Global longitudinal strain predicts clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are at high risk for hospitalization and mortality and many of these patients experience a deterioration in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) over time. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a sensitive marker of myocardial dysfunction that could help predict risk for future events in this population. We assessed whether GLS can predict adverse clinical outcomes and future deterioration in LVEF in patients with HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients with HFpEF were divided into groups according to abnormal GLS (>-15.8%) or normal GLS (<-15.8%).The primary outcomes were: a composite of cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization and deterioration in LVEF to <40%. Among the 311 patients with HFpEF, 128 patients (41%) had normal GLS and 183 patients (59%) had abnormal GLS. After a median follow-up of 4.6 years, the composite outcome occurred more commonly in patients with abnormal GLS compared to patients with normal GLS (62% vs. 44%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-2.4, p < 0.001). Patients with abnormal GLS were also more likely to experience a deterioration in LVEF (19% vs. 10%; HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.3, p = 0.018). When assessed as a continuous variable, each 1% increase in GLS was associated with 10% increased odds for the composite outcome and 13% increased odds for deterioration in LVEF. CONCLUSION: In patients with HFpEF, abnormal GLS is common and is a strong predictor for clinical events and future deterioration in LVEF.

Prognostic Value of Global Longitudinal Strain in Patients With Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine whether global longitudinal strain (GLS) is independently associated with the natural history of patients with heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF). BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) often improves in patients with reduced EF. The clinical course of patients with HFimpEF, however, is quite variable. GLS, a sensitive indicator of LV systolic function, could help predict risk of future events in this population. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of HF patients with LVEF >40% on index echocardiogram who had LVEF <40% on initial study and improvement of ≥10%. GLS was assessed by 2-dimensional speckle-tracking software on index echocardiography. Primary outcome was time to first occurrence of cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization/emergency treatment. RESULTS: Of the 289 patients with HFimpEF, median absolute values of GLS (aGLS) and LVEF from index echocardiography were 12.7% (IQR: 10.8%-14.7%) and 52% (IQR: 46%-58%), respectively. Over 53 months following index echocardiography, the primary endpoint occurred less frequently in patients with aGLS above the median than below it (21% vs 34%; P = 0.014); HR of 0.51; 95% CI: 0.33-0.81; P = 0.004. When assessed as a continuous variable, each 1% increase in aGLS on index echocardiogram was associated with a lower likelihood of the composite endpoint; HR of 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79-0.93; P < 0.001, an association that persisted after multivariable adjustment; HR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.82-0.97; P = 0.01. Lower aGLS was associated with increased likelihood of deterioration in LVEF. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFimpEF, GLS is a strong predictor for future HF events and deterioration in cardiac function.

Association of Prior Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Midrange Ejection Fraction.

Importance: Patients categorized as having heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the midrange between 40% and 50% (HFmrEF) are known to be at increased risk of future events. Although patients can transition into the midrange through either improvement or deterioration in their LVEF, there is limited information available assessing the association of directional change in LVEF with future events. Understanding the association between change in LVEF and the clinical course of patients with HFmrEF would be of value in guiding management strategies. Objective: To determine whether risk of clinical events experienced by patients with HFmrEF varies according to whether LVEF improved or deteriorated into the range of 40% to 50% from previous measurements. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study, patients were identified from the electronic health records at the UC San Diego Health System who had an LVEF measured between 40% and 50% on transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) performed during the calendar year of 2015 and who also had at least 1 prior TTE for comparison. The clinical course of these patients was then followed from the time of the index TTE through December 2018. Data were analyzed from January to March 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The composite of all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalization, the composite of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization, and each of the individual components. Results: Of the 448 patients who were identified with HFmrEF, 278 (62.1%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 67.4 (9.7) years. Left ventricular ejection fraction improved from less than 40% in 157 patients (35.0%), deteriorated from greater than 50% in 224 patients (50.0%), and remained between 40% and 50% over time in 67 patients (15.0%). Compared with patients whose LVEF improved from less than 40% to midrange levels, patients whose LVEF deteriorated from greater than 50% had higher risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.82; P = .03) and of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.08-2.50; P = .02), and these differences persisted after multivariable analysis. Outcomes did not differ significantly between patients whose LVEF improved and those in whom it remained stable. Conclusion and Relevance: In a cohort of patients with HFmrEF from a large academic medical center, the clinical course was strongly influenced by the directional change in LVEF from prior study. Patients whose LVEF deteriorated into midrange levels experienced a significantly higher risk of adverse clinical events than patients whose LVEF had improved. These results suggest that directional change in LVEF from prior measurements should be considered when devising management strategies for patients with HFmrEF.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use following heart failure hospitalization.

