Contemporary outpatient management of patients with worsening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Rationale and design of the CHART-HF study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and worsening HF events (WHFE) represent a distinct subset of patients with a substantial comorbidity burden, greater potential for intolerance to medical therapy, and high risk of subsequent death, hospitalization and excessive healthcare costs. Although multiple therapies have been shown to be efficacious and safe in this high-risk population, there are limited real-world data regarding factors that impact clinical decision-making when initiating or modifying therapy. Likewise, prior analyses of US clinical practice support major gaps in medical therapy for HFrEF and few medication changes during longitudinal follow-up, yet granular data on reasons why clinicians do not initiate or up-titrate guideline-directed medication are lacking. METHODS: We designed the CHART-HF study, an observational study of approximately 1,500 patients comparing patients with and without WHFE (WHFE defined as receipt of intravenous diuretics in the inpatient, outpatient, or emergency department setting) who had an index outpatient visit in the US between 2017 and 2019. Patient-level data on clinical characteristics, clinical outcomes, and therapy will be collected from 2 data sources: a single integrated health system, and a national panel of cardiologists. Furthermore, clinician-reported rationale for treatment decisions and the factors prioritized with selection and optimization of therapies in real-world practice will be obtained. To characterize elements of clinician decision-making not documented in the medical record, the panel of cardiologists will review records of patients seen under their care to explicitly note their primary reason for initiating, discontinuing, and titrating medications specific medications, as well as the reason for not making changes to each medication during the outpatient visit. CONCLUSIONS: Results from CHART-HF have the potential to detail real-world US practice patterns regarding care of patients with HFrEF with versus without a recent WHFE, to examine clinician-reported reasons for use and non-use of guideline-directed medical therapy, and to characterize the magnitude and nature of clinical inertia toward evidence-based medication changes for HFrEF.

Dietary interventions and nutritional supplements for heart failure: a systematic appraisal and evidence map.

AIMS: To appraise meta-analytically determined effect of dietary interventions and nutritional supplements on heart failure (HF)-related outcomes, and create an evidence map to visualize the findings and certainty of evidence. METHODS AND RESULTS: Online databases were systematically searched for meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of dietary interventions and nutritional supplements on HF outcomes and incidence. These were then updated if new RCTs were available. Estimates were pooled using a random-effects model and reported as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We identified 14 relevant meta-analyses, to which 21 new RCTs were added. The total evidence base reviewed included 122 RCTs (n = 176 097 participants) assessing 14 interventions. We found that coenzyme Q10 was associated with lower all-cause mortality [RR 0.69 (0.50-0.96); I2  = 0%; low certainty of evidence] in HF patients. Incident HF risk was reduced with Mediterranean diet [RR 0.45 (0.26-0.79); I2  = 0%; low certainty of evidence]. Vitamin E supplementation was associated with a small but significant increase in the risk of HF hospitalization [RR 1.21 (1.04-1.40); I2 = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence]. There was moderate certainty of evidence that thiamine, vitamin D, iron, and L-carnitine supplementation had a beneficial effect on left ventricular ejection fraction. CONCLUSION: Coenzyme Q10 may reduce all-cause mortality in HF patients, while a Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of incident HF; however, the low certainty of evidence warrants the need for further RCTs to confirm a definite clinical role. RCT data were lacking for several common interventions including intermittent fasting, caffeine, DASH diet, and ketogenic diet. More research is needed to fill the knowledge gap.

Spironolactone in Acute Heart Failure Patients With Renal Dysfunction and Risk Factors for Diuretic Resistance: From the ATHENA-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (HF) patients with renal insufficiency and risk factors for diuretic resistance may be most likely to derive incremental improvement in congestion with the addition of spironolactone. METHODS: The Aldosterone Targeted Neurohormonal Combined with Natriuresis Therapy in Heart Failure (ATHENA-HF) trial randomized 360 acute HF patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction to spironolactone 100 mg daily or usual care for 96 hours. The current analysis assessed the effects of study therapy within tertiles of baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and subgroups at heightened risk for diuretic resistance. RESULTS: Across eGFR tertiles, there was no incremental benefit of high-dose spironolactone on any efficacy endpoint, including changes in log N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and signs and symptoms of congestion (all P for interaction ≥ 0.06). High-dose spironolactone had no significant effect on N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide reduction regardless of blood pressure, diabetes mellitus status, and loop diuretic dose (all P for interaction ≥ 0.38). In-hospital changes in serum potassium and creatinine were similar between treatment groups for all GFR tertiles (all P for interaction ≥ 0.18). Rates of inpatient worsening HF, 30-day worsening HF, and 60-day all-cause mortality were numerically higher among patients with lower baseline eGFR, but relative effects of study treatment did not differ with renal function (all P for interaction ≥ 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: High-dose spironolactone did not improve congestion over usual care among patients with acute HF, irrespective of renal function and risk factors for diuretic resistance. In-hospital initiation or continuation of spironolactone was safe during the inpatient stay, even when administered at high doses to patients with moderate renal dysfunction.

