Implantable Hemodynamic Monitors Improve Survival in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Trials evaluating implantable hemodynamic monitors to manage patients with heart failure (HF) have shown reductions in HF hospitalizations but not mortality. Prior meta-analyses assessing mortality have been limited in construct because of an absence of patient-level data, short-term follow-up duration, and evaluation across the combined spectrum of ejection fractions. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine whether management with implantable hemodynamic monitors reduces mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and to confirm the effect of hemodynamic-monitoring guided management on HF hospitalization reduction reported in previous studies. METHODS: The patient-level pooled meta-analysis used 3 randomized studies (GUIDE-HF [Hemodynamic-Guided Management of Heart Failure], CHAMPION [CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients], and LAPTOP-HF [Left Atrial Pressure Monitoring to Optimize Heart Failure Therapy]) of implantable hemodynamic monitors (2 measuring pulmonary artery pressures and 1 measuring left atrial pressure) to assess the effect on all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations. RESULTS: A total of 1,350 patients with HFrEF were included. Hemodynamic-monitoring guided management significantly reduced overall mortality with an HR of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.57-0.99); P = 0.043. HF hospitalizations were significantly reduced with an HR of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.55-0.76); P < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Management of patients with HFrEF using an implantable hemodynamic monitor significantly reduces both mortality and HF hospitalizations. The reduction in HF hospitalizations is seen early in the first year of monitoring and mortality benefits occur after the first year.

Standardized Definitions for Evaluation of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Therapies: HF-ARC Expert Panel Paper.

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is one of the most common reasons for hospitalizations or urgent care and is associated with poor outcomes. Therapies shown to improve outcomes are limited, however, and innovation in pharmacologic and device-based therapeutics are therefore actively being sought. Standardizing definitions for ADHF and its trajectory is complex, limiting the generalizability and translation of clinical trials to effect clinical care and policy change. The Heart Failure Collaboratory is a multistakeholder organization comprising clinical investigators, clinicians, patients, government representatives (including U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health participants), payors, and industry collaborators. The following expert consensus document is the product of the Heart Failure Collaboratory convening with the Academic Research Consortium, including members from academia, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry, for the purposes of proposing standardized definitions for ADHF and highlighting important endpoint considerations to inform the design and conduct of clinical trials for drugs and devices in this clinical arena.

Acute heart failure: current pharmacological treatment and perspectives.

Acute heart failure (AHF) represents the most frequent cause of unplanned hospital admission in patients older than 65 years. Symptoms and clinical signs of AHF (e.g. dyspnoea, orthopnoea, oedema, jugular vein distension, and variation of body weight) are mostly related to systemic venous congestion secondary to various mechanisms including extracellular fluids, increased ventricular filling pressures, and/or auto-transfusion of blood from the splanchnic into the pulmonary circulation. Thus, the initial management of AHF patients should be mostly based on decongestive therapies on admission followed, before discharge, by rapid implementation of guideline-directed oral medical therapies for heart failure. The therapeutic management of AHF requires the identification and rapid diagnosis of the disease, the diagnosis of the cause (or triggering factor), the evaluation of severity, the presence of comorbidities, and, finally, the initiation of a rapid treatment. The most recent guidelines from ESC and ACC/AHA/HFSA have provided updated recommendations on AHF management. Recommended pharmacological treatment for AHF includes diuretic therapy aiming to relieve congestion and achieve optimal fluid status, early and rapid initiation of oral therapies before discharge combined with a close follow-up. Non-pharmacological AHF management requires risk stratification in the emergency department and non-invasive ventilation in case of respiratory failure. Vasodilators should be considered as initial therapy in AHF precipitated by hypertension. On the background of recent large randomized clinical trials and international guidelines, this state-of-the-art review describes current pharmacological treatments and potential directions for future research in AHF.

Hemodynamic-Guided Heart Failure Management in Patients With Either Prior HF Hospitalization or Elevated Natriuretic Peptides.

