 + . Biomarker performance relative to histopathology outcomes showed high levels of MCM detection was significantly associated with CIN2+ (p = 0.03) while E4 was detected more frequently in <=CIN1 (p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Combined detection of a host proliferation marker and a marker of viral gene expression could allow triage of cases of clinically insignificant disease prior to colposcopy. However, there was overlap between distributions of MCM levels in CIN2+ and <=CIN1 suggesting that additional biomarkers would be required for improved specificity. Combined with cytospin-prepared slides this approach could provide a means of risk stratification of disease in low resource settings.

Social Worker-Aided Palliative Care Intervention in High-risk Patients With Heart Failure (SWAP-HF): A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Palliative care considerations are typically introduced late in the disease trajectory of patients with advanced heart failure (HF), and access to specialty-level palliative care may be limited. Objective: To determine if early initiation of goals of care conversations by a palliative care-trained social worker would improve prognostic understanding, elicit advanced care preferences, and influence care plans for high-risk patients discharged after HF hospitalization. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, randomized clinical trial of a social worker-led palliative care intervention vs usual care analyzed patients recently hospitalized for management of acute HF who had risk factors for poor prognosis. Analyses were conducted by intention to treat. Interventions: Key components of the social worker-led intervention included a structured evaluation of prognostic understanding, end-of-life preferences, symptom burden, and quality of life with routine review by a palliative care physician; communication of this information to treating clinicians; and longitudinal follow-up in the ambulatory setting. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage of patients with physician-level documentation of advanced care preferences and the degree of alignment between patient and cardiologist expectations of prognosis at 6 months. Results: The study population (N = 50) had a mean (SD) age of 72 (11) years and had a mean (SD) left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.33 (13). Of 50 patients, 41 (82%) had been hospitalized more than once for HF management within 12 months of enrollment. At enrollment, treating physicians anticipated death within a year for 32 patients (64%), but 42 patients (84%) predicted their life expectancy to be longer than 5 years. At 6 months, more patients in the intervention group than in the control group had physician-level documentation of advanced care preferences in the electronic health record (17 [65%] vs 8 [33%]; χ2 = 5.1; P = .02). Surviving patients allocated to intervention were also more likely to revise their baseline prognostic assessment in a direction consistent with the physician's assessment (15 [94%] vs 4 [26%]; χ2 = 14.7; P < .001). Among the 31 survivors at 6 months, there was no measured difference between groups in depression, anxiety, or quality-of-life scores. Conclusions and Relevance: Patients at high risk for mortality from HF frequently overestimate their life expectancy. Without an adverse impact on quality of life, prognostic understanding and patient-physician communication regarding goals of care may be enhanced by a focused, social worker-led palliative care intervention that begins in the hospital and continues in the outpatient setting. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02805712.

2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways.

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is a complex valve lesion that can pose significant management challenges for the cardiovascular clinician. This Expert Consensus Document emphasizes that recognition of MR should prompt an assessment of its etiology, mechanism, and severity, as well as indications for treatment. A structured approach to evaluation based on clinical findings, precise echocardiographic imaging, and when necessary, adjunctive testing, can help clarify decision making. Treatment goals include timely intervention by an experienced heart team to prevent left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, reduced quality of life, and premature death.