Aliskiren, Enalapril, or Aliskiren and Enalapril in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with chronic heart failure, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality and hospitalization, but the role of a renin inhibitor in such patients is unknown. We compared the ACE inhibitor enalapril with the renin inhibitor aliskiren (to test superiority or at least noninferiority) and with the combination of the two treatments (to test superiority) in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction. METHODS: After a single-blind run-in period, we assigned patients, in a double-blind fashion, to one of three groups: 2336 patients were assigned to receive enalapril at a dose of 5 or 10 mg twice daily, 2340 to receive aliskiren at a dose of 300 mg once daily, and 2340 to receive both treatments (combination therapy). The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 36.6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 770 patients (32.9%) in the combination-therapy group and in 808 (34.6%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.03). The primary outcome occurred in 791 patients (33.8%) in the aliskiren group (hazard ratio vs. enalapril, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.10); the prespecified test for noninferiority was not met. There was a higher risk of hypotensive symptoms in the combination-therapy group than in the enalapril group (13.8% vs. 11.0%, P=0.005), as well as higher risks of an elevated serum creatinine level (4.1% vs. 2.7%, P=0.009) and an elevated potassium level (17.1% vs. 12.5%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic heart failure, the addition of aliskiren to enalapril led to more adverse events without an increase in benefit. Noninferiority was not shown for aliskiren as compared with enalapril. (Funded by Novartis; ATMOSPHERE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00853658.).

Warfarin and aspirin in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS: We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS: The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P=0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P=0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P=0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P=0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; WARCEF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00041938.).

Facilitation of a Multihospital Community of Practice to Increase Enrollment in the Hospital to Home National Quality Improvement Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Hospital to Home (H2H) is a national quality improvement (QI) initiative composed of three recommended hospital interventions to improve the transition of care for hospitalized patients with heart disease. A study was conducted to determine if enrollment of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals in H2H and adoption of the recommended interventions would both increase following facilitation of an existing Heart Failure (HF) provider-based community of practice (COP) within the VA health care system. The VA HF COP includes more than 800 VA providers and other VA staff from VA inpatient medical centers. METHODS: In 2010, 122 VA hospitals were randomized to facilitation using the VA HF COP (intervention) or no facilitation (control). COP members from intervention hospitals were invited to periodic teleconferences promoting H2H and received multiple e-mails asking members to report interest and then progress in H2H implementation. RESULTS: Among the 61 hospitals randomized to HF COP facilitation, 33 (54%) enrolled in H2H, compared with 6 (10%) of 61 control hospitals (p<.001) at five months after randomization. Of 38 intervention hospitals responding to the follow-up survey, 13 stated they had initiated 22 QI projects as a result of the H2H campaign. Another 7 hospitals had planned H2H projects. Of 20 control hospitals that responded, 5 had initiated 9 projects as a result of H2H, and no additional hospitals had plans to do so. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitation using the VA HF COP was successful in increasing enrollment in the H2H initiative and providing implementation support for recommended QI projects. Multihospital provider groups are a potentially valuable tool for implementation of national QI campaigns.

High-sensitivity C-reactive protein in acute heart failure: insights from the ASCEND-HF trial.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation is associated with progression of chronic heart failure (HF). Few data exist on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels and their importance in acute HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this biomarker substudy of the ASCEND-HF trial, we measured hsCRP levels at admission (n = 794), 48-72 hours (n = 677), and 30 days (n = 581) and evaluated their association with outcomes. Levels of hsCRP were considerably elevated at admission (median 12.6 mg/L, interquartile range [IQR] 5.23-30.5) and 48-72 hours (median 11.0 mg/L, IQR 4.87-29.9) and declined only at 30 days (median 4.7 mg/L, IQR 1.83-13.1). Admission hsCRP was not associated with dyspnea improvement at 6 hours (74.1%) and 24 hours (86.2%), in-hospital death or worsening HF (n = 37; 4.7%), 30-day mortality or HF readmission (death: n = 25 [3.2%]; combined death and HF readmission: n = 95 [12.0%]), or 180-day mortality (n = 96; 12.1%). Hospital stay (median 5 days, IQR 3-7) was longer among patients with higher admission hsCRP levels (0.57 days per log2-hsCRP in adjusted models; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.81; P < .001). Levels of hsCRP at 48-72 hours did not predict 30-day mortality or HF readmission and were only marginally associated with 180-day mortality. However, higher hsCRP at 30 days among survivors was associated with higher 180-day mortality in models including admission hsCRP (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] per log2-hsCRP: 1.23; 95% CI 1.04-1.45; P = .016). Patients with an hsCRP increase at day 30, defined as >10% increase over baseline value, had higher 180-day mortality risk compared with those with unchanged or decreased 30-day hsCRP (HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.16-4.52; P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Levels of hsCRP are elevated among patients with acute HF. Increasing levels at 30 days after discharge are associated with higher 180-day mortality.