BACKGROUND: In patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) and previous heart failure hospitalization (HFH), hemodynamic-guided HF management using a wireless pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) sensor reduces HFH, but it is unclear whether these benefits extend to patients who have not been recently hospitalized but remain at risk because of elevated natriuretic peptides (NPs). OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of hemodynamic-guided HF management in patients with elevated NPs but no recent HFH. METHODS: In the GUIDE-HF (Hemodynamic-Guided Management of Heart Failure) trial, 1,000 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II to IV HF and either previous HFH or elevated NP levels were randomly assigned to hemodynamic-guided HF management or usual care. The authors evaluated the primary study composite of all-cause mortality and total HF events at 12 months according to treatment assignment and enrollment stratum (HFH vs elevated NPs) by using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 999 evaluable patients, 557 were enrolled on the basis of a previous HFH and 442 on the basis of elevated NPs alone. Those patients enrolled by NP criteria were older and more commonly White persons with lower body mass index, lower NYHA class, less diabetes, more atrial fibrillation, and lower baseline PAP. Event rates were lower among those patients in the NP group for both the full follow-up (40.9 per 100 patient-years vs 82.0 per 100 patient-years) and the pre-COVID-19 analysis (43.6 per 100 patient-years vs 88.0 per 100 patient-years). The effects of hemodynamic monitoring were consistent across enrollment strata for the primary endpoint over the full study duration (interaction P = 0.71) and the pre-COVID-19 analysis (interaction P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent effects of hemodynamic-guided HF management across enrollment strata in GUIDE-HF support consideration of hemodynamic monitoring in the expanded group of patients with chronic HF and elevated NPs without recent HFH. (Hemodynamic-Guided Management of Heart Failure [GUIDE-HF]; NCT03387813).

Pulmonary Artery Pressure-Guided Heart Failure Management Reduces Hospitalizations in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Hemodynamic-guided heart failure management is a superior strategy to prevent decompensation leading to hospitalization compared with traditional clinical methods. It remains unstudied if hemodynamic-guided care is effective across severities of comorbid renal insufficiency or if this strategy impacts renal function over time. METHODS: In the CardioMEMS US PAS (Post-Approval Study), heart failure hospitalizations were compared from 1 year before and after pulmonary artery sensor implantation in 1200 patients with New York Heart Association class III symptoms and a previous hospitalization. Hospitalization rates were evaluated in all patients grouped into baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) quartiles. Chronic kidney disease progression was evaluated in patients with renal function follow-up data (n=911). RESULTS: Patients with stage 2 or greater chronic kidney disease at baseline exceeded 80%. Heart failure hospitalization risk was lower in all eGFR quartiles ranging from a hazard ratio of 0.35 (0.27-0.46; P<0.0001) in patients with eGFR >65 mL/min per 1.73 m2 to 0.53 (0.45-0.62; P<0.0001) in patients with eGFR ≤37 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Renal function was preserved or improved in most patients. Survival was different between quartiles and lower in quartiles with more advanced chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic-guided heart failure management using remotely obtained pulmonary artery pressures is associated with lower hospitalization rates and general preservation of renal function in all eGFR quartiles or chronic kidney disease stages.

Sustained Reduction in Pulmonary Artery Pressures and Hospitalizations During 2 Years of Ambulatory Monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Therapy guided by pulmonary artery (PA) pressure monitoring reduces PA pressures and heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) during the first year, but the durability of efficacy and safety through 2 years is not known. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CardioMEMS Post-Approval Study investigated whether benefit and safety were generalized and sustained. Enrollment at 104 centers in the United States included 1200 patients with NYHA Class III symptoms on recommended HF therapies with prior HFH. Therapy was adjusted toward PA diastolic pressure 8-20 mmHg. Intervention frequency and PA pressure reduction were most intense during first 90 days, with sustained reduction of PA diastolic pressure from baseline 24.7 mmHg to 21.0 at 1 year and 20.8 at 2 years for all patients. Patients completing two year follow-up (n = 710) showed similar 2-year reduction (23.9 to 20.8 mmHg), with reduction in PA mean pressure (33.7 to 29.4 mmHg) in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection. The HFH rate was 1.25 events/patient/year prior to sensor implant, 0.54 at 1 year, and 0.37 at 2 years, with 59% of patients free of HFH during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction in PA pressures and hospitalizations were early and sustained during 2 years of PA pressure-guided management, with no signal of safety concerns regarding the implanted sensor.

