Effect of Torsemide Versus Furosemide on Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. METHODS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months. RESULTS: Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P=0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P=0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P=0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P=0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Association of Acute Kidney Injury and Cardiovascular Disease Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Assessment of Interactions by Race, Diabetes, and Kidney Function.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Black patients and those with diabetes or reduced kidney function experience a disproportionate burden of acute kidney injury (AKI) and cardiovascular events. However, whether these factors modify the association between AKI and cardiovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown and was the focus of this study. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent PCI at Duke between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2013, with data available in the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease. EXPOSURE: AKI, defined as ≥1.5-fold relative elevation in serum creatinine within 7 days from a reference value ascertained 30 days before PCI, or a 0.3 mg/dL increase from the reference value within 48 hours. OUTCOME: A composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization during the first year after PCI. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Cox regression models adjusted for potential confounders and with interaction terms between AKI and race, diabetes, or baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). RESULTS: Among 9,422 patients, 9% (n = 865) developed AKI, and the primary composite outcome occurred in 21% (n = 2,017). AKI was associated with a nearly 2-fold higher risk of the primary outcome (adjusted HR, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.71-2.20]). The association between AKI and cardiovascular risk did not significantly differ by race (P interaction, 0.4), diabetes, (P interaction, 0.06), or eGFR (P interaction, 0.2). However, Black race and severely reduced eGFR, but not diabetes, each had a cumulative impact with AKI on risk for the primary outcome. Compared with White patients with no AKI as the reference, the risk for the outcome was highest in Black patients with AKI (HR, 2.27 [95% CI, 1.83-2.82]), followed by White patients with AKI (HR, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.58-2.21]), and was least in patients of other races with AKI (HR, 1.48 [95% CI, 0.88-2.48]). LIMITATIONS: Residual confounding, including the impact of clinical care following PCI on cardiovascular outcomes of AKI. CONCLUSIONS: Neither race, diabetes, nor reduced eGFR potentiated the association of AKI with cardiovascular risk, but Black patients with AKI had a qualitatively greater risk than White patients with AKI or patients of other races with AKI. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study examined differences by race, diabetes, or kidney function in the well-known association of AKI with increased risk for cardiovascular outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The authors found that AKI was associated with a greater risk for cardiovascular outcomes, but this risk did not differ by patients' race, diabetes status, or level of kidney function before the procedure. That said, the risk for cardiovascular outcomes was numerically highest among Black patients compared with White patients or those of other races. These study findings suggest that future efforts to prevent AKI among patients undergoing the procedure could reduce racial disparities in risk for unfavorable cardiovascular outcomes afterward.

Morbidity and Mortality Associated With Heart Failure in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Pooled Analysis of 4 Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) may complicate acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and is associated with a high burden of short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Only limited data regarding future ischemic events and rehospitalization are available for patients who suffer HF before or during ACS. METHODS: A secondary analysis of 4 large ACS trials (PLATO, APPRAISE-2, TRACER, and TRILOGY ACS) using Cox proportional hazards models was performed to investigate the association of HF status (no HF, chronic HF, de novo HF) at presentation for ACS with all-cause and cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE ), myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) by 1 year. Cumulative incidence plots are presented at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 11.1% of the 47,474 patients presenting with ACS presented with evidence of acute HF, 55.0% of whom presented with de novo HF. Patients with chronic HF presented with evidence of acute HF at a higher rate than those with no previous HF (40.3% vs 6.9%). Compared to those without HF, those with chronic and de novo HF had higher rates of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.72-2.34 and aHR 1.47, 95% CI1.15-1.88, respectively), MACE (aHR 1.47, 95% CI1.31-1-.66 and aHR 1.38, 95% CI1.12-1.69), and HHF (aHR 2.29, 95% CI2.02-2.61 and aHR 1.48, 95% CI 1.20-1.82) at 1 year. CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of patients with ACS, both prior and de novo HF complicating ACS were associated with significantly higher risk-adjusted rates of death, ischemic events and HHF at 30 days and 1 year. Further studies examining the association between HF and outcomes in this high-risk population are warranted, especially given the advent of more contemporary HF therapies.

