2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

Call to action for drug interactions between tirzepatide and heart failure guideline-directed medical therapy.

BACKGROUND: No drug interaction between the guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)-glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists is currently indexed in available drug interaction databases or package inserts for tirzepatide, the first dual GIP/GLP-1 agonist. The objective of our case series is to present 3 patients with HF who required modification in GDMT regimens for HFrEF or loop diuretic therapy after tirzepatide initiation. CASE SUMMARY: Three patients older than 60 years with HFrEF receiving GDMT agents (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, beta blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) were initiated on tirzepatide for weight loss management. After initiating tirzepatide therapy, all 3 patients developed symptomatic hypotension. Two cases had acute kidney injury owing to tirzepatide's direct vasodilation, natriuresis, reduction in extracellular volume, and weight loss. GDMT regimens and diuretic therapy were significantly modified to improve these adverse reactions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians must closely monitor vital signs and volume status after initiating tirzepatide for potential need to modify GDMT regimens. Authors request a call to action to index the drug interaction between GDMT agents and tirzepatide in major drug interaction databases for a potential hypotension or dehydration risk.

Multidisciplinary Care in Heart Failure Services.

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of American 2022 guidelines for heart failure (HF) recommend a multidisciplinary team approach for patients with HF. The multidisciplinary HF team-based approach decreases the hospitalization rate for HF and health care costs and improves adherence to self-care and the use of guideline-directed medical therapy. This article proposes the optimal multidisciplinary team structure and each team member's delineated role to achieve institutional goals and metrics for HF care. The proposed HF-specific multidisciplinary team comprises cardiologists, surgeons, advanced practice providers, clinical pharmacists, specialty nurses, dieticians, physical therapists, psychologists, social workers, immunologists, and palliative care clinicians. A standardized multidisciplinary HF team-based approach should be incorporated to optimize the structure, minimize the redundancy of clinical responsibilities among team members, and improve clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction in their HF care.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Off-Label Uses for Heart Failure.

Sacubitril/valsartan is an angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor that the Food and Drug Administration has indicated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization and death in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction below normal and with no specified ejection-fraction cut-off. However, clinically significant patient groups were excluded or minimally represented in sacubitril/valsartan's pivotal clinical trials. Clinicians often encounter scenarios in which a sacubitril/valsartan off-label use may be beneficial, but limited resources are available to evaluate the efficacy and safety in these patients. This state-of-the-art review describes contemporary literature for sacubitril/valsartan Food and Drug Administration off-label indications to help clinicians assess its appropriateness in these selected, clinically important groups of patients: those with acute decompensated heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, peripartum cardiomyopathy, chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy, adult congenital heart disease, cardiomyopathy in dialysis patients, right ventricular failure, or durable left ventricular assist device.

Economic Impact of Ambulatory Clinical Pharmacists in an Advanced Heart Failure Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Clinical pharmacists play pivotal roles in multidisciplinary heart failure (HF) teams through the management of HF pharmacotherapy, but no study has examined the economic impact of HF ambulatory clinical pharmacists in an advanced HF clinic. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the economic impact of HF ambulatory clinical pharmacist interventions in an advanced HF clinic using a cost-benefit analysis. METHODS: This prospective observational study detailed HF ambulatory clinical pharmacist interventions over 6 months in an advanced HF clinic in a single-center tertiary teaching hospital. The economic impact of the interventions was estimated based on the indirect cost savings with pharmacist interventions and direct cost savings recommendations. A cost-benefit analysis was performed to assess the cost of delivering the interventions compared with the benefits generated by clinical pharmacists. Results were reported as a benefit-cost ratio and net benefits. RESULTS: HF ambulatory clinical pharmacists made a total of 2,361 provider-accepted interventions over 6 months. Overall, the 3 most common intervention types were medication reconciliation (28.7%), dose change (20.8%), and addition of medication (12.3%). Anticoagulation (21.2%) was the most common intervened class of medication, followed by sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (12.3%) and angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (9.2%). The total net benefits were $55,553.24 over 6 months and the benefit-cost ratio was 1.55. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The addition of cardiology clinical pharmacists to an advanced HF clinic may be financially justified and cost-beneficial.

