Dual-Organ Transplantation: Indications, Evaluation, and Outcomes for Heart-Kidney and Heart-Liver Transplantation: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Although heart transplantation is the preferred therapy for appropriate patients with advanced heart failure, the presence of concomitant renal or hepatic dysfunction can pose a barrier to isolated heart transplantation. Because donor organ supply limits the availability of organ transplantation, appropriate allocation of this scarce resource is essential; thus, clear guidance for simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation and simultaneous heart-liver transplantation is urgently required. The purposes of this scientific statement are (1) to describe the impact of pretransplantation renal and hepatic dysfunction on posttransplantation outcomes; (2) to discuss the assessment of pretransplantation renal and hepatic dysfunction; (3) to provide an approach to patient selection for simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation and simultaneous heart-liver transplantation and posttransplantation management; and (4) to explore the ethics of multiorgan transplantation.

Differences in Donor Heart Acceptance by Race and Gender of Patients on the Transplant Waiting List.

Importance: Barriers to heart transplant must be overcome prior to listing. It is unclear why Black men and women remain less likely to receive a heart transplant after listing than White men and women. Objective: To evaluate whether race or gender of a heart transplant candidate (ie, patient on the transplant waiting list) is associated with the probability of a donor heart being accepted by the transplant center team with each offer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used the United Network for Organ Sharing datasets to identify organ acceptance with each offer for US non-Hispanic Black (hereafter, Black) and non-Hispanic White (hereafter, White) adults listed for heart transplant from October 18, 2018, through March 31, 2023. Exposures: Black or White race and gender (men, women) of a heart transplant candidate. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was heart offer acceptance by the transplant center team. The number of offers to acceptance was assessed using discrete time-to-event analyses, nonparametrically (stratified by race and gender) and parametrically. The hazard probability of offer acceptance for each offer was modeled using generalized linear mixed models adjusted for candidate-, donor-, and offer-level variables. Results: Among 159 177 heart offers with 13 760 donors, there were 14 890 candidates listed for heart transplant; 30.9% were Black, 69.1% were White, 73.6% were men, and 26.4% were women. The cumulative incidence of offer acceptance was highest for White women followed by Black women, White men, and Black men (P < .001). Odds of acceptance were less for Black candidates than for White candidates for the first offer (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.84) through the 16th offer. Odds of acceptance were higher for women than for men for the first offer (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.39-1.68) through the sixth offer and were lower for the 10th through 31st offers. Conclusions and Relevance: The cumulative incidence of heart offer acceptance by a transplant center team was consistently lower for Black candidates than for White candidates of the same gender and higher for women than for men. These disparities persisted after adjusting for candidate-, donor-, and offer-level variables, possibly suggesting racial and gender bias in the decision-making process. Further investigation of site-level decision-making may reveal strategies for equitable donor heart acceptance.

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.

Changes in Kidney Function After Diagnosis of Advanced Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Kidney function and its association with outcomes in patients with advanced heart failure (HF) has not been well-defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study comprising all adult residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, with HF who developed advanced HF from 2007 to 2017. Patients were grouped by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at advanced HF diagnosis using the 2021 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation. A linear mixed effects model was fitted to assess the relationship between development of advanced HF and longitudinal eGFR trajectory. A total of 936 patients with advanced HF (mean age 77 years, 55% male, 93.7% White) were included. Twenty-two percent of these patients had an eGFR of <30 at advanced HF diagnosis, 22% had an eGFR of 30-44, 23% had an eGFR of 45-59, and 32% had an eGFR of ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2. The eGFR decreased faster after advanced HF (7.6% vs 10.9% annual decline before vs after advanced HF), with greater decreases after advanced HF in those with diabetes and preserved ejection fraction. An eGFR of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 was associated with worse survival after advanced HF compared with an eGFR of ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (adjusted hazard ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.57). CONCLUSIONS: eGFR deteriorated faster after patients developed advanced HF. An eGFR of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 at advanced HF diagnosis was associated with higher mortality.