Depression and outcome among veterans with implantable cardioverter defibrillators with or without cardiac resynchronization therapy capability.

BACKGROUND: The impact of depression on outcome in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients has not been fully appreciated. We assessed the prevalence of depression and its association with heart failure (HF) outcome among veterans with ICDs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients enrolled between January 2005 and January 2010 in the Outcomes among Veterans with Implantable Defibrillators Registry were studied. We examined the cross-sectional association of depression with severity of HF functional class as well as the association of depression with the composite outcome of mortality or HF hospitalization over a mean follow-up time of 2.7 years. There were 3,862 patients enrolled. Patients with depression (1,162, 43%) were younger (63.1 ± 9.4 years vs 66.6 ± 9.9 years, P < 0.001), more likely to have a history of tobacco or alcohol abuse (P < 0.0001) or atrial fibrillation (P = 0.05) while having a higher ejection fraction (28.3% vs 27.4%, P = 0.03). Depression was associated with advanced HF class at time of implant; odds ratio (OR; vs class I) for class III: 1.65 (confidence interval [CI] 1.17-2.33), class IV: 1.73 (95% CI 1.08-2.76). Death or HF hospitalization was more likely to occur in patients with depression (35.2% vs 32.0%, HR: 1.15 [95% CI 0.99-1.33]). The predictive value of depression was stronger after multivariable adjustment; HR: 1.25 (95% CI 1.05-1.49). CONCLUSION: Depression was prevalent among veterans with ICDs. Depression was associated with severity of HF. The predictive value of associated depression was significant after multivariable adjustment.

Rolofylline, an adenosine A1-receptor antagonist, in acute heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Worsening renal function, which is associated with adverse outcomes, often develops in patients with acute heart failure. Experimental and clinical studies suggest that counterregulatory responses mediated by adenosine may be involved. We tested the hypothesis that the use of rolofylline, an adenosine A1-receptor antagonist, would improve dyspnea, reduce the risk of worsening renal function, and lead to a more favorable clinical course in patients with acute heart failure. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients hospitalized for acute heart failure with impaired renal function. Within 24 hours after presentation, 2033 patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive daily intravenous rolofylline (30 mg) or placebo for up to 3 days. The primary end point was treatment success, treatment failure, or no change in the patient's clinical condition; this end point was defined according to survival, heart-failure status, and changes in renal function. Secondary end points were the post-treatment development of persistent renal impairment and the 60-day rate of death or readmission for cardiovascular or renal causes. RESULTS: Rolofylline, as compared with placebo, did not provide a benefit with respect to the primary end point (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.09; P=0.35). Persistent renal impairment developed in 15.0% of patients in the rolofylline group and in 13.7% of patients in the placebo group (P=0.44). By 60 days, death or readmission for cardiovascular or renal causes had occurred in similar proportions of patients assigned to rolofylline and placebo (30.7% and 31.9%, respectively; P=0.86). Adverse-event rates were similar overall; however, only patients in the rolofylline group had seizures, a known potential adverse effect of A1-receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: Rolofylline did not have a favorable effect with respect to the primary clinical composite end point, nor did it improve renal function or 60-day outcomes. It does not show promise in the treatment of acute heart failure with renal dysfunction. (Funded by NovaCardia, a subsidiary of Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00328692 and NCT00354458.).