Meta-analysis comparing inappropriately low dose versus standard dose of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The appropriateness of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) dosing has been the issue in the real-world setting, and inappropriately lower DOAC dose may not be as effective or safe as the standard dose in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Multiple real-world studies compared the inappropriately lower DOAC dose versus the standard dose, but their main findings were contradictory. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of the inappropriately lower DOAC dose with the standard DOAC dose in patients with AF. Database searches through May 30, 2021, were performed using Medline and Google Scholar. The primary efficacy outcome was stroke or systemic embolism, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were included in this meta-analysis. It revealed that the inappropriately lower DOAC dose was significantly associated with a higher event rate of stroke or systemic embolism compared with the DOAC standard dose (odds ratio 1.21 [95% CI 1.02-1.43], P = 0.03, I2 = 66%). There was no significant difference in the major bleeding event rate between these groups (1.03, [0.92-1.15], P = 0.62; I2 = 27%). CONCLUSION: The inappropriately lower DOAC dose should be avoided to optimize DOAC effectiveness in patients with AF.

Off-label Use for Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Valvular Atrial Fibrillation, Heart Failure, Left Ventricular Thrombus, Superficial Vein Thrombosis, Pulmonary Hypertension-a Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical literature for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) therapy for non-Food and Drug Administration approved indications. DATA SOURCES: Articles from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and OVID databases were reviewed from 1946 through September 4, 2020. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Fully published studies assessing DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF) with valvular heart disease (VHD), heart failure (HF), left ventricular thrombus (LVT), superficial vein thrombosis (SVT), or pulmonary hypertension (PH) were evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Our review showed that DOACs are safe to use in patients with AF and VHD except for mitral stenosis or mechanical heart valve. Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily should be used with caution in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction until further evaluation is performed. Four retrospective studies for DOAC use in patients with LVT showed conflicting results. One phase 3 randomized controlled trial showed noninferiority of rivaroxaban to fondaparinux for SVT treatment. The use of DOACs for pulmonary arterial hypertension was not evaluated in any clinical study, but 2 retrospective studies for the use of DOACs in patients with chronic thromboembolic PH (CTEPH) showed similar efficacy between DOACs and warfarin. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review provides clinicians with a comprehensive literature review surrounding DOAC use in common off-label indications. CONCLUSION: DOACs can be considered for AF complicated by VHD except for mitral stenosis or mechanical valve replacement. DOACs (especially rivaroxaban) are considered as an alternative therapy for SVT and CTEPH. Further prospective studies for DOAC uses are needed for HF or LVT.

Evaluating Sacubitril/Valsartan Dose Dependence on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence is available regarding low (24/26 mg) and middle (49/51 mg) doses of sacubitril/valsartan. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan dose on heart failure (HF) hospitalization and mortality in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: A retrospective multicenter cohort study compared 3 doses of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF. The coprimary outcomes were all-cause mortality and rehospitalization for HF. Propensity matching analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 721 eligible patients, propensity matching created a cohort with an effective sample size of 652 (24/26-mg group [n = 326], 49/51-mg group [n = 147], 97/103-mg group [n = 179]). The HF hospitalization rates were 29.14% in the 24/26-mg group, 19.51% in the 49/51-mg group, and 16.10% in the 97/103-mg group (24/26 vs 49/51 mg: HR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.04-2.34; 24/26 vs 97/103 mg: HR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.18-2.73; 49/51 vs 97/103 mg: HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.70-1.89). All-cause mortality rates were 29.63% in the 24/26-mg group, 17.58% in the 49/51-mg group, and 9.27% in the 97/103-mg group (24/26 vs 49/51 mg: HR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.07-2.59; 24/26 vs 97/103 mg: HR = 2.56, 95% CI = 1.54-4.24; 49/51 vs 97/103 mg: HR = 1.54, 95% CI = 0.84-2.82). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Sacubitril/valsartan 97/103- or 49/51-mg dose is associated with a lower mortality or hospitalization rate for HF in patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan compared with the 24/26-mg dose group.

Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants With Warfarin in the Morbidly Obese Population With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommends avoiding direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in morbidly obese patients with a body mass index (BMI) >40 kg/m2 or weight >120 kg because of limited clinical data in this group of patients. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs in morbidly obese patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center cohort study was conducted of patients older than 18 years, with BMI >40 kg/m2 or weight >120 kg, who were diagnosed as having atrial fibrillation or flutter and who received warfarin or DOACs (ie, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban). The primary efficacy outcome was the incidence of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), whereas the primary safety outcome was the incidence of major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients in each group were included in the study analysis. The incidence rate of ischemic stroke or TIA was 1.75%/year in the DOAC group compared with 2.07%/year in the warfarin group (rate ratio = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.23 to 3.14; P = 0.80). The incidence rate of major bleeding was 2.18%/year in the DOAC group, compared with 4.97%/year in the warfarin group (rate ratio = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.15 to 1.25; P = 0.11). Conclusion and Relevance: Apixaban and rivaroxaban may be considered as alternatives to warfarin for atrial fibrillation or flutter in morbidly obese patients. Dabigatran use in morbidly obese patients needs caution until further studies are conducted.

Comparing torsemide versus furosemide in patients with heart failure: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of torsemide versus furosemide in patients with heart failure (HF). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar database searches for relevant articles from 1946 to May 2018 were performed with the use of the key words torsemide and furosemide. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) cohort studies or randomized controlled trials of adult patients 18 years of age or older who received oral torsemide or furosemide for HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction; and (2) studies that reported mortality rate, rehospitalization rate for HF or cardiovascular disease (CVD), or New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class changes. DATA EXTRACTION: Efficacy outcomes were mortality from any cause, rehospitalization for HF, rehospitalization for CVD, and NYHA functional class improvement. Safety outcome included hypokalemia. RESULTS: In the 5 included studies, there was no significant difference in mortality between torsemide and furosemide (odds ratio [OR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.58-1.72; P = 0.99; I2 = 79%). There was no significant difference in rehospitalization rates for HF (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.09; P = 0.15; I2 = 64%) or CVD (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62-1.12; P = 0.22; I2 = 40%) between torsemide- and furosemide-treated patients. The use of torsemide was associated with significant improvement in NYHA functional class compared with furosemide (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.18-1.76; P = 0.0004; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed that torsemide is associated with statistically significant improvement in NYHA functional class for patients with HF compared with furosemide. However, torsemide did not provide significant benefits in reducing mortality or rehospitalization rates for HF or CVD compared with furosemide. The authors suggest switching from furosemide to torsemide in patients with HF not achieving symptomatic control with the use of furosemide despite maximizing guideline-directed medical therapy and furosemide dosing.

Management of Oral Anticoagulation Therapy After Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Whether to, When to, and How to Restart an Anticoagulation Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate current clinical evidence for management of oral anticoagulation therapy after gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) with an emphasis on whether to, when to, and how to resume an anticoagulation therapy. DATA SOURCES: Relevant articles from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were identified from 1946 through May 20, 2017, using the keywords: gastrointestinal hemorrhage or gastrointestinal bleeding and antithrombotic therapy or anticoagulation therapy or warfarin or dabigatran or rivaroxaban or apixaban or edoxaban. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All English-language studies assessing management of oral anticoagulation therapy after GIB were evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 9 studies were identified. Four retrospective cohort studies showed that resuming anticoagulation therapy was associated with significantly lower rate of thromboembolism (TE) in the general population. Meta-analyses and prospective cohort studies also supported this finding. Two retrospective cohort studies indicated an increase in GIB when anticoagulation reinitiation occurred in less than 7 days without a decrease in TE. Resuming therapy between 7 and 15 days did not demonstrate a significant increase in GIB or TE. A large retrospective study showed that apixaban was associated with the significantly lowest risk of GIB compared with both rivaroxaban and dabigatran. CONCLUSION: Anticoagulation therapy resumption is recommended, with resumption being considered between 7 and 14 days following GIB regardless of the therapy chosen. Data for warfarin management after GIB should be applied with caution to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) because of the quicker onset and experimental nature of reversal agents. Apixaban may be a preferred option when restarting a DOAC therapy.