Incident Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction: Frequency, Characteristics, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) with an ejection fraction (EF) of 41%-49% is recognized as HF with a mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF). However, existing knowledge of the HFmrEF phenotype is based on HF clinical trial and registry cohorts that may be limited by multiple forms of bias. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a community-based, retrospective cohort study, adult residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, with validated (Framingham criteria) incident HF from 2007 to 2015 were categorized by echocardiographic EF at first HF diagnosis. Among 2035 adults with incident HF, 12.5% had HFmrEF, 29.9% had HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), and 57.6% had HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). Mean age and sex varied by EF group, with HFmrEF (75.6 years, 45.3% female), HFrEF (70.9 years, 36.5% female), and HFpEF (76.9 years, 59.7% female). Most comorbid conditions were more common in HFmrEF vs HFrEF, but similar in HFmrEF and HFpEF. After a mean follow-up of 4.6 ± 3.5 years, adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, the risks of hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality did not differ by EF category. Of patients who began as HFmrEF, 26.9% declined to an EF of 40% or less and 44.8% improved to an EF of 50% or greater. CONCLUSIONS: In this community cohort of incident HF, 12.5% have HFmrEF. Clinical characteristics in HFmrEF resemble HFpEF more than HFrEF. Adjusted hospitalization and mortality risks did not vary by EF group. Patients with incident HFmrEF usually transitioned to a different EF category on follow-up.

Investigating gender-based differential item functioning on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) using qualitative content analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate potential gender-based differences in interpreting the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-23) and to explore if there are aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) not captured by the KCCQ-23 that are important to assess in men and/or women with heart failure (HF). METHODS: Patients ≥ 22 years of age with clinician-diagnosed HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40% were recruited from two academic medical centers to participate in semi-structured concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews. Enrollment was stratified by patient-identified gender (half women/half men). All interviews were conducted over the phone/web and audio recorded. Interviews were transcribed and descriptive qualitative content analysis was used to summarize findings overall and by gender. RESULTS: Twenty-five adults (56% women) diagnosed with HF participated. The average age was 67 years (range: 25-88). Women attributed a wider variety of symptoms to HF than men. Some participants had difficulty differentiating whether their experiences were due to HF, side effects of their medications, or age. We found very little evidence that participants interpreted KCCQ-23 items differently based on gender. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our findings indicate that interpretation of the KCCQ-23 items were similar in men and women. However, some modifications to items may improve clarity of interpretation for a wide range of patients.

Diabetes Mellitus in Advanced Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is associated with increased rates of mortality in patients with less severe (stage C) heart failure (HF). The prevalence of diabetes and its complications in advanced (stage D) HF and their contributions to mortality risk are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study of all adult residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, who had advanced HF between 2007 and 2017. Patients with diabetes were identified by using the criteria of the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set. Diabetes complications were captured by using the Diabetes Complications Severity Index. Of 936 patients with advanced HF, 338 (36.1%) had diabetes. Overall, median survival time after development of advanced HF was 13.1 (3.9-33.1) months; mortality did not vary by diabetes status (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90-1.25; P = 0.45) or by glycated hemoglobin levels in those with diabetes (aHR 1.01 per 1% increase, 95% CI 0.93-1.10; P = 0.82). However, patients with diabetes and 4 (aHR 1.24, 95% CI 0.92-1.67) or 5-7 (aHR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09-2.03) diabetes complications were at increased risk of mortality compared to those with ≤ 3 complications. CONCLUSIONS: More than one-third of patients with advanced HF have diabetes. In advanced HF, overall prognosis is poor, but we found no evidence that diabetes is associated with a significantly higher mortality risk.