Hemodynamically-Guided Management of Heart Failure Across the Ejection Fraction Spectrum: The GUIDE-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hemodynamically-guided management using an implanted pulmonary artery pressure sensor is indicated to reduce heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-III with a prior HF hospitalization or those with elevated natriuretic peptides. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the effect of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) on treatment outcomes in the GUIDE-HF (Hemodynamic-GUIDEd management of Heart Failure) randomized trial. METHODS: The GUIDE-HF randomized arm included 1,000 NYHA functional class II-IV patients (with HF hospitalization within the prior 12 months or elevated natriuretic peptides adjusted for EF and body mass index) implanted with a pulmonary artery pressure sensor, randomized 1:1 to a hemodynamically-guided management group (treatment) or a control group (control). The primary endpoint was the composite of HF hospitalizations, urgent HF visits, and all-cause mortality at 12 months. The authors assessed outcomes by EF in guideline-defined subgroups ≤40%, 41%-49%, and ≥50%, within the trial specified pre-COVID-19 period cohort. RESULTS: There were 177 primary events (0.553/patient-year) in the treatment group and 224 events (0.682/patient-year) in the control group (HR: 0.81 [95% CI: 0.66-1.00]; P = 0.049); HF hospitalization was lower in the treatment vs control group (HR: 0.72 [95% CI: 0.57-0.92]; P = 0.0072). Within each EF subgroup, primary endpoint and HF hospitalization rates were lower in the treatment group (HR <1.0 across the EF spectrum). Event rate reduction by EF in the treatment groups was correlated with reduction in pulmonary artery pressures and medication changes. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamically-guided HF management decreases HF-related endpoints across the EF spectrum in an expanded patient population of patients with HF. (Hemodynamic-GUIDEd Management of Heart Failure [GUIDE-HF]; NCT03387813).

Venous Tone and Stressed Blood Volume in Heart Failure: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

A number of pathologic processes contribute to the elevation in cardiac filling pressures in heart failure (HF), including myocardial dysfunction and primary volume overload. In this review, we discuss the important role of the venous system and the concepts of stressed blood volume and unstressed blood volume. We review how regulation of venous tone modifies the distribution of blood between these 2 functional compartments, the physical distribution of blood between the pulmonary and systemic circulations, and how these relate to the hemodynamic abnormalities observed in HF. Finally, we review recently applied methods for estimating stressed blood volume and how they are being applied to the results of clinical studies to provide new insights into resting and exercise hemodynamics and therapeutics for HF.

The Cardiorenal Syndrome in Heart Failure.

Abnormal fluid handling leads to physiologic abnormalities in multiple organ systems. Deranged hemodynamics, neurohormonal activation, excessive tubular sodium reabsorption, inflammation, oxidative stress, and nephrotoxic medications are important drivers of harmful cardiorenal interactions in patients with heart failure. Accurate quantitative measurement of fluid volume is vital to individualizing therapy for such patients. Blood volume analysis and pulmonary artery pressure monitoring seem the most reliable methods for assessing fluid volume and guiding decongestive therapies. Still the cornerstone of decongestive therapy, diuretics' effectiveness decreases with progression of heart failure. Extracorporeal ultrafiltration, an alternative to diuretics, has been shown to reduce heart-failure events.

Heart transplantation: focus on donor recovery strategies, left ventricular assist devices, and novel therapies.