Capecitabine-induced ventricular fibrillation arrest: Possible Kounis syndrome.

We report the case of capecitabine-induced ventricular fibrillation arrest, possibly secondary to type I Kounis syndrome. A 47-year-old man with a history of T3N1 moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma of the colon, status-post sigmoid resection, was started on adjuvant capecitabine approximately five months prior to presentation of cardiac arrest secondary to ventricular fibrillation. An electrocardiogram (EKG) revealed ST segment elevation on the lateral leads and the patient was taken emergently to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The catheterization revealed no angiographically significant stenosis and coronary artery disease was ruled out. After ruling out other causes of cardiac arrest, the working diagnosis was capecitabine-induced ventricular fibrillation arrest. As such, an inflammatory work up was sent to evaluate for the possibility of a capecitabine hypersensitivity, or Kounis syndrome, and is the first documented report in the literature to do so when evaluating Kounis syndrome. Immunoglobulin E (IgE), tryptase, and C-reactive protein were normal but histamine, interleukin (IL)-6, and IL-10 were elevated. Histamine elevation supports the suspicion that our patient had type I Kounis syndrome. Naranjo adverse drug reaction probability scale indicates a probable adverse effect due to capecitabine with seven points. A case of capecitabine-induced ventricular fibrillation arrest is reported, with a potential for type 1 Kounis syndrome as an underlying pathology supported by immunologic work up.

Rhabdomyolysis precipitated by possible interaction of ticagrelor with high-dose atorvastatin.

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of rhabdomyolysis possibly caused by interaction of ticagrelor with high-dose atorvastatin. SUMMARY: A 62-year-old woman originally from India underwent uncomplicated percutaneous coronary intervention following ST-elevation myocardial infarction. The patient was discharged on a secondary prevention drug regimen that included ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily, atorvastatin 80 mg once daily, metoprolol 25 mg twice daily, and aspirin 81 mg daily. Two months later, the patient was readmitted with complaints of muscle pain, nausea, vomiting, and poor oral intake. The patient was diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis based on her symptoms combined with elevated creatine kinase, urine myoglobin, and serum creatinine. Intravenous fluids were initiated and atorvastatin held. Throughout the second hospital stay, serial laboratory values revealed a decrease in creatine kinase and resolution of acute kidney injury and muscle pain. The patient was discharged on aspirin and clopidogrel. Low-dose statin therapy was started at a follow-up appointment with close monitoring without recurrence of rhabdomyolysis. RESULTS: A drug interaction between the cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibitor ticagrelor and substrate atorvastatin 80 mg may have precipitated development of rhabdomyolysis in this patient. The probability of this drug interaction is rated as "possible" on both the Naranjo Adverse Drug Reaction Probability Scale and the Drug Interaction Probability Scale. CONCLUSION: Rhabdomyolysis was observed possibly because of a drug interaction between once-daily ticagrelor and atorvastatin 80 mg. Clinicians need to be aware of this possible drug interaction via CYP3A4 and potential complications.

Impact of Outpatient Beta Blocker Therapy Adjustment on Tachyarrhythmias in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Admitted for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.

Background: Limited data exists to evaluate the optimal management of outpatient beta blocker therapy when patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are admitted for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of holding or decreasing the dose of outpatient beta blocker therapy vs continuation of therapy on rates of tachyarrhythmias during admission for ADHF. Methods: This single-center, retrospective cohort study divided patients with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 40%) admitted for ADHF into two cohorts: one that had their outpatient beta blocker continued at the same dose upon admission and one that had it held or dose decreased. The primary outcome was a composite of non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, or atrial fibrillation or flutter with rapid ventricular response during the hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included the individual tachyarrhythmias in the primary outcome, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day re-admission for heart failure. Results: Of the 137 patients included, 82 were in the continuation cohort and 55 in the discontinuation/reduction cohort. The median length of stay was 5.3 days (interquartile range, 3.8-7.6). No significant difference in the primary composite outcome was found between the discontinuation/reduction and continuation cohorts (29.1% vs 22.0%; relative risk [95% confidence interval], 1.33 [.74-2.37]; P = .420). No significant differences were seen between the two cohorts for any of the secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Beta blocker therapy adjustment on admission for ADHF may not affect the occurrence of tachyarrhythmias in patients with HFrEF.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