Clinical pharmacy services in heart failure: an opinion paper from the Heart Failure Society of America and American College of Clinical Pharmacy Cardiology Practice and Research Network.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) care takes place in multiple settings, with a variety of providers, and generally involves patients who have multiple comorbidities. This situation is a "perfect storm" of factors that predispose patients to medication errors. METHODS AND RESULTS: The goals of this paper are to outline potential roles for clinical pharmacists in a multidisciplinary HF team, to document outcomes associated with interventions by clinical pharmacists, to recommend minimum training for clinical pharmacists engaged in HF care, and to suggest financial strategies to support clinical pharmacy services within a multidisciplinary team. As patients transition from inpatient to outpatient settings and between multiple caregivers, pharmacists can positively affect medication reconciliation and education, assure consistency in management that results in improvements in patient satisfaction and medication adherence, and reduce medication errors. For mechanical circulatory support and heart transplant teams, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services considers the participation of a transplant pharmacology expert (e.g., clinical pharmacist) to be a requirement for accreditation, given the highly specialized and complex drug regimens used. Although reports of outcomes from pharmacist interventions have been mixed owing to differences in study design, benefits such as increased use of evidence-based therapies, decreases in HF hospitalizations and emergency department visits, and decreases in all-cause readmissions have been demonstrated. Clinical pharmacists participating in HF or heart transplant teams should have completed specialized postdoctoral training in the form of residencies and/or fellowships in cardiovascular and/or transplant pharmacotherapy, and board certification is recommended. Financial mechanisms to support pharmacist participation in the HF teams are variable. CONCLUSIONS: Positive outcomes associated with clinical pharmacist activities support the value of making this resource available to HF teams.

Medical resource use, costs, and quality of life in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: findings from ASCEND-HF.

BACKGROUND: The Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure (ASCEND-HF) randomly assigned 7,141 participants to nesiritide or placebo. Dyspnea improvement was more often reported in the nesiritide group, but there were no differences in 30-day all-cause mortality or heart failure readmission rates. We compared medical resource use, costs, and health utilities between the treatment groups. METHODS AND RESULTS: There were no significant differences in inpatient days, procedures, and emergency department visits reported for the first 30 days or for readmissions to day 180. EQ-5D health utilities and visual analog scale ratings were similar at 24 hours, discharge, and 30 days. Billing data and regression models were used to generate inpatient costs. Mean length of stay from randomization to discharge was 8.5 days in the nesiritide group and 8.6 days in the placebo group (P = .33). Cumulative mean costs at 30 days were $16,922 (SD $16,191) for nesiritide and $16,063 (SD $15,572) for placebo (P = .03). At 180 days, cumulative costs were $25,590 (SD $30,344) for nesiritide and $25,339 (SD $29,613) for placebo (P = .58). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of nesiritide contributed to higher short-term costs and did not significantly influence medical resource use or health utilities compared with standard care alone.

Anticoagulation in heart failure: current status and future direction.

Despite therapeutic advances, patients with worsening heart failure (HF) requiring hospitalization have unacceptably high post-discharge mortality and re-admission rates soon after discharge. Evidence suggests a hypercoagulable state is present in patients with HF. Although thromboembolism as a direct consequence of HF is not frequently clinically recognized, it may contribute to mortality and morbidity. Additionally, many patients with HF have concomitant disorders conferring additional thrombotic risk, including atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease (CAD). Acute coronary syndrome (ACS), a known consequence of coronary thrombosis, is a common precipitating factor for worsening HF. Coronary thrombosis may also cause sudden death in patients with HF and CAD. Because data are largely derived from observational studies or trials of modest size, guideline recommendations on anticoagulation for HF vary between organizations. The recently presented Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction trial of HF patients in sinus rhythm suggested anticoagulation reduces the risk of stroke, although rates of the combined primary endpoint (death, ischemic stroke, or intracerebral hemorrhage) were similar for acetylsalicylic acid and warfarin. Newer oral anticoagulants dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban have successfully completed trials for the prevention of stroke in patients with AF and have shown benefits in the subpopulation of patients with concomitant HF. Positive results of the Anti-Xa Therapy to Lower Cardiovascular Events in Addition to Standard Therapy in Subjects with Acute Coronary Syndrome-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 51 (ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51) trial of rivaroxaban in ACS are also encouraging. These data suggest there is a need to assess the potential role for these newer agents in the management of patients hospitalized for HF who continue to have a high post-discharge event rate despite available therapies.