AIMS: Patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) are at increased risk for events post-discharge. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) improve the clinical course of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. We assessed MRA use in high-risk patients following an HF hospitalization to determine rate of MRA prescription, likelihood of drug continuation post-discharge, reasons for discontinuation, and association between MRA maintenance and outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients admitted to our hospital system between 2011 and 2013 were identified retrospectively through automated search of electronic medical records for appropriate ICD 9 and 10 codes. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, New York Heart Association class III-IV symptoms, >1 year of follow-up and no contraindication to MRA use were included. Of 271 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 105 (38.7%) were prescribed an MRA on discharge from index admission. Over a median follow-up of 3.12 ± 0.09 years, 70 (66.7%) continued MRA therapy, while 35 (33.3%) discontinued MRA therapy. Hyperkalemia, which occurred in 43 of the 105 patients (40.1%), was the most frequent cause of MRA discontinuation. Patients who maintained MRA therapy had significantly less all-cause, cardiovascular, and HF hospitalizations and significantly better survival compared with those who discontinued drug. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of HF with reduced ejection fraction patients who were eligible for an MRA received them following HF hospitalization and nearly a third of them discontinued drug. Patients who discontinued an MRA were more likely to be hospitalized or die during follow-up. These findings indicate a need for better strategies to increase MRA prescription and maintain therapy following a hospitalization for HF.

Contemporary approach to treating heart failure.

Over the past several decades, important advances have been made in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF). Whereas in the past, the main goal of drug therapy was to relieve congestion, there is now compelling evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showing that several classes of drugs, most of which work predominantly by blocking or modulating neurohormonal activity, can substantially reduce morbidity and mortality as well as improve quality of life in patients with HF. Most of these trials, however, separated patients according to whether their ejection fraction (EF) was reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) and for the most part, favorable effects on clinical outcomes were demonstrated only in patients with HFrEF. In addition to the paucity of effective agents for managing patients with HFpEF, it has become apparent that underutilization of available therapies has greatly limited the overall impact of medical therapy on outcomes. This review provides an overview of current medical management of HF across the spectrum of EF, including the underutilization of treatment modalities. The focus is to provide clinicians the rationale for the use of specific agents and to present a practical approach for patient management. The strategies discussed are based on results of RCTs, guideline recommendations and the authors' own experience in managing patients with HF over the years.

The Confounding Effects of Non-cardiac Pathologies on the Interpretation of Cardiac Biomarkers.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac biomarkers play important roles in routine evaluation of cardiac patients. But while these biomarkers can be extremely valuable, none of them should ever be used by themselves-without adding the clinical context. This paper explores the non-cardiac pathologies that can be seen with the cardiac biomarkers most commonly used. RECENT FINDINGS: High-sensitivity troponin assay gained FDA approval for use in the USA, and studies demonstrated its diagnostic utility can be extended to patients with renal impairment. Gender-specific cut points may be utilized for high-sensitivity troponin assays. In the realm of the natriuretic peptides, studies demonstrated states of natriuretic peptide deficiency in obesity and in subjects of African-American race. Regardless, BNP and NT-proBNP both retained prognostic utilities across a variety of comorbid conditions. We are rapidly gaining clinical evidence with use of soluble ST2 and procalcitonin levels in management of cardiac disease states. In order to get the most utility from their measurement, one must be aware of non-cardiac pathologies that may affect the levels of biomarkers as although many of these are actually true values, they may not represent the disease we are trying to delineate. A few take-home points are as follows: 1. A biomarker value should never be used without clinical context 2. Serial sampling of biomarkers is often helpful 3. Panels of biomarkers may be valuable.

A comparative assessment of coronary artery calcification on chest CT scans of patients referred to a cardio-oncology clinic.

BACKGROUND: The presence and burden of coronary artery calcium (CAC) is a strong predictor of cardiovascular events. In an effort to gain insight into the utility of CAC for coronary artery disease (CAD) screening in cancer patients with heart disease, we sought to determine the presence and burden of CAC detected on routine chest CT in patients referred to a cardio-oncology clinic, comparing them to a conventional cardiology clinic with the general population as controls. METHODS: Patients from the cardio-oncology clinic, general cardiology clinic, and the general clinic population at Rush University Medical Center who had a chest CT as part of their previous treatment were identified. Each CT scan was evaluated for presence, extent, and severity of CAC by 3 independent readers. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, when compared with cardio-oncology clinic, CAC was more prevalent in the CT scans of cardiology patients (p = 0.04), but not the general clinic population (p = 0.5); CAC extent (p = 0.05) and severity (p = 0.05) was significantly higher in the cardiology patients but the extent (p = 0.05) and severity (p = 0.92) was similar in the general clinic population. CONCLUSION: Despite being matched by age and sex, controlling for other major cardiovascular risk factors, patients referred to our cardio-oncology clinic had similar and less prevalent/severe CAC burden compared with the general population and conventional cardiology clinics respectively. Whether this translates to less utility of CAC for CAD screening, or to less overall coronary events in a cardio-oncology clinic, is of interest.

The Role of Anticoagulation in a Patient with Atrial Fibrillation and a CHADS2 Score of 1.

The CHADS2 score is currently the most widely used stroke risk stratification scheme for identifying patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at low and high risk of stroke, but there is controversy over how to treat those patients whom it identifies as at intermediate risk. This review summarizes current risk scores and discusses additional markers for risk, including echocardiographic parameters, AF subtype, and AF burden, that may provide further insight into thromboembolism risk in patients with indeterminant risk (CHADS2 1).