Suboptimal Dosing of ß-Blockers in Chronic Heart Failure: A Missed Opportunity?

BACKGROUND: The evidence base for the benefits of ß-blockers in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) suggests that higher doses are associated with better outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to report the proportion of patients receiving optimized doses of ß-blockers, outcomes, and factors associated with suboptimal dosing. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of 390 patients with HFrEF undergoing clinical and echocardiography assessment at baseline and at 1 year. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-seven patients (61%) were receiving optimized doses (≥5-mg/d bisoprolol equivalent), 72 (18%) could not be up-titrated (because of heart rate < 60 beats/min or systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg), and the remaining 81 (21%) should have been. Survival was similarly reduced in those who could not and should have been receiving 5 mg/d or greater, and patient factors did not explain the failure to attain optimized dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with HFrEF are not receiving optimal dosing of ß-blockers, and in around half, there was no clear contraindication in terms of heart rate or blood pressure.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of chronic heart failure.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an unprecedented challenge. Meeting this has resulted in changes to working practices and the impact on the management of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is largely unknown. We performed a retrospective, observational study contrasting patients diagnosed with HFrEF attending specialist heart failure clinics at a UK hospital, whose subsequent period of optimisation of medical therapy was during the COVID-19 pandemic, with patients diagnosed the previous year. The primary outcome was the change in equivalent dosing of ramipril and bisoprolol at 6-months. Secondary outcomes were the number and type of follow-up consultations, hospitalisation for heart failure and all-cause mortality. In total, 60 patients were diagnosed with HFrEF between 1 December 2019 and 30 April 2020, compared to 54 during the same period of the previous year. The absolute number of consultations was higher (390 vs 270; p = 0.69), driven by increases in telephone consultations, with a reduction in appointments with hospital nurse specialists. After 6-months, we observed lower equivalent dosing of ramipril (3.1 ± 3.0 mg vs 4.4 ± 0.5 mg; p = 0.035) and similar dosing of bisoprolol (4.1 ± 0.5 mg vs 4.9 ± 0.5 mg; p = 0.27), which persisted for ramipril (mean difference 1.0 mg, 95% CI 0.018-2.09; p = 0.046) and bisoprolol (mean difference 0.52 mg, 95% CI -0.23-1.28; p = 0.17) after adjustment for baseline dosing. We observed no differences in the proportion of patients who died (5.0% vs 7.4%; p = 0.59) or were hospitalised with heart failure (13.3% vs 9.3%; p = 0.49). Our study suggests the transition to telephone appointments and re-deployment of heart failure nurse specialists was associated with less successful optimisation of medical therapy, especially renin-angiotensin inhibitors, compared with usual care.

Advanced care planning during the COVID-19 pandemic: ceiling of care decisions and their implications for observational data.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies investigating risk factors in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not considered the confounding effects of advanced care planning, such that a valid picture of risk for elderly, frail and multi-morbid patients is unknown. We aimed to report ceiling of care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) decisions and their association with demographic and clinical characteristics as well as outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study conducted between 5th March and 7th May 2020 of all hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Ceiling of care and CPR decisions were documented using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process. Unadjusted and multivariable regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with ceiling of care decisions and death during hospitalisation. RESULTS: A total of 485 patients were included, of whom 409 (84·3%) had a documented ceiling of care; level one for 208 (50·9%), level two for 75 (18·3%) and level three for 126 (30·8%). CPR decisions were documented for 451 (93·0%) of whom 336 (74·5%) were 'not for resuscitation'. Advanced age, frailty, White-European ethnicity, a diagnosis of any co-morbidity and receipt of cardiovascular medications were associated with ceiling of care decisions. In a multivariable model only advanced age (odds 0·89, 0·86-0·93 p < 0·001), frailty (odds 0·48, 0·38-0·60, p < 0·001) and the cumulative number of co-morbidities (odds 0·72, 0·52-1·0, p = 0·048) were independently associated. Death during hospitalisation was independently associated with age, frailty and requirement for level two or three care. CONCLUSION: Ceiling of care decisions were made for the majority of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, broadly in line with known predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19, but with a focus on co-morbidities suggesting ICU admission might not be a reliable end-point for observational studies where advanced care planning is routine.