Heart transplantation is advocated in selected patients with advanced heart failure in the absence of contraindications. Principal challenges in heart transplantation centre around an insufficient and underutilized donor organ pool, the need to individualize titration of immunosuppressive therapy, and to minimize late complications such as cardiac allograft vasculopathy, malignancy, and renal dysfunction. Advances have served to increase the organ donor pool by advocating the use of donors with underlying hepatitis C virus infection and by expanding the donor source to use hearts donated after circulatory death. New techniques to preserve the donor heart over prolonged ischaemic times, and enabling longer transport times in a safe manner, have been introduced. Mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to transplantation has allowed patients with advanced heart failure to avoid progressive deterioration in hepato-renal function while awaiting an optimal donor organ match. The management of the heart transplantation recipient remains a challenge despite advances in immunosuppression, which provide early gains in rejection avoidance but are associated with infections and late-outcome challenges. In this article, we review contemporary advances and challenges in this field to focus on donor recovery strategies, left ventricular assist devices, and immunosuppressive monitoring therapies with the potential to enhance outcomes. We also describe opportunities for future discovery to include a renewed focus on long-term survival, which continues to be an area that is under-studied and poorly characterized, non-human sources of organs for transplantation including xenotransplantation as well as chimeric transplantation, and technology competitive to human heart transplantation, such as tissue engineering.

The GUIDE-HF trial of pulmonary artery pressure monitoring in heart failure: impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, important changes in heart failure (HF) event rates have been widely reported, but few data address potential causes for these changes; several possibilities were examined in the GUIDE-HF study. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 15 March 2018 to 20 December 2019, patients were randomized to haemodynamic-guided management (treatment) vs. control for 12 months, with a primary endpoint of all-cause mortality plus HF events. Pre-COVID-19, the primary endpoint rate was 0.553 vs. 0.682 events/patient-year in the treatment vs. control group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, P = 0.049]. Treatment difference was no longer evident during COVID-19 (HR 1.11, P = 0.526), with a 21% decrease in the control group (0.536 events/patient-year) and no change in the treatment group (0.597 events/patient-year). Data reflecting provider-, disease-, and patient-dependent factors that might change the primary endpoint rate during COVID-19 were examined. Subject contact frequency was similar in the treatment vs. control group before and during COVID-19. During COVID-19, the monthly rate of medication changes fell 19.2% in the treatment vs. 10.7% in the control group to levels not different between groups (P = 0.362). COVID-19 was infrequent and not different between groups. Pulmonary artery pressure area under the curve decreased -98 mmHg-days in the treatment group vs. -100 mmHg-days in the controls (P = 0.867). Patient compliance with the study protocol was maintained during COVID-19 in both groups. CONCLUSION: During COVID-19, the primary event rate decreased in the controls and remained low in the treatment group, resulting in an effacement of group differences that were present pre-COVID-19. These outcomes did not result from changes in provider- or disease-dependent factors; pulmonary artery pressure decreased despite fewer medication changes, suggesting that patient-dependent factors played an important role in these outcomes. Clinical Trials.gov: NCT03387813.

Prognostic value of H2FPEF score in COVID-19.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study sought to assess the predictive value of H2FPEF score in patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Rush University Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1682 patients had an echocardiogram in the year preceding their COVID-19 admission with a preserved ejection fraction (≥50%). A total of 156 patients met inclusion criteria. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into H2FPEF into low (0-2), intermediate (3-5), and high (6-9) score H2FPEF groups and outcomes were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adjusted multivariable logistic regression models evaluated the association between H2FPEF score group and a composite outcome for severe COVID-19 infection consisting of (1) 60-day mortality or illness requiring (2) intensive care unit, (3) intubation, or (4) non-invasive positive pressure ventilation. RESULTS: High H2FPEF scores were at increased risk for severe COVID-19 infection when compared intermediate to H2FPEF score groups (OR 2.18 [CI: 1.01-4.80]; p = 0.049) and low H2FPEF score groups (OR 2.99 [CI: 1.22-7.61]; p < 0.05). There was no difference in outcome between intermediate H2FPEF scores (OR 1.34 [CI: 0.59-3.16]; p = 0.489) and low H2FPEF score. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a high H2FPEF score were at increased risk for severe COVID-19 infection when compared to patients with an intermediate or low H2FPEF score regardless of regardless of coronary artery disease and chronic kidney disease.