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.

Medical Therapy Before, During and After Hospitalization in Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure and Diabetes: Get With The Guidelines - Heart Failure Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) are at risk for worsening clinical status. Little is known about the frequency of therapeutic changes during hospitalization. We characterized the use of medical therapies before, during and after hospitalization in patients with HF and DM. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries in Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) hospitalized between July 2014 and September 2019 with Part D prescription coverage. We evaluated trends in the use of 7 classes of antihyperglycemic therapies (metformin, sulfonylureas, GLP-1RA, SGLT2-inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, and insulins) and 4 classes of HF therapies (evidence-based ß-blockers, ACEi or ARB, MRA, and ARNI). Medication fills were assessed at 6 and 3 months before hospitalization, at hospital discharge and at 3 months post-discharge. RESULTS: Among 35,165 Medicare beneficiaries, the median age was 77 years, 54% were women, and 76% were white; 11,660 (33%) had HFrEF (LVEF ≤ 40%), 3700 (11%) had HFmrEF (LVEF 41%-49%), and 19,805 (56%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 50%). Overall, insulin was the most commonly prescribed antihyperglycemic after HF hospitalization (n = 12,919, 37%), followed by metformin (n = 7460, 21%) and sulfonylureas (n = 7030, 20%). GLP-1RA (n = 700, 2.0%) and SGLT2i (n = 287, 1.0%) use was low and did not improve over time. In patients with HFrEF, evidence-based beta-blocker, RASi, MRA, and ARNI fills during the 6 months preceding HF hospitalization were 63%, 62%, 19%, and 4%, respectively. Fills initially declined prior to hospitalization, but then rose from 3 months before hospitalization to discharge (beta-blocker: 56%-82%; RASi: 51%-57%, MRA: 15%-28%, ARNI: 3%-6%, triple therapy: 8%-20%; P < 0.01 for all). Prescription rates 3 months after hospitalization were similar to those at hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital optimization of medical therapy in patients with HF and DM is common in participating hospitals of a large US quality improvement registry.

Cardiovascular and Renal Treatment in Heart Failure Patients with Hyperkalemia or High Risk of Hyperkalemia: Rationale and Design of the CARE-HK in HF Registry.

BACKGROUND: Despite guideline recommendations, many patients with heart failure (HF) do not receive target doses of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASis) in clinical practice due, in part, to concerns about hyperkalemia (HK). METHODS AND RESULTS: This non-interventional, multinational, multicenter registry (NCT04864795; 111 sites in Europe and the USA) enrolled 2,558 eligible adults with chronic HF (mostly with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF]). Eligibility criteria included use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor / angiotensin-II receptor blocker / angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, candidate for or treatment with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and increased risk of HK (eg, current serum potassium >5.0 mmol/L], history of HK in the previous 24 months, or estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min/1.73 m2). Information on RAASi and other guideline-recommended therapies was collected retrospectively and prospectively (≥6 months). Patients were followed according to local clinical practice, without study-specific visits or interventions. The main objectives were to characterize RAASi treatment patterns compared with guideline recommendations, describe RAASi modifications following episodes of HK, and describe RAASi treatment in patients treated with patiromer. Baseline characteristics for the first 1,000 patients are presented. CONCLUSIONS: CARE-HK is a multinational prospective HF registry designed to report on the management and outcomes of patients with HF at high risk for HK in routine clinical practice.

Embracing an era of targeted combination therapy for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

The concept of quadruple therapy as a "one-size-fit-all" approach is effective among all eligible patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, with consistent and significant clinical benefits including reduced mortality across various subgroups. However, with exception of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, the consistency of benefit with therapies does not extend to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The clinical benefits of other promising medical therapies, such as angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, have been demonstrated only in certain phenotypes of the highly heterogenous heart failure with preserved ejection fraction population. This variability can confuse frontline practicing cardiologists, potentially leading to the under-implementation of these medications. Therefore, we propose a simple approach: "targeted" combination therapy. This strategy aims to optimize evidence-based medications in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction by tailoring treatments to specific subgroups within the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction population where significant benefits are most evident.

Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Slope as an Endpoint in Cardiovascular Trials.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: End stage kidney disease can be a slow process and it may be challenging to achieve required follow-up for sufficient events. Therefore, a surrogate kidney endpoint, such as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slope maybe attractive to assess the kidney in cardiovascular trials, especially heart failure (HF). RECENT FINDINGS: eGFR slope can generate informative results in a shorter follow-up period, has decreased risk of type-2 error, and is less sensitive to eGFR shifts compared with other surrogate kidney endpoints (eGFR decline≥40% or doubling creatinine). However, eGFR slope has its limitations with acute effects, heterogeneity in slope calculation/reporting, and deviations from linearity. eGFR slope is a kidney endpoint which may be well-suited for HF trials. Cross-collaborated guideline recommendations are needed to optimize the use of eGFR slope as a kidney endpoint in patients with HF.

Endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials.

Endpoint adjudication (EA) is a common feature of contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cardiovascular medicine. Endpoint adjudication refers to a process wherein a group of expert reviewers, known as the clinical endpoint committee (CEC), verify potential endpoints identified by site investigators. Events that are determined by the CEC to meet pre-specified trial definitions are then utilized for analysis. The rationale behind the use of EA is that it may lessen the potential misclassification of clinical events, thereby reducing statistical noise and bias. However, it has been questioned whether this is universally true, especially given that EA significantly increases the time, effort, and resources required to conduct a trial. Herein, we compare the summary estimates obtained using adjudicated vs. non-adjudicated site designated endpoints in major cardiovascular RCTs in which both were reported. Based on these data, we lay out a framework to determine which trials may warrant EA and where it may be redundant. The value of EA is likely greater when cardiovascular trials have nuanced primary endpoints, endpoint definitions that align poorly with practice, sub-optimal data completeness, greater operator variability, and lack of blinding. EA may not be needed if the primary endpoint is all-cause death or all-cause hospitalization. In contrast, EA is likely merited for more nuanced endpoints such as myocardial infarction, bleeding, worsening heart failure as an outpatient, unstable angina, or transient ischaemic attack. A risk-based approach to adjudication can potentially allow compromise between costs and accuracy. This would involve adjudication of a small proportion of events, with further adjudication done if inconsistencies are detected.

Leveraging electronic health records to streamline the conduct of cardiovascular clinical trials.

Conventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be expensive, time intensive, and complex to conduct. Trial recruitment, participation, and data collection can burden participants and research personnel. In the past two decades, there have been rapid technological advances and an exponential growth in digitized healthcare data. Embedding RCTs, including cardiovascular outcome trials, into electronic health record systems or registries may streamline screening, consent, randomization, follow-up visits, and outcome adjudication. Moreover, wearable sensors (i.e. health and fitness trackers) provide an opportunity to collect data on cardiovascular health and risk factors in unprecedented detail and scale, while growing internet connectivity supports the collection of patient-reported outcomes. There is a pressing need to develop robust mechanisms that facilitate data capture from diverse databases and guidance to standardize data definitions. Importantly, the data collection infrastructure should be reusable to support multiple cardiovascular RCTs over time. Systems, processes, and policies will need to have sufficient flexibility to allow interoperability between different sources of data acquisition. Clinical research guidelines, ethics oversight, and regulatory requirements also need to evolve. This review highlights recent progress towards the use of routinely generated data to conduct RCTs and discusses potential solutions for ongoing barriers. There is a particular focus on methods to utilize routinely generated data for trials while complying with regional data protection laws. The discussion is supported with examples of cardiovascular outcome trials that have successfully leveraged the electronic health record, web-enabled devices or administrative databases to conduct randomized trials.

Frailty and Its Implications in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Impact on Prognosis and Treatment.

Frailty affects half of all patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and carries a ∼2-fold increased risk of mortality. The relationship between frailty and HFrEF is bidirectional, with one condition exacerbating the other. Paradoxical to their higher clinical risk, frail patients with HFrEF are more often under-treated due to concerns over medication-related adverse clinical events. However, current evidence suggests consistent safety of HF medical therapies among older frail patients with HFrEF. A multidisciplinary effort is necessary for the appropriate management of these high-risk patients which focuses on the optimization of known beneficial therapies with a goal-directed effort toward improving quality of life.

Transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy among patients hospitalized for heart failure and performance of an adapted wild-type ATTR-CM machine learning model: Findings from GWTG-HF.

BACKGROUND: An 11-factor random forest model has been developed among ambulatory heart failure (HF) patients for identifying potential wild-type amyloidogenic TTR cardiomyopathy (wtATTR-CM). The model has not been evaluated in a large sample of patients hospitalized for HF. METHODS: This study included Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years hospitalized for HF in the Get With The Guidelines-HF® Registry from 2008-2019. Patients with and without a diagnosis of ATTR-CM were compared, as defined by inpatient and outpatient claims data within 6 months pre- or post-index hospitalization. Within a cohort matched 1:1 by age and sex, univariable logistic regression was used to evaluate relationships between ATTR-CM and each of the 11 factors of the established model. Discrimination and calibration of the 11-factor model were assessed. RESULTS: Among 205,545 patients (median age 81 years) hospitalized for HF across 608 hospitals, 627 patients (0.31%) had a diagnosis code for ATTR-CM. Univariable analysis within the 1:1 matched cohort of each of the 11-factors in the ATTR-CM model found pericardial effusion, carpal tunnel syndrome, lumbar spinal stenosis, and elevated serum enzymes (e.g., troponin elevation) to be strongly associated with ATTR-CM. The 11-factor model showed modest discrimination (c-statistic 0.65) and good calibration within the matched cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Among US patients hospitalized for HF, the number of patients with ATTR-CM defined by diagnosis codes on an inpatient/outpatient claim within 6 months of admission was low. Most factors within the prior 11-factor model were associated with greater odds of ATTR-CM diagnosis. In this population, the ATTR-CM model demonstrated modest discrimination.

Comparison of 30-day Readmission Rates and Inpatient Cardiac Procedures for Weekday Versus Weekend Hospital Admissions for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Whether the timing of hospital presentation impacts care delivery and clinical outcomes for patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) remains a matter of debate. In this study, we examined all-cause and HF-specific 30-day readmission rates for patients who were admitted for HF on a weekend vs admitted for HF on a weekday. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using the 2010-2019 Nationwide Readmission Database to compare 30-day readmission rates among patients who were admitted for HF on a weekday (Monday to Friday) vs patients who were admitted for HF on a weekend (Saturday or Sunday). We also compared in-hospital cardiac procedures and temporal trends in 30-day readmission by day of index hospital admission. Among 8,270,717 index HF hospitalizations, 6,302,775 were admitted on a weekday and 1,967,942 admitted on a weekend. For weekday and weekend admissions, the 30-day all-cause readmission rates were 19.8% vs 20.3%, and HF-specific readmission rates were 8.1% vs 8.4%, respectively. Weekend admissions were independently associated with higher risk of all-cause (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.05, P < .001) and HF-specific readmission (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.03-1.05, P < .001). Weekend HF admissions were less likely to undergo echocardiography (aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94-0.96, P < .001), right heart catheterization (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.79-0.81, P < .001), electrical cardioversion (aOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88-0.93, P < .001), or receive temporary mechanical support devices (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79-0.89, P < .001). The mean length of stay was shorter for weekend HF admissions (5.1 days vs 5.4 days, P < .001). Between 2010 and 2019, 30-day all-cause (18.5% to 18.2%, trend P < .001) and HF-specific (8.4% to 8.3%, trend P < .001) readmission rates decreased among weekday HF admissions. Among weekend HF admissions, the HF-specific 30-day readmission rate decreased (8.8% to 8.7%, trend P < .001), but the all-cause 30-day readmission rate remained stable (trend P = .280). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for HF, weekend admissions were independently associated with excess risk of 30-day all-cause and HF-specific readmission and a lower likelihood of undergoing in-hospital cardiovascular testing and procedures. The 30-day all-cause readmission rate has decreased modestly over time among patients admitted on weekdays, but has remained stable among patients admitted on weekends.