Diabetes mellitus does not alter mortality or hospitalisation risk in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Time to rethink pathophysiological models of disease progression.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes is a common and adverse prognostic co-morbidity for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The effect of diabetes on long-term outcomes for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is less established. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of patients referred to a regional HF clinic with newly diagnosed with HFrEF and HFpEF according to the 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. The association between diabetes, all-cause mortality and hospitalisation was quantified using Kaplan-Meier or Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Between 1st May 2012 and 1st May 2013, of 960 unselected consecutive patients referred with suspected HF, 464 and 314 patients met the criteria for HFpEF and HFrEF respectively. Within HFpEF and HFrEF groups, patients with diabetes were more frequently male and in both groups patients with diabetes were more likely to be treated with ß-adrenoceptor antagonists and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. After adjustment for age, sex, medical therapy and co-morbidities, diabetes was associated with increased mortality in individuals with HFrEF (HR 1.46 95% CI: 1.05-2.02; p = .023), but not in those with HFpEF (HR 1.26 95% CI 0.92-1.72; p = .146). CONCLUSION: In unselected patients with newly diagnosed HF, diabetes is not an adverse prognostic marker in patients with HFpEF, but is in HFrEF.

Guideline-directed medical therapy is similarly effective in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: Current guidelines recommend that disease-modifying pharmacological therapies may be considered for patients who have heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). We aimed to describe the characteristics, outcomes, provision of pharmacological therapies and dose-related associations with mortality risk in HFmrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We explored data from two prospective observational studies, which permitted the examination of the effects of pharmacological therapies across a broad spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The combined dataset consisted of 2388 unique patients, with a mean age of 73.7 ± 13.2 years of whom 1525 (63.9%) were male. LVEF ranged from 5 to 71% (mean 37.2 ± 12.8%) and 1504 (63.0%) were categorised as having reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), 421 (17.6%) as HFmrEF and 463 (19.4%) as preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Patients with HFmrEF more closely resembled HFrEF than HFpEF. Adjusted all-cause mortality risk was lower in HFmrEF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.99); p = 0.040) and in HFpEF (HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.52-0.71); p < 0.001) compared to HFrEF. Adjusted all-cause mortality risk was lower in patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF who received the highest doses of beta-blockers or renin-angiotensin inhibitors. These associations were not evident in HFpEF. Once adjusted for relevant confounders, each mg equivalent of bisoprolol (HR 0.95 [95% CI 0.91-1.00]; p = 0.047) and ramipril (HR 0.95 [95%CI 0.90-1.00]; p = 0.044) was associated with incremental reductions in mortality risk in patients with HFmrEF. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacological therapies were associated with lower mortality risk in HFmrEF, supporting guideline recommendations which extend the indications of these agents to all patients with LVEF < 50%. HFmrEF more closely resembles HFrEF in terms of clinical characteristics and outcomes. Pharmacological therapies are associated with lower mortality risk in HFmrEF and HFrEF, but not in HFpEF.

Reduction of heart failure guideline-directed medication during hospitalization: prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes.

AIMS: Optimal management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) includes titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) to the highest tolerated dose within the licensed range. During hospitalization, GDMT doses are often significantly altered, although it is unknown whether the cause of hospitalization influences this. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recruited 711 people with stable HFrEF from specialist heart failure clinics and prospectively assessed events occurring during first unplanned hospitalization. Dose changes of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB), beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and loop diuretics were recorded during 414 hospitalizations, categorized as due to decompensated heart failure, other cardiovascular causes, infection, or other non-cardiovascular causes. Most hospitalizations resulted in no change to GDMT. ACEi/ARB dose was reduced in 21% of hospitalizations and was more common during non-cardiovascular hospitalization (25.4% vs. 13.9%; P = 0.005). ACEi/ARB dose reduction was associated with older age and lower left ventricular ejection fraction at study recruitment, and poorer renal function, lower systolic blood pressure, higher serum potassium, and less frequent care from a cardiologist during admission. People experiencing ACEi/ARB reduction had worse age-adjusted survival after discharge, without differences in heart failure re-hospitalization. De-escalation of beta-blockers occurred in 8% of hospitalizations, most often due to other non-cardiovascular causes; this was not associated with post-discharge survival or re-hospitalization with heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: De-escalation of HFrEF GDMT is more common during non-cardiovascular hospitalization and for ACEi/ARB is associated with reduced survival. Post-discharge care plans should include robust plans to consider re-escalation of GDMT in these cases.