Outcomes and Predictors of Mortality Among Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the causes of critical illness and determinants of prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF) admitted to the modern cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). We sought to describe the epidemiology and outcomes of patients with HF admitted to the contemporary CICU. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective cohort analysis of Mayo Clinic CICU patients admitted with HF from 2007 to 2018 who had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) data. HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF) was defined as a LVEF of less than 50%, and HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF) as a LVEF of 50% or greater. In-hospital mortality was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Survival to 1 year was analyzed using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. We included 4012 patients, including 67.8% with HFrEF and 32.2% with HFpEF. Patients with HFrEF and HFpEF were comparable and had equivalent severity of illness. Critical care therapies were used in 59.4%, with a slight preponderance in patients with HFrEF. In-hospital mortality occurred in 12.5% of patients and was similar in HFrEF vs HFpEF. Shock and cardiac arrest were the strongest predictors of adjusted in-hospital mortality, followed by Braden skin score and serum chloride level; patients with HFrEF and HFpEF had similar adjusted mortality rates. The 1-year survival after hospital discharge was 74.5% and was slightly lower for patients with HFpEF. All-cause rehospitalization occurred in 36.6%, and 52.8% of hospital survivors died or were readmitted within 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: CICU patients with HF have a substantial burden of critical illness, high use of critical care therapies, and poor outcomes regardless of LVEF. This finding emphasizes the potential unmet care needs in this cohort. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with heart failure who require admission to the cardiac intensive care unit have high severity of illness and are at significant risk of death during and after hospitalization. These patients often require specialized critical care therapies to treat manifestations of critical illness. Patients who are admitted with cardiac arrest or shock, including those who require mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, are at particularly high risk of death. Patients' left ventricular ejection fraction is not strongly associated with the risk of death when accounting for other major predictors including frailty and laboratory abnormalities.

Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in the Community.

BACKGROUND: Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) dramatically improves outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Our goal was to examine GDMT use in community patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a population-based, retrospective cohort study of all Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents with newly diagnosed HFrEF (EF ≤ 40%) 2007-2017. We excluded patients with contraindications to medication initiation. We examined the use of beta-blockers, HF beta-blockers (metoprolol succinate, carvedilol, bisoprolol), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIS), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in the first year after HFrEF diagnosis. We used Cox models to evaluate the association of being seen in an HF clinic with the initiation of GDMT. From 2007 to 2017, 1160 patients were diagnosed with HFrEF (mean age 69.7 years, 65.6% men). Most eligible patients received beta-blockers (92.6%) and ACEis/ARBs/ARNIs (87.0%) in the first year. However, only 63.8% of patients were treated with an HF beta-blocker, and few received MRAs (17.6%). In models accounting for the role of an HF clinic in initiation of these medications, being seen in an HF clinic was independently associated with initiation of new GDMT across all medication classes, with a hazard ratio (95% CI) of 1.54 (1.15-2.06) for any beta-blocker, 2.49 (1.95-3.20) for HF beta-blockers, 1.97 (1.46-2.65) for ACEis/ARBs/ARNIs, and 2.14 (1.49-3.08) for MRAs. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, most patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF received beta-blockers and ACEis/ARBs/ARNIs. GDMT use was higher in patients seen in an HF clinic, suggesting the potential benefit of referral to an HF clinic for patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF.