Prevalence and significance of alterations in cardiac structure and function in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of abnormalities in cardiac structure and function present in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) and to determine whether these alterations in structure and function were associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Irbesartan in HFPEF trial (I-PRESERVE) enrolled 4128 patients; echocardiographic determination of left ventricular (LV) volume, mass, left atrial (LA) size, systolic function, and diastolic function were made at baseline in 745 patients. The primary end point was death or protocol-specific cardiovascular hospitalization. A secondary end point was the composite of heart failure death or heart failure hospitalization. Associations between baseline structure and function and patient outcomes were examined using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses. In this substudy, LV hypertrophy or concentric remodeling was present in 59%, LA enlargement was present in 66%, and diastolic dysfunction was present in 69% of the patients. Multivariable analyses controlling for 7 clinical variables (including log N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) indicated that increased LV mass, mass/volume ratio, and LA size were independently associated with an increased risk of both primary and heart failure events (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Left ventricular hypertrophy or concentric remodeling, LA enlargement, and diastolic dysfunction were present in the majority of patients with HFPEF. Left ventricular mass and LA size were independently associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. The presence of structural remodeling and diastolic dysfunction may be useful additions to diagnostic criteria and provide important prognostic insights in patients with HFPEF.

Long-term follow-up of participants with heart failure in the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT).

BACKGROUND: In the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), a randomized, double-blind, practice-based, active-control, comparative effectiveness trial in high-risk hypertensive participants, risk of new-onset heart failure (HF) was higher in the amlodipine (2.5-10 mg/d) and lisinopril (10-40 mg/d) arms compared with the chlorthalidone (12.5-25 mg/d) arm. Similar to other studies, mortality rates following new-onset HF were very high (≥50% at 5 years), and were similar across randomized treatment arms. After the randomized phase of the trial ended in 2002, outcomes were determined from administrative databases. METHODS AND RESULTS: With the use of national databases, posttrial follow-up mortality through 2006 was obtained on participants who developed new-onset HF during the randomized (in-trial) phase of ALLHAT. Mean follow-up for the entire period was 8.9 years. Of 1761 participants with incident HF in-trial, 1348 died. Post-HF all-cause mortality was similar across treatment groups, with adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 0.95 (0.81-1.12) and 1.05 (0.89-1.25), respectively, for amlodipine and lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone, and 10-year adjusted rates of 86%, 87%, and 83%, respectively. All-cause mortality rates were also similar among those with reduced ejection fractions (84%) and preserved ejection fractions (81%), with no significant differences by randomized treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: Once HF develops, risk of death is high and consistent across randomized treatment groups. Measures to prevent the development of HF, especially blood pressure control, must be a priority if mortality associated with the development of HF is to be addressed. Clinical Trial Registration- http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000542.

Mode of death in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction: results from the Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Study (I-Preserve) trial.

BACKGROUND: The mode of death has been well characterized in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction; however, less is known about the mode of death in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF). The purpose of this study was to examine the mode of death in patients with HFPEF enrolled in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Study (I-Preserve) trial and to determine whether irbesartan altered the distribution of mode of death in HFPEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: All deaths were reviewed by a clinical end-point committee, and the mode of death was assigned by consensus of the members. The annual mortality rate was 5.2% in the I-Preserve trial. There were no significant differences in mortality rate between the placebo and irbesartan groups. The mode of death was cardiovascular in 60% (including 26% sudden, 14% heart failure, 5% myocardial infarction, and 9% stroke), noncardiovascular in 30%, and unknown in 10%. There were no differences in the distribution of mode-specific mortality rates between placebo and irbesartan. CONCLUSIONS: Sixty percent of the deaths in patients with HFPEF were cardiovascular, with sudden death and heart failure death being the most common. Treatment with irbesartan did not affect overall mortality or the distribution of mode-specific mortality rates. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00095238.

Irbesartan in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50% of patients with heart failure have a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45%, but no therapies have been shown to improve the outcome of these patients. Therefore, we studied the effects of irbesartan in patients with this syndrome. METHODS: We enrolled 4128 patients who were at least 60 years of age and had New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of at least 45% and randomly assigned them to receive 300 mg of irbesartan or placebo per day. The primary composite outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for a cardiovascular cause (heart failure, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, arrhythmia, or stroke). Secondary outcomes included death from heart failure or hospitalization for heart failure, death from any cause and from cardiovascular causes, and quality of life. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 49.5 months, the primary outcome occurred in 742 patients in the irbesartan group and 763 in the placebo group. Primary event rates in the irbesartan and placebo groups were 100.4 and 105.4 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.35). Overall rates of death were 52.6 and 52.3 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.14; P=0.98). Rates of hospitalization for cardiovascular causes that contributed to the primary outcome were 70.6 and 74.3 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.08; P=0.44). There were no significant differences in the other prespecified outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Irbesartan did not improve the outcomes of patients with heart failure and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00095238.)

Heart failure guidelines, performance measures, and the practice of medicine: mind the gap.