Identifying responders to oral iron supplementation in heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction: a post-hoc analysis of the IRONOUT-HF trial.

BACKGROUND: The IRONOUT-HF trial previously demonstrated that oral iron supplementation minimally increased iron stores and did not improve exercise capacity in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and iron deficiency. METHODS: The IRONOUT-HF trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial designed to test the efficacy and safety of oral iron polysaccharide compared to matching placebo among patients with HFrEF and iron deficiency. Study participants received oral iron polysaccharide 150 mg twice daily or matching placebo for 16 weeks. Response to oral iron was defined as a ferritin level >300 ng/mL or a ferritin level 100-300 ng/mL with a transferrin saturation >20% at the end of the study. RESULTS: The final analytical cohort included 98 patients with HFrEF and iron deficiency at baseline. Study participants had a median (25, 75) age of 63 years (54 years, 71 years), included 40% women (N = 39). After 16 weeks of therapy, 24 patients (24%) responded to oral iron supplementation while 74 patients (76%) remained iron deficient despite treatment. There was no association between response to oral iron supplementation and improvement in functional status (i.e. peak VO2 or anaerobic threshold), myocardial stress (i.e. NT-proBNP levels), or HRQOL (i.e. Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire) at week 16. CONCLUSION: This study failed to identify a subset of responders more likely to derive a clinical benefit from oral iron therapy and does not support its routine use in patients with symptomatic HFrEF and iron deficiency.

[Role of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids after acute coronary syndrome]. / Ruolo degli acidi grassi polinsaturi n-3 dopo sindrome coronarica acuta.

The role of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease has recently been debated. The GISSI-Prevention trial demonstrated that supplementation with 1 g/day of eicosapentaenoic acid plus docosahexaenoic acid (EPA/DHA) was associated with a reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with myocardial infarction. However, some subsequent meta-analyses, though not without methodological flaws, did not confirm the beneficial effect on cardiovascular mortality. More evidence has recently become available from the analysis of "real-world" data that point to the effectiveness of PUFA supplementation in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. Meantime, in the determination no. 94 by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), reimbursement of PUFAs containing at least 85% of EPA and DHA has been recognized for 12 months in patients with acute coronary syndrome and ejection fraction >40% and for 18 months in those with ejection fraction ≤40%.

Effects of Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Treatment on Postdischarge Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Clinical trials studying the efficacy of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) in reducing adverse events after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have yielded conflicting results, and data regarding the influence of n-3 PUFA treatment after AMI in routine clinical practice are scarce. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study including patients from 5 Italian Local Health Units who were discharged from the hospital with a primary diagnosis of AMI from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011. Using unique patient identifiers, patients were linked across governmental hospital discharge, medication prescription, and mortality databases and followed for 12-months post-index discharge. Patient characteristics and risk of all-cause mortality and repeat AMI were compared by n-3 PUFA prescription after discharge (for outcome analyses, defined as ≥ 2 prescriptions) at a presumed dose of 1 g/day. Overall, 11,269 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 2,425 patients (21.5%) were prescribed n-3 PUFA during follow-up. Patients treated with n-3 PUFA tended to be younger, men, and carry a diagnosis of diabetes and were more likely to be receiving guideline-recommended post-AMI medical therapy, including ß blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers, statins, and antiplatelet therapy (all p <0.001). After adjusting for patient characteristics and concurrent therapies, n-3 PUFA treatment was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.97) and recurrent AMI (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.87) through 12-month follow-up. In conclusion, in this large, contemporary, observational study of "real-world" Italian patients hospitalized for AMI, the use of n-3 PUFA was independently associated with a robust reduction in all-cause mortality and recurrent AMI. These data support further randomized controlled trials with n-3 PUFA therapy in the post-AMI setting.