Trends of blood pressure control in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic.

IMPORTANCE: COVID-19 altered lifestyles and disrupted routine health care. Whether blood pressure (BP) control worsened during COVID-19 is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To understand whether home BP control worsened during COVID-19 across the United States (US) . DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A population-based analysis of home BP data from 72,706 participants enrolled in a digital health hypertension control program. Data was compared before (January 2019 to March 2020) and during (April 2020 to August 2020) COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Monthly mean home BP readings, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were quantified before and during the pandemic. Multivariable adjustments were made for age, sex, race, region, and months enrolled. Home BP readings were also classified based on monthly averages and highest home BP readings into risk groups: Stage 2 HTN: BP> = 135 or DBP> = 85; Uncontrolled HTN: SBP> = 145 or DBP> = 95; or Severely uncontrolled HTN: SBP> = 160 or DBP> = 100). RESULTS: Overall, 72,706 participants were enrolled in a digital health hypertension program between 1/1/2019 and 8/31/2020. Compared with participants pre-COVID-19 (n = 33,440), those during COVID-19 (n = 39,266) were of similar age (mean 53.0 ± 10.7 years vs 53.3 ± 10.8 years); sex (46% vs 50.6% female) and race (29.1% vs 34.2% non-white). Relative to pre-Covid (Apr-Aug 2019) the mean monthly number of home BP readings rose during COVID-19 (Apr-Aug, 2020), from 7.3 to 9.3 per month (P < .001). During COVID-19, participants had higher monthly adjusted mean SBP (131.6 mmHg vs. 127.5 mmHg, P < .001); DBP (80.2 mmHg vs. 79.2 mmHg, P < .001); and MAP (97.4 mmHg vs. 95.3 mmHg; P < .001). Relative to the pre-pandemic period, during COVID-19 the proportion of participants with a mean monthly BP classified as uncontrolled or severely uncontrolled hypertension also rose, 15% vs 19% and 4% vs 5%, respectively CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Based on home BP readings, mean monthly BP rose modestly after COVID-19, despite increased utilization of home monitoring. Further studies are needed to examine the longitudinal effects of the pandemic on cardiovascular disease risk factors, the impact of these on long-term population health.

Clinical trajectory of patients with a worsening heart failure event and reduced ventricular ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and worsening heart failure (WHF) have potential for greater benefit from newer HF therapies. We investigated characteristics and outcomes of patients with HFrEF and WHF by severity of left ventricular dysfunction. METHODS: We identified patients with chronic symptomatic HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤35%) and evidence of WHF (emergency department visit or hospitalization for acute HF within 12 months of index echocardiogram) treated at Duke University between 1/2009 and 12/2018. Patients were stratified by LVEF≤25% or 26% to35%. Cox models were used to estimate cause-specific hazard ratios and 5-year event incidence of death and hospitalization across the range of LVEF. RESULTS: Of 2823 patients with HFrEF and WHF, 1620 (57.4%) had an LVEF≤25% and 1203 (42.6%) had an LVEF 26% to35%. Compared to patients with LVEF 26% to35%, those with LVEF≤25% were younger and more commonly men with a lower cardiovascular comorbidity burden. Patients with LVEF≤25% were less commonly on beta blockers (85.9% vs 90.5%) but more commonly treated with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (49.3% vs 41.1%) and implantable defibrillators (41.3% vs 28.2%). Patients with LVEF≤25% had significantly higher hazards for death (HR 1.24 [95% CI 1.11 - 1.38]), all-cause hospitalization (HR 1.21 [95% CI 1.10 - 1.33]), and HF hospitalization (HR 1.25 [95% CI 1.1 - 1.38]) through 5-years. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of patients with chronic HFrEF and WHF have severe LV dysfunction. Important differences in comorbidities, HF therapies, and outcomes exist between those with LVEF≤25% and those with LVEF 26% to35%.