Guidelines have rather quickly assumed a central role in health care delivery in the U.S. They have become the foundation on which performance measures are built and, therefore, a major player in assessing the quality of care provided by individuals and institutions, the ramifications of which involve reputation, reimbursement, and litigation. We are concerned, however, that in our enthusiasm for collectively endorsing these guidelines, we are marginalizing the importance of physician judgment and inadvertently risking the conversion of guidelines into "cookbooks." We believe that this editorial, while unequivocally acknowledging the fundamental importance of guidelines, simultaneously provides a critically important perspective on the potential for misuse of both guidelines and performance measures. Further, we hope that publication of this commentary will help temper enthusiasm for overzealous conversion of guidelines into performance measures, thereby restoring the vital role of physician judgment and insight into patient management.

ACCF/AHA/HFSA 2011 survey results: current staffing profile of heart failure programs, including programs that perform heart transplant and mechanical circulatory support device implantation.

OBJECTIVES: There have been no published recommendations about staffing needs for a heart failure (HF) clinic or an office setting focused on heart transplant. The goal of this survey was to understand the current staffing environment of HF, transplant, and mechanical circulatory support device (MCSD) programs in the United States and abroad. This report identifies current staffing patterns but does not endorse a particular staffing model. METHODS: An online survey, jointly sponsored by the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), American Heart Association (AHA), and the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA), was sent to the members of all 3 organizations who had identified themselves as interested in HF, heart transplant, or both, between March 12, 2009, and May 12, 2009. RESULTS: The overall response rate to the 1,823 e-mail surveys was 23%. There were 257 unique practices in the United States (81% of total sites) and 58 international sites (19%); approximately 30% of centers were in a cardiovascular group practice and 30% in a medical school hospital setting. The large majority of practices delivered HF care in both an inpatient and outpatient environment, and slightly more centers were implanting MCSDs (47%) than performing cardiac transplantation (39%). Most practices (43%) were small, with <4 staff members, or small- to medium-sized (34%), with 4 to 10 staff members, with only 23% being medium (11-20 staff) or large programs (>20 staff). On average, a U.S. HF practice cared for 1,641 outpatients annually. An average HF program with transplant performed 10 transplants. Although larger programs were able to perform more transplants and see more outpatient HF visits, their clinician staffing volume tended to double for approximately every 500 to 700 additional HF visits annually. The average staffing utilization was 2.65 physician full-time equivalents (FTEs), 2.21 nonphysician practitioner (nurse practitioner or physician assistant) FTEs, and 2.61 nurse coordinator FTEs annually. CONCLUSIONS: The HF patient population is growing in number in the United States and internationally, and the clinicians who provide the highly skilled and time-consuming care to this population are under intense scrutiny as a result of focused quality improvement initiatives and reduced financial resources. Staffing guidelines should be developed to ensure that an adequate number of qualified professionals are hired for a given practice volume. These survey results are an initial step in developing such standards.

Age and receipt of guideline-recommended medications for heart failure: a nationwide study of veterans.

BACKGROUND: Older patients often receive less guideline-concordant care for heart failure than younger patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether age differences in heart failure care are explained by patient, provider, and health system characteristics and/or by chart-documented reasons for non-adherence to guidelines. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: Retrospective cohort study of 2,772 ambulatory veterans with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% from a 2004 nationwide medical record review program (the VA External Peer Review Program). MAIN MEASURES: Ambulatory use of ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and beta blockers. RESULTS: Among 2,772 patients, mean age was 73 +/- 10 years, 87% received an ACE inhibitor or ARB, and 82% received a beta blocker. When patients with explicit chart-documented reasons for not receiving these drugs were excluded, 95% received an ACE inhibitor or ARB and 89% received a beta blocker. In multivariable analyses controlling for a variety of patient and health system characteristics, the adjusted odds ratio for ACE-inhibitor and ARB use was 0.43 (95% CI 0.24-0.78) for patients age 80 and over vs. those age 50-64 years, and the adjusted odds ratio for beta blocker use was 0.66 (95% CI 0.48-0.93) between the two age groups. The magnitude of these associations was similar but not statistically significant after excluding patients with chart-documented reasons for not prescribing ACE inhibitors or ARBs and beta blockers. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of veterans receive guideline-recommended medications for heart failure. Older veterans are consistently less likely to receive these drugs, although these differences were no longer significant when accounting for patients with chart-documented reasons for not prescribing these drugs. Closely evaluating reasons for non-prescribing in older adults is essential to assessing whether non-treatment represents good clinical judgment or missed opportunities to improve care.

