Gender differences in drug titration among heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction in the ETIFIC trial.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Optimal medical therapy decreases mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in HF patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Women have been underrepresented in clinical trials and not specifically evaluated. This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of drug titration in women vs men. METHODS: This post hoc gender study of the ETIFIC multicenter randomized trial included hospitalized patients with new-onset HF with reduced ejection fraction and New York Heart Association II-III and no contraindications to beta-blockers. A structured 4-month titration process was implemented in HF clinics. The primary endpoint was the mean relative dose (% of target dose) of beta-blockers achieved by women vs men. Secondary endpoints included the mean relative doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, adverse events, and other clinical outcomes at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 320 patients were included, 83 (25.93%) women and 237 (74.06%) men (76 vs 213 analyzed). The mean±standard deviation of the relative doses achieved by women vs men were as follows: beta-blockers 62.08%±30.72% vs 64.4%±32.77%, with a difference of-2.32% (95%CI,-10.58-5.94), P = .580; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists 79.85%±27.72% vs 67.29%±31.43%, P =.003. No other differences in drug dosage were found. Multivariate analysis showed nonsignificant differences. CV mortality was 1 (1.20%) vs 3 (1.26%), P=1, and HF hospitalizations 0 (0.00%) vs 10 (4.22%), P=.125. CONCLUSIONS: In a post hoc analysis from the HF-titration ETIFIC trial, we found nonsignificant gender differences in drug dosage, cardiovascular mortality, and HF hospitalizations. Trial registry number: NCT02546856.

Noninferiority of heart failure nurse titration versus heart failure cardiologist titration. ETIFIC multicenter randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors), angiotensin-II-receptor-blockers (ARB), and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists decrease mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in HF patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. The effect is dose-dependent. Careful titration is recommended. However, suboptimal doses are common in clinical practice. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of dose titration of the aforementioned drugs by HF nurses vs HF cardiologists. METHODS: ETIFIC was a multicenter (n=20) noninferiority randomized controlled open label trial. A total of 320 hospitalized patients with new-onset HF, reduced ejection fraction and New York Heart Association II-III, without beta-blocker contraindications were randomized 1:1 in blocks of 4 patients each stratified by hospital: 164 to HF nurse titration vs 156 to HF cardiologist titration (144 vs 145 analyzed). The primary endpoint was the beta-blocker mean relative dose (% of target dose) achieved at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included ACE inhibitors, ARB, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists mean relative doses, associated variables, adverse events, and clinical outcomes at 6 months. RESULTS: The mean±standard deviation relative doses achieved by HF nurses vs HF cardiologists were as follows: beta-blockers 71.09%±31.49% vs 56.29%±31.32%, with a difference of 14.8% (95%CI, 7.5-22.1), P <.001; ACE inhibitors 72.61%±29.80% vs 56.13%±30.37%, P <.001; ARB 44.48%±33.47% vs 43.51%±33.69%, P=.93; and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists 71%±32.12% vs 70.47%±29.78%, P=.86; mean±standard deviation visits were 6.41±2.82 vs 2.81±1.58, P <.001, while the number (%) of adverse events were 34 (23.6) vs 30 (20.7), P=.55; and at 6 months HF hospitalizations were 1 (0.69) vs 9 (5.51), P=.01. CONCLUSIONS: ETIFIC is the first multicenter randomized trial to demonstrate the noninferiority of HF specialist-nurse titration vs HF cardiologist titration. Moreover, HF nurses achieved higher beta-blocker/ACE inhibitors doses, with more outpatient visits and fewer HF hospitalizations. Trial registry number: NCT02546856.

Effectiveness and Factors Determining the Success of Management Programs for Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Heart failure management programs reduce hospitalizations. Some studies also show reduced mortality. The determinants of program success are unknown. The aim of the present study was to update our understanding of the reductions in mortality and readmissions produced by these programs, elucidate their components, and identify the factors determining program success. METHODS: Systematic literature review (1990-2014; PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library) and manual search of relevant journals. The studies were selected by 3 independent reviewers. Methodological quality was evaluated in a blinded manner by an external researcher (Jadad scale). These results were pooled using random effects models. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the I2 statistic, and its explanatory factors were determined using metaregression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 3914 studies identified, 66 randomized controlled clinical trials were selected (18 countries, 13 535 patients). We determined the relative risks to be 0.88 for death (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 0.81-0.96; P < .002; I2, 6.1%), 0.92 for all-cause readmissions (95%CI, 0.86-0.98; P < .011; I2, 58.7%), and 0.80 for heart failure readmissions (95%CI, 0.71-0.90; P < .0001; I2, 52.7%). Factors associated with program success were implementation after 2001, program location outside the United States, greater baseline use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, a higher number of intervention team members and components, specialized heart failure cardiologists and nurses, protocol-driven education and its assessment, self-monitoring of signs and symptoms, detection of deterioration, flexible diuretic regimen, early care-seeking among patients and prompt health care response, psychosocial intervention, professional coordination, and program duration. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the reductions in mortality and readmissions with heart failure management programs. Their success is associated with various structural and intervention variables.

[Unplanned extubations in patients in the ventilator weaning phase in the intensive care unit: Incidence and risk factors]. / Extubaciones no programadas en pacientes sometidos a fase de destete en cuidados intensivos: incidencia y factores de riesgo.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the incidence of unplanned extubations (UE) in a general intensive care unit (ICU) and associated risk factors. METHODS: An analytical, observational and prospective study was performed in an eight-bed general ICU over a 6-month period. The participants consisted of 79 consecutive patients who underwent mechanical ventilation for 12 h or more and who were under the ventilator weaning phase. The variables studied were age, days of endotracheal intubation, length of stay in the ICU, weaning phase and the APACHE II prognostic score; the degree of sedation and/or agitation was evaluated using Riker's Sedation-Agitation Scale. The incidence density of UEs was calculated and the variables measured in the extubated and non-extubated groups were compared using the Mann Whitney U-test. RESULTS: Among the 79 patients studied, UE occurred in 15 (18.9%). Of these events, 76.9% occurred during the ventilator weaning phase. There were 11 cases (73.3%) of self-extubations, three cases (20%) of accidental removal and one case (6.6%) of endotracheal tube obstruction. Age equal to or less than 60 years was a risk factor. No relationship was found with the remaining factors studied: days of hospital stay, days of endotracheal intubation or APACHE score. CONCLUSIONS: Patients at risk for UE were younger and showed agitation on the Riker scale. UEs usually occurred during the ventilator weaning phase.