Polypharmacy in Palliative Care for Advanced Heart Failure: The PAL-HF Experience.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) in advanced heart failure (HF) aims to improve symptoms and quality of life (QOL), in part through medication management. The impact of PC on polypharmacy (>5 medications) remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We explored patterns of polypharmacy in the Palliative Care in HF (PAL-HF) randomized controlled trial of standard care vs interdisciplinary PC in advanced HF (N = 150). We describe differences in medication counts between arms at 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks for HF (12 classes) and PC (6 classes) medications. General linear mixed models were used to evaluate associations between treatment arm and polypharmacy over time. The median age of the patients was 72 years (interquartile range 62-80 years), 47% were female, and 41% were Black. Overall, 48% had ischemic etiology, and 55% had an ejection fraction of 40% or less. Polypharmacy was present at baseline in 100% of patients. HF and PC medication counts increased in both arms, with no significant differences in counts by drug class at any time point between arms. CONCLUSIONS: In a trial of patients with advanced HF considered eligible for PC, polypharmacy was universal at baseline and increased during follow-up with no effect of the palliative intervention on medication counts relative to standard care.

Racial Differences in AKI Incidence Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a risk factor for AKI development, but few studies have quantified racial differences in AKI incidence after this procedure. METHODS: We examined the association of self-reported race (Black, White, or other) and baseline eGFR with AKI incidence among patients who underwent PCI at Duke University Medical Center between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2013. We defined AKI as a 0.3 mg/dl absolute increase in serum creatinine within 48 hours, or ≥1.5-fold relative elevation within 7 days post-PCI from the reference value ascertained within 30 days before PCI. RESULTS: Of 9422 patients in the analytic cohort (median age 63 years; 33% female; 75% White, 20% Black, 5% other race), 9% developed AKI overall (14% of Black, 8% of White, 10% of others). After adjustment for demographics, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, predisposing medications, PCI indication, periprocedural AKI prophylaxis, and PCI procedural characteristics, Black race was associated with increased odds for incident AKI compared with White race (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.48 to 2.15). Compared with Whites, odds for incident AKI were not significantly higher in other patients (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.83). Low baseline eGFR was associated with graded, higher odds of AKI incidence (P value for trend <0.001); however, there was no interaction between race and baseline eGFR on odds for incident AKI (P value for interaction = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Black patients had greater odds of developing AKI after PCI compared with White patients. Future investigations should identify factors, including multiple domains of social determinants, that predispose Black individuals to disparate AKI risk after PCI.

Predicting major adverse limb events in individuals with type 2 diabetes: Insights from the EXSCEL trial.

AIMS: Although models exist to predict amputation among people with type 2 diabetes with foot ulceration or infection, we aimed to develop a prediction model for a broader range of major adverse limb events (MALE)-including gangrene, revascularization and amputation-among individuals with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In a post-hoc analysis of data from the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL) trial, we compared participants who experienced MALE with those who did not. A multivariable model was constructed and translated into a risk score. RESULTS: Among the 14,752 participants with type 2 diabetes in EXSCEL, 3.6% experienced MALE. Characteristics associated with increased risk of MALE were peripheral artery disease (PAD) (HRadj 4.83, 95% CI: 3.94-5.92), prior foot ulcer (HRadj 2.16, 95% CI: 1.63-2.87), prior amputation (HRadj 2.00, 95% CI: 1.53-2.64), current smoking (HRadj 2.00, 95% CI: 1.54-2.61), insulin use (HRadj 1.86, 95% CI: 1.52-2.27), coronary artery disease (HRadj 1.67, 95% CI: 1.38-2.03) and male sex (HRadj 1.64, 95% CI: 1.31-2.06). Cerebrovascular disease, former smoking, age, glycated haemoglobin, race and neuropathy were also associated significantly with MALE after adjustment. A risk score ranging from 6 to 96 points was constructed, with a C-statistic of 0.822 (95% CI: 0.803-0.841). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of MALE occurred among participants with PAD, but participants without a history of PAD also experienced MALE. A risk score with good performance was generated. Although it requires validation in an external dataset, this risk score may be valuable in identifying patients requiring more intensive care and closer follow-up.