Randomized trial of warfarin, aspirin, and clopidogrel in patients with chronic heart failure: the Warfarin and Antiplatelet Therapy in Chronic Heart Failure (WATCH) trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure remains a major cause of mortality and morbidity. The role of antithrombotic therapy in patients with chronic heart failure has long been debated. The objective of this study was to determine the optimal antithrombotic agent for heart failure patients with reduced ejection fractions who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective, randomized clinical trial of open-label warfarin (target international normalized ratio of 2.5 to 3.0) and double-blind treatment with either aspirin (162 mg once daily) or clopidogrel (75 mg once daily) had a 30-month enrollment period and a minimum of 12 months of treatment. We enrolled 1587 men and women >/=18 years of age with symptomatic heart failure for at least 3 months who were in sinus rhythm and had left ventricular ejection fraction of

Prevention of atrial fibrillation: report from a national heart, lung, and blood institute workshop.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened an expert panel April 28 to 29, 2008, to identify gaps and recommend research strategies to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF). The panel reviewed the existing basic scientific, epidemiological, and clinical literature about AF and identified opportunities to advance AF prevention research. After discussion, the panel proposed the following recommendations: (1) enhance understanding of the epidemiology of AF in the population by systematically and longitudinally investigating symptomatic and asymptomatic AF in cohort studies; (2) improve detection of AF by evaluating the ability of existing and emerging methods and technologies to detect AF; (3) improve noninvasive modalities for identifying key components of cardiovascular remodeling that promote AF, including genetic, fibrotic, autonomic, structural, and electrical remodeling markers; (4) develop additional animal models reflective of the pathophysiology of human AF; (5) conduct secondary analyses of already-completed clinical trials to enhance knowledge of potentially effective methods to prevent AF and routinely include AF as an outcome in ongoing and future cardiovascular studies; and (6) conduct clinical studies focused on secondary prevention of AF recurrence, which would inform future primary prevention investigations.

Guidelines, performance measures, and the practice of medicine: mind the gap.

Guidelines have rather quickly assumed a central role in health care delivery in the U.S. They have become the foundation on which performance measures are built and, therefore, a major player in assessing the quality of care provided by individuals and institutions, the ramifications of which involve reputation,reimbursement, and litigation. We are concerned, however, that in our enthusiasm for collectively endorsing these guidelines, we are marginalizing the importance of physician judgment and inadvertently risking the conversion of guidelines into "cookbooks." We believe that this editorial, while unequivocally acknowledging the fundamental importance of guidelines, simultaneously provides a critically important perspective on the potential for misuse of both guidelines and performance measures. Further, we hope that publication of this commentary will help temper enthusiasm for overzealous conversion of guidelines into performance measures, thereby restoring the vital role of physician judgment and insight into patient management.

Baseline plasma NT-proBNP and clinical characteristics: results from the irbesartan in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction trial.

BACKGROUND: N-terminal B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) is usually elevated in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF). Less is known about NT-proBNP in HF with preserved EF (HF-PEF). We measured baseline NT-proBNP in 3562 HF-PEF enrolled patients in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with EF >or=45%, age >or=60 years, and either New York Heart Association (NYHA) II-IV symptoms with HF hospitalization (HFH) within 6 months or NYHA III-IV symptoms with corroborative evidence of HF or structural changes associated with HF-PEF. NT-proBNP (pg/mL) measured centrally using the Elecsys proBNP assay (Roche). Mean age 72 +/- 7 years, 60% were women, the investigator indicated HF etiology was hypertension in 64%; the majority were in NYHA III. Medications included diuretics in 82%, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in 26%, beta-blocker in 59%, and spironolactone in 15%. Median NT-proBNP was 341 pg/mL (interquartile range 135 to 974 pg/mL) and geometric mean was 354 pg/mL. In multivariate analysis, the baseline characteristics most strongly associated with higher NT-proBNP levels were atrial fibrillation (ratio of geometric mean 2.59, P < .001), NYHA IV symptoms (1.52, P < .001), lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (1.44, P < .001), and HFH hospitalization within 6 months (1.37, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Most HF-PEF patients have elevated NT-proBNP levels. The NT-proBNP concentrations were related to baseline characteristics generally associated with worse outcomes for HF patients.