Health Literacy in Patients Considering a Left Ventricular Assist Device: Findings From the DECIDE-LVAD Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the interaction of health literacy and a shared intervention concerning decision quality in patients considering the destination therapy of left ventricular assist device (DT LVAD) implantation. BACKGROUND: Evidence is limited for the use of decision aids by patients with low health literacy and with life-threatening illnesses. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the DECIDE-LVAD Trial, a randomized, stepped-wedge trial conducted from 2015-2017 in the United States. The intervention was the integration of a formal shared decision-making intervention. The main outcome was decision quality as measured by LVAD knowledge and values-treatment concordance. Two components of health literacy were measured by the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine and Subjective Numeracy Scale instruments. RESULTS: Of the 228 patients studied, 44% (n = 101) received the formal shared decision-making intervention, and half had low health literacy. Knowledge of LVAD improved for patients with low literacy in the intervention group compared to the control group: the difference in increased knowledge score was 10.6%; P = 0.04. Values-treatment concordance improved significantly for patients with low literacy in the intervention group compared to the control group: the median improvement in values-treatment correlation coefficient was 0.43; P = 0.03. These benefits were not significant in those with adequate literacy (n = 171). Patients with low numeracy (n = 94) did not show significant improvements in either measure of decision quality, and patients with adequate numeracy (n = 134) showed improvement in LVAD knowledge but not in values-treatment concordance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients considering DT LVAD implantation with low literacy showed improvement in decision quality after the integration of a shared decision-making intervention.

2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (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 in 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. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 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 that have high-quality published economic analyses.

Sequential organ failure assessment score improves survival prediction for left ventricular assist device recipients in intensive care.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative risk scores facilitate patient selection, but postoperative risk scores may offer valuable information for predicting outcomes. We hypothesized that the postoperative Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score would predict mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from 294 continuous-flow LVAD implantations performed at Mayo Clinic Rochester during 2007 to 2015. We calculated the EuroSCORE, HeartMate-II Risk Score, and RV Failure Risk Score from preoperative data and the APACHE III and Post Cardiac Surgery (POCAS) risk scores from postoperative data. Daily, maximum, and mean SOFA scores were calculated for the first 5 postoperative days. The area under receiver-operator characteristic curves (AUC) was calculated to compare the scoring systems' ability to predict 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: For the entire cohort, mortality was 5% at 30 days, 10% at 90 days, and 19% at 1 year. The Day 1 SOFA score had better discrimination for 30-day mortality (AUC 0.77) than the preoperative risk scores or the APACHE III and POCAS postoperative scores. The maximum SOFA score had the best discrimination for 30-day mortality (AUC 0.86), and the mean SOFA score had the best discrimination for 90-day mortality (AUC 0.82) and 1-year mortality (AUC 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: We observed that postoperative mean and maximum SOFA scores in LVAD recipients predict short-term and intermediate-term mortality better than preoperative risk scores do. However, because preoperative and postoperative risk scores each contribute unique information, they are best used in concert to predict outcomes after LVAD implantation.

Family Caregiving for Individuals With Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Many individuals living with heart failure (HF) rely on unpaid support from their partners, family members, friends, or neighbors as caregivers to help manage their chronic disease. Given the advancements in treatments and devices for patients with HF, caregiving responsibilities have expanded in recent decades to include more intensive care for increasingly precarious patients with HF-tasks that would previously have been undertaken by healthcare professionals in clinical settings. The specific tasks of caregivers of patients with HF vary widely based on the patient's symptoms and comorbidities, the relationship between patient and caregiver, and the complexity of the treatment regimen. Effects of caregiving on the caregiver and patient range from physical and psychological to financial. Therefore, it is critically important to understand the needs of caregivers to support the increasingly complex medical care they provide to patients living with HF. This scientific statement synthesizes the evidence pertaining to caregiving of adult individuals with HF in order to (1) characterize the HF caregiving role and how it changes with illness trajectory; (2) describe the financial, health, and well-being implications of caregiving in HF; (3) evaluate HF caregiving interventions to support caregiver and patient outcomes; (4) summarize existing policies and resources that support HF caregivers; and (5) identify knowledge gaps and future directions for providers, investigators, health systems, and policymakers.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America: This statement does not represent an update of the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA heart failure guideline update.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for incident heart failure and increases the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients with established disease. Secular trends in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and heart failure forecast a growing burden of disease and underscore the need for effective therapeutic strategies. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated the shared pathophysiology between diabetes mellitus and heart failure, the synergistic effect of managing both conditions, and the potential for diabetes mellitus therapies to modulate the risk of heart failure outcomes. This scientific statement on diabetes mellitus and heart failure summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and impact of diabetes mellitus and its control on outcomes in heart failure; reviews the approach to pharmacological therapy and lifestyle modification in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure; highlights the value of multidisciplinary interventions to improve clinical outcomes in this population; and outlines priorities for future research.