Peripheral blood metabolite profiles associated with new onset atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral blood metabolite profiles have yielded mechanistic insights into various cardiovascular disease states. We hypothesized that peripheral blood metabolite profiles would be associated with new onset atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population comprised 1892 patients without AF at baseline, who, as part the MURDOCK Cardiovascular Disease Study molecular profiling cohort (n = 2023), had previously had determination of levels of 69 metabolites from frozen, fasting plasma specimens obtained during coronary angiography. We used Cox proportional hazards models to examine the association of 13 uncorrelated metabolite factors created from these data using principal components analysis (PCA) with new occurrences of AF during a median follow up of 2.8 (0.1-4.9) years. A total of 233 patients developed new AF (12.3%) during follow up. Patients with new onset AF were older (median 67 vs. 60 years); more often white (82 vs. 71%) and male (68 vs. 60%), and had more comorbidities than those who did not develop AF. After adjustment, PCA factor 1 (medium chain acylcarnitines; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.11 [1.01-1.22]), factor 2 (short chain dicarboxylacylcarnitines; HR: 1.21 [1.09-1.34]) and factor 5 (long chain acylcarnitines; HR: 1.19 [1.06-1.34]) were associated with new onset AF. CONCLUSION: Metabolite profiles were associated with new onset AF among patients referred for coronary angiography. Validation of these observations in broader patient populations may provide better mechanistic insight into the development of AF, and may provide new opportunities for prevention and treatment.

Claims-based cardiovascular outcome identification for clinical research: Results from 7 large randomized cardiovascular clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Medicare insurance claims may provide an efficient means to ascertain follow-up of older participants in clinical research. We sought to determine the accuracy and completeness of claims- versus site-based follow-up with clinical event committee (+CEC) adjudication of cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using linked Medicare and Duke Database of Clinical Trials data. Medicare claims were linked to clinical data from 7 randomized cardiovascular clinical trials. Of 52,476 trial participants, linking resulted in 5,839 (of 10,497 linkage-eligible) Medicare-linked trial participants with fee-for-service A and B coverage. Death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and revascularization incidences were compared using Medicare inpatient claims only, site-reported events (+CEC) only, or a combination of the 2. Randomized treatment effects were compared as a function of whether claims-based, site-based (+CEC), or a combined system was used for event detection. RESULTS: Among the 5,839 study participants, the annual event rates were similar between claims- and site-based (+CEC) follow-up: death (overall rate 5.2% vs 5.2%; adjusted κ 0.99), MI (2.2% vs 2.3%; adjusted κ 0.96), stroke (0.7% vs 0.7%; adjusted κ 0.99), and any revascularization (7.4% vs 7.9%; adjusted κ 0.95). Of events detected by claims yet not reported by CEC, a minority were reported by sites but negatively adjudicated by CEC (39% of MIs and 18% of strokes). Differences in individual case concordance led to higher event rates when claims- and site-based (+CEC) systems were combined. Randomized treatment effects were similar among the 3 approaches for each outcome of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Claims- versus site-based (+CEC) follow-up identified similar overall cardiovascular event rates despite meaningful differences in the events detected. Randomized treatment effects were similar using the 2 methods, suggesting claims data could be used to support clinical research leveraging routinely collected data. This approach may lead to more effective evidence generation, synthesis, and appraisal of medical products and inform the strategic approaches toward the National Evaluation System for Health Technology.