Atrial fibrillation and risk of progressive heart failure in patients with preserved ejection fraction heart failure.

AIMS: Understanding of the pathophysiology of progressive heart failure (HF) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is incomplete. We sought to identify factors differentially associated with risk of progressive HF death and hospitalization in patients with HFpEF compared with patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective cohort study of patients newly referred to secondary care with suspicion of HF, based on symptoms and signs of HF and elevated natriuretic peptides (NP), followed up for a minimum of 6 years. HFpEF and HFrEF were diagnosed according to the 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Of 960 patients referred, 467 had HFpEF (49%), 311 had HFrEF (32%), and 182 (19%) had neither. Atrial fibrillation (AF) was found in 37% of patients with HFpEF and 34% with HFrEF. During 6 years follow-up, 19% of HFrEF and 14% of HFpEF patients were hospitalized or died due to progressive HF, hazard ratio (HR) 0.67 (95% CI: 0.47-0.96; P = 0.028). AF was the only marker that was differentially associated with progressive HF death or hospitalization in patients with HFpEF HR 2.58 (95% CI: 1.59-4.21; P < 0.001) versus HFrEF HR 1.11 (95% CI: 0.65-1.89; P = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: De novo patients diagnosed with HFrEF have greater risk of death or hospitalization due to progressive HF than patients with HFpEF. AF is associated with increased risk of progressive HF death or hospitalization in HFpEF but not HFrEF, raising the intriguing possibility that this may be a novel therapeutic target in this growing population.

Impact of QRS duration on left ventricular remodelling and survival in patients with heart failure.

AIMS: In patients with chronic heart failure, QRS duration is a consistent predictor of poor outcomes. It has been suggested that for indicated patients, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) could come sooner in the treatment algorithm, perhaps in parallel with the attainment of optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). We aimed to investigate differences in left ventricular (LV) remodelling in those with narrow QRS (NQRS) compared with wide QRS (WQRS) in the absence of CRT, whether an early CRT strategy resulted in unnecessary implants and the effect of early CRT on outcomes. METHODS: Our cohort consisted of 214 consecutive patients with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or less who underwent repeat echocardiography 1 year after enrolment. Of these, 116 patients had NQRS, and 98 had WQRS of whom 40 received CRT within 1 year and 58 did not. RESULTS: In the absence of CRT, patients with WQRS had less LV reverse remodelling compared with those with NQRS, with differences in ΔLVEF (+2 vs. +9%, P < 0.001) ΔLV end-diastolic diameter (-1 vs. -2 mm, P = 0.095), ΔLV end-systolic diameter (-2 vs. -4.5 mm, P = 0.038), LV end-systolic volume (-12.6 vs. -25.0 ml, P = 0.054) and LV end-diastolic volume (-7.3 vs. -12.2 ml, P = 0.071). LVEF was more likely to improve by at least 10% if patients had NQRS or received CRT (P = 0.08). Thirteen (24%) patients with WQRS achieved an LVEF greater than 35% in the absence of CRT; however, none achieved greater than 50%. CONCLUSION: A strictly linear approach to heart failure therapy might lead to delays to optimal treatment in those patients with the most to gain from CRT and the least to gain from GDMT.