PROVIDE-HF primary results: Patient-Reported Outcomes inVestigation following Initiation of Drug therapy with Entresto (sacubitril/valsartan) in heart failure.

BACKGROUND: In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan improved quality of life (QOL) versus enalapril in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), yet limited data are available regarding QOL changes after sacubitril/valsartan initiation in routine practice. METHODS: PROVIDE-HF was a prospective study within a national research network (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network) of HFrEF outpatients recently initiated on sacubitril/valsartan versus controls with recent angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker initiation/dose change. The primary end point was mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) change through 12 weeks. Other end points included responder analyses: ≥5-point and ≥20-point KCCQ increase. Adjusted QOL change was estimated after propensity score weighting. RESULTS: Overall, 270 patients had both baseline and 12-week KCCQ data (151 sacubitril/valsartan; 119 control). The groups had similar demographics and HF details: median EF 28% and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide 1083 pg/mL. Sacubitril/valsartan patients had larger improvements in KCCQ (mean difference +4.76; P = .027) and were more likely to have a ≥5-point and ≥20-point response (all P < .05). Adjusted comparisons demonstrated similar numerical improvements in the change in KCCQ (+4.55; 95% CI -0.89 to 9.99; P = .101) and likelihood of ≥5-point increase (odds ratio 1.55; 95% CI: 0.84-2.86; P = .16); ≥20-point increase remained statistically significant (odds ratio 3.79; 95% CI 1.47-9.73; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective HFrEF study of sacubitril/valsartan initiation compared with recent angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker initiation/dose change, the between-group difference in the primary end point, mean KCCQ change at 12 weeks was not statistically significant following adjustment, but sacubitril/valsartan initiation was associated with early improvements in QOL and a higher likelihood of ≥20-point improvement in KCCQ at 12 weeks. These data add additional real-world evidence related to patient-reported outcomes following the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in routine clinical practice.

Neck circumference and cardiovascular outcomes: Insights from the Jackson Heart Study.

BACKGROUND: Emerging data suggest that neck circumference (NC) is associated with cardiometabolic risk factors. Limited research is available regarding the association between NC and cardiovascular outcomes in African Americans. METHODS: Using data from the Jackson Heart Study, we included participants with recorded NC measurements at baseline (2000-2004). Baseline characteristics for the included population were summarized by tertiles of NC. We then calculated age- and sex-adjusted cumulative incidence of clinical cardiovascular outcomes and performed Cox proportional-hazards with stepwise models. RESULTS: Overall, 5,290 participants were categorized into tertiles of baseline NC defined as ≤37 cm (n = 2179), 38-40 cm (n = 1552), and >40 cm (n = 1559). After adjusting for age and sex, increasing NC was associated with increased risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization (cumulative incidence = 13.4% [99% CI, 10.7-16.7] in the largest NC tertile vs 6.5% [99% CI, 4.7-8.8] in the smallest NC tertile), but not mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, or coronary heart disease (all P ≥ .1). Following full risk adjustment, there was a nominal increase in the risk of HF hospitalization with increasing NC, but this was not statistically significant (hazard ratio per 1-cm increase, 1.04 [99% CI, 0.99-1.10], P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of African American individuals, a larger NC was associated with increased risk for HF hospitalization following adjustment for age and sex, but this risk was not statistically significant after adjusting for other clinical variables. Although NC is not independently associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events, it may offer prognostic information particularly related to HF hospitalization.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure, A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and Heart Failure Society of America.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for incident heart failure and increases the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients with established disease. Secular trends in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and heart failure forecast a growing burden of disease and underscore the need for effective therapeutic strategies. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated the shared pathophysiology between diabetes mellitus and heart failure, the synergistic effect of managing both conditions, and the potential for diabetes mellitus therapies to modulate the risk of heart failure outcomes. This scientific statement on diabetes mellitus and heart failure summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and impact of diabetes mellitus and its control on outcomes in heart failure; reviews the approach to pharmacological therapy and lifestyle modification in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure; highlights the value of multidisciplinary interventions to improve clinical outcomes in this population; and outlines priorities for future research.