Evaluating Guideline Directed Medical Therapy in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Post-coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Background: Limited evidence regarding the use of guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is available. Objective: The purpose of this study was to characterize prescription of HFrEF GDMT use before and after CABG. Methods: A retrospective analysis of adult patients with an ejection fraction ≤40% undergoing CABG was performed. The primary objective was to evaluate patients receiving HFrEF GDMT, defined as a heart failure beta-blocker (HFBB) and a renin-angiotensin inhibitor preoperatively and postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included dosing, percent of patients on each individual therapy, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) use, and the combination thereof. The follow up period was 1 year. Results: Thirty-eight patients met criteria for inclusion. Prior to CABG, 52.6% of patients were receiving HFrEF GDMT. The prescribing rate of HFrEF GDMT was not significantly higher at any point within 1 year postoperatively (P = .299). The rate of renin-angiotensin inhibitors, HFBB, and aldosterone antagonists use significantly increased from 13.2% preoperatively to 36.8% at 1 year after CABG (P = .022). Doses of individual therapies were not significantly different across all time points preoperatively and postoperatively. Conclusion: HFrEF GDMT use and doses of individual therapies after CABG were not maximized. Collaborative efforts between cardiac surgeons, heart failure cardiologists, and pharmacists could be used to optimize HFrEF GDMT use and dose titration.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Does Not Change the Use and Dose of Loop Diuretics in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: There is no standard approach for managing the use or dose of loop diuretics after initiating sacubitril/valsartan. OBJECTIVE: To investigate longitudinal trends in loop diuretic therapy use and doses during the initial 6 months following sacubitril/valsartan initiation. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients who were initiated on sacubitril/valsartan in cardiology clinics. Inclusion criteria were patients diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (ejection fraction ≤40%) and initiated on sacubitril/valsartan in an outpatient setting. We investigated longitudinal trends in the prevalence of loop diuretic use and furosemide equivalent dose at baseline, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 month and 6 months following sacubitril/valsartan initiation. RESULTS: A total of 427 patients were included in the final cohort. Compared to the baseline loop diuretic use and dose, there were no significant longitudinal changes in the prevalence of loop diuretic use or the furosemide equivalent dose over the 6 months following sacubitril/valsartan initiation. The use of sacubitril/valsartan was not significantly associated with reductions in the use or dose of loop diuretics over a 6-month follow-up period. CONCLUSION: The use of sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly change the use or dose of loop diuretics over 6-month follow-up period. Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan may not need a pre-emptive loop diuretic dose reduction.

Evaluation of a pharmacist-provider collaborative clinic for treatment of iron deficiency in patients with heart failure.

PURPOSE: Intravenous iron therapy is recommended to improve symptoms and exercise tolerance in patients with heart failure (HF) with -reduced ejection fraction and iron deficiency (ID), but there are limited published data on the implementation of intravenous iron therapy in practice. A pharmacist-provider collaborative ID treatment clinic was established within an advanced HF and pulmonary hypertension service to optimize IV iron therapy. The objective was to evaluate the clinical impacts of the pharmacist-provider collaborative ID treatment clinic. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed to compare clinical outcomes among patients of the collaborative ID treatment clinic (the postimplementation group) and a cohort of patients who received usual care (the preimplementation group). The study included patients 18 years of age or older with diagnosed HF or pulmonary hypertension who met prespecified criteria for ID. The primary outcome was adherence to institutional intravenous iron therapy guidance. A key secondary outcome was ID treatment goal achievement. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients in the preimplementation group and 81 in the postimplementation group were included in the study. The rate of adherence to the institutional guidance was significantly improved in the postimplementation group (93%) compared to the preimplementation group (40%). There was no significant difference in the ID therapeutic target achievement rate between the pre- and postimplementation groups (38% vs 48%). CONCLUSION: Implementing a pharmacist-provider collaborative ID treatment clinic significantly increased the number of patients who adhered to intravenous iron therapy guidance compared to usual care.