Personalised reprogramming to prevent progressive pacemaker-related left ventricular dysfunction: A phase II randomised, controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Pacemakers are widely utilised to treat bradycardia, but right ventricular (RV) pacing is associated with heightened risk of left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and heart failure. We aimed to compare personalised pacemaker reprogramming to avoid RV pacing with usual care on echocardiographic and patient-orientated outcomes. METHODS: A prospective phase II randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial in 100 patients with a pacemaker implanted for indications other than third degree heart block for ≥2 years. Personalised pacemaker reprogramming was guided by a published protocol. Primary outcome was change in LV ejection fraction on echocardiography after 6 months. Secondary outcomes included LV remodeling, quality of life, and battery longevity. RESULTS: Clinical and pacemaker variables were similar between groups. The mean age (SD) of participants was 76 (+/-9) years and 71% were male. Nine patients withdrew due to concurrent illness, leaving 91 patients in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 6 months, personalised programming compared to usual care, reduced RV pacing (-6.5±1.8% versus -0.21±1.7%; p<0.01), improved LV function (LV ejection fraction +3.09% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 5.70%; p = 0.02]) and LV dimensions (LV end systolic volume indexed to body surface area -2.99mL/m2 [95% CI -5.69 to -0.29; p = 0.03]). Intervention also preserved battery longevity by approximately 5 months (+0.38 years [95% CI 0.14 to 0.62; p<0.01)) with no evidence of an effect on quality of life (+0.19, [95% CI -0.25 to 0.62; p = 0.402]). CONCLUSIONS: Personalised programming in patients with pacemakers for bradycardia can improve LV function and size, extend battery longevity, and is safe and acceptable to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03627585.

Association of heart failure and its comorbidities with loss of life expectancy.

OBJECTIVE: Estimating survival can aid care planning, but the use of absolute survival projections can be challenging for patients and clinicians to contextualise. We aimed to define how heart failure and its major comorbidities contribute to loss of actuarially predicted life expectancy. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of 1794 adults with stable chronic heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, recruited from cardiology outpatient departments of four UK hospitals. Data from an 11-year maximum (5-year median) follow-up period (999 deaths) were used to define how heart failure and its major comorbidities impact on survival, relative to an age-sex matched control UK population, using a relative survival framework. RESULTS: After 10 years, mortality in the reference control population was 29%. In people with heart failure, this increased by an additional 37% (95% CI 34% to 40%), equating to an additional 2.2 years of lost life or a 2.4-fold (2.2-2.5) excess loss of life. This excess was greater in men than women (2.4 years (2.2-2.7) vs 1.6 years (1.2-2.0); p<0.001). In patients without major comorbidity, men still experienced excess loss of life, while women experienced less and were non-significantly different from the reference population (1 year (0.6-1.5) vs 0.4 years (-0.3 to 1); p<0.001). Accrual of comorbidity was associated with substantial increases in excess lost life, particularly for diabetes, chronic kidney and lung disease. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidity accounts for the majority of lost life expectancy in people with heart failure. Women, but not men, without comorbidity experience survival close to reference controls.

Prioritizing symptom management in the treatment of chronic heart failure.

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a chronic, progressive disease that has detrimental consequences on a patient's quality of life (QoL). In part due to requirements for market access and licensing, the assessment of current and future treatments focuses on reducing mortality and hospitalizations. Few drugs are available principally for their symptomatic effect despite the fact that most patients' symptoms persist or worsen over time and an acceptance that the survival gains of modern therapies are mitigated by poorly controlled symptoms. Additional contributors to the failure to focus on symptoms could be the result of under-reporting of symptoms by patients and carers and a reliance on insensitive symptomatic categories in which patients frequently remain despite additional therapies. Hence, formal symptom assessment tools, such as questionnaires, can be useful prompts to encourage more fidelity and reproducibility in the assessment of symptoms. This scoping review explores for the first time the assessment options and management of common symptoms in CHF with a focus on patient-reported outcome tools. The integration of patient-reported outcomes for symptom assessment into the routine of a CHF clinic could improve the monitoring of disease progression and QoL, especially following changes in treatment or intervention with a targeted symptom approach expected to improve QoL and patient outcomes.