Psychosocial Risk Predicts New Episode Depression After Heart Transplant.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial assessment is an essential component of the pretransplant evaluation. Many individuals have significant psychosocial problems, and they are either denied for transplantation or deferred from listing and transplant until the psychosocial issues are addressed. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients who initially had significant psychosocial problems, but who addressed them and received a heart transplant. METHODS: This retrospective study included heart transplant recipients from 1/1/2000 to 12/31/2012. Those with initial Psychosocial Assessment of Candidates for Transplantation (PACT) scale score <2 were compared with those whose initial score was ≥2 for the variables new onset depression and anxiety, length of stay, rejection, and survival using logistic and linear regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Of 164 heart recipients with pretransplant PACT scores, 46 (28%) were female, 154 (94%) were white, and the mean age was 52.7 years. Only 11 (7%) received an initial PACT score <2; these candidates underwent heart transplantation after their scores increased to ≥2. Initial PACT <2 increased the odds of new depression by 11-fold (p = 0.002), but was not associated with differences in survival, posttransplant length of stay, the occurrence of treated episodes of rejection or new anxiety (p ≥ 0.20 for all). CONCLUSION: Among heart recipients, initially high pretransplant psychosocial risk, as assessed by PACT, was associated with posttransplant new episode depression. However, after addressing the primary psychosocial issues before transplant, posttransplant length of stay, organ rejection, and survival were the same as those without prior psychosocial concerns.

A novel, highly discriminatory risk model predicting acute severe right ventricular failure in patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implant.

Various risk models with differing discriminatory power and predictive accuracy have been used to predict right ventricular failure (RVF) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement. There remains an unmet need for a contemporary risk score for continuous flow (CF)-LVADs. We sought to independently validate and compare existing risk models in a large cohort of patients and develop a simple, yet highly predictive risk score for acute, severe RVF. Data from the Mechanical Circulatory Support Research Network (MCSRN) registry, consisting of patients who underwent CF-LVAD implantation, were randomly divided into equal-sized derivation and validation samples. RVF scores were calculated for the entire sample, and the need for a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) was the primary endpoint. Candidate predictors from the derivation sample were subjected to backward stepwise logistic regression until the model with lowest Akaike information criterion value was identified. A risk score was developed based on the identified variables and their respective regression coefficients. Between May 2004 and September 2014, 734 patients underwent implantation of CF-LVADs [HeartMate II LVAD, 76% (n = 560), HeartWare HVAD, 24% (n = 174)]. A RVAD was required in 4.5% (n = 33) of the patients [Derivation cohort, n = 15 (4.3%); Validation cohort, n = 18 (5.2%); P = 0.68)]. 19.5% of the patients (n = 143) were female, median age at implant was 59 years (IQR, 49.4-65.3), and median INTERMACS profile was 3 (IQR, 2-3). RVAD was required in 4.5% (n = 33) of the patients. Correlates of acute, severe RVF in the final model included heart rate, albumin, BUN, WBC, cardiac index, and TR severity. Areas under the curves (AUC) for most commonly used risk predictors ranged from 0.61 to 0.78. The AUC for the new model was 0.89 in the derivation and 0.92 in the validation cohort. Proposed risk model provides very high discriminatory power predicting acute severe right ventricular failure and can be reliably applied to patients undergoing placement of contemporary continuous flow left ventricular assist devices.