Effect of disease-modifying agents and their association with mortality in multi-morbid patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: An increasing proportion of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have co-morbidities. The effect of these co-morbidities on modes of death and the effect of disease-modifying agents in multi-morbid patients is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a prospective cohort study of ambulatory patients with HFrEF to assess predictors of outcomes. We identified four key co-morbidities-ischaemic aetiology of heart failure, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and chronic kidney disease (CKD)-that were highly prevalent and associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. We used these data to explore modes of death and the utilization of disease-modifying agents in patients with and without these co-morbidities. The cohort included 1789 consecutively recruited patients who had an average age of 69.6 ± 12.5 years, and 1307 (73%) were male. Ischaemic aetiology of heart failure was the most common co-morbidity, occurring in 1061 (59%) patients; 503 (28%) patients had diabetes mellitus, 283 (16%) had COPD, and 140 (8%) had CKD stage IV/V. During mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 1.6 years, 737 (41.5%) patients died, classified as progressive heart failure (n = 227, 32%), sudden (n = 112, 16%), and non-cardiovascular deaths (n = 314, 44%). Multi-morbid patients were older (P < 0.001), more likely to be male (P < 0.001), and had higher New York Heart Association class (P < 0.001), despite having higher left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (P = 0.001) and lower LV end-diastolic diameter (P = 0.001). Multi-morbid patients were prescribed lower doses of disease-modifying agents, especially patients with COPD who received lower doses of beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (2.7 ± 3.0 vs. 4.1 ± 3.4 mg, P < 0.001) and were less likely to be implanted with internal cardioverter defibrillators (7% vs. 13%, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, COPD and diabetes mellitus conferred a >2.5-fold and 1.5-fold increased risk of sudden death, whilst higher doses of beta-adrenoceptor antagonists were protective (hazard ratio per milligram 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.86-0.98, P = 0.009). Each milligram of bisoprolol-equivalent beta-adrenoceptor antagonist was associated with 9% (P = 0.001) and 11% (P = 0.023) reduction of sudden deaths in patients with <2 and ≥2 co-morbidities, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Higher doses of beta-adrenoceptor antagonist are associated with greater protection from sudden death, most evident in multi-morbid patients. Patients with COPD who appear to be at the highest risk of sudden death are prescribed the lowest doses and less likely to be implanted with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, which might represent a missed opportunity to optimize safe and proven therapies for these patients.

Prospective evaluation and long-term follow-up of patients referred to secondary care based upon natriuretic peptide levels in primary care.

AIMS: The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK-NICE) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines advise natriuretic peptide (NP) assessment in patients presenting to primary care with symptoms possibly due to chronic heart failure (HF), to determine need for specialist involvement. This prospective service evaluation aimed to describe the diagnostic and prognostic utility of these guidelines. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively collected clinical, echocardiography and outcomes data (minimum 5 years) from all patients referred to the Leeds HF Service for 12 months of following the initiation of the NP-guideline-directed pathway. Between 1 May 2012 and 1 August 2013, 1020 people with symptoms possibly due to HF attended either with a raised NT-pro-BNP or a previous myocardial infarction (MI) with an overall rate of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) of 33%. Of these, 991 satisfied the ESC criteria (NT-pro-BNP ≥125 pg/mL) in whom the rate of LVSD was 32%, and 821 the UK-NICE criteria in whom the rate of LVSD was 49% in those with a previous MI, 25% in those with NT-pro-BNP concentration 400-2000 pg/mL, and 54% in those with NT-pro-BNP concentration of >2000 pg/mL. An NT-pro-BNP concentration 125-400 pg/mL had a 12% risk of LVSD. Specificity was poor in women >70 years, who made up the largest proportion of attendees. Elevated NT-pro-BNP levels were associated with lower survival even in the absence of LVSD. CONCLUSION: In people referred through the ESC and UK-NICE guidelines, elevated NT-pro-BNP is a marker of increased mortality risk, but there is wide variation in specificity for LVSD. Age- and sex-adjusted criteria might improve performance.