Multicenter registry and test bed for extended outpatient hemodynamic monitoring: the hemodynamic frontiers in heart failure (HF2) initiative.

Background: Hemodynamic Frontiers in Heart Failure (HF2) is a multicenter academic research consortium comprised of 14 US institutions with mature remote monitoring programs for ambulatory patients with heart failure (HF). The consortium developed a retrospective and prospective registry of patients implanted with a wireless pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) sensor. Goals/aims: HF2 registry collects demographic, clinical, laboratory, echocardiographic (ECHO), and hemodynamic data from patients with PAP sensors. The aims of HF2 are to advance understanding of HF and to accelerate development of novel diagnostic and therapeutic innovations. Methods: HF2 includes adult patients implanted with a PAP sensor as per FDA indications (New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III HF functional class with a prior hospitalization, or patients with NYHA Class II or brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) elevation without hospitalization) at a HF2 member site between 1/1/19 to present. HF2 registry is maintained at University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC). The registry was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at all participating institutions with required data use agreements. Institutions report data into the electronic registry database using REDCap, housed at KUMC. Results: This initial data set includes 254 patients implanted from the start of 2019 until May 2023. At time of device implant, the cohort average age is 73 years old, 59.8% are male, 72% have NYHA Class III HF, 40% have left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40%, 35% have LVEF > 50%, mean BNP is 560 pg/ml, mean N-Terminal pro-BNP (NTproBNP) is 5,490 pg/ml, mean creatinine is 1.65 mg/dl. Average baseline hemodynamics at device implant are right atrial pressure (RAP) of 11 mmHg, pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) of 47 mmHg, pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (PADP) 21 mmHg, mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) of 20 mmHg, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) of 19 mmHg, cardiac output (CO) of 5.3 L/min, and cardiac index (CI) of 2.5 L/min/m2. Conclusion: A real-world registry of patients implanted with a PAP sensor enables long-term evaluation of hemodynamic and clinic outcomes in highly-phenotyped ambulatory HF patients, and creates a unique opportunity to validate and test novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to HF.

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).

Translating Pressure Into Practice: Operational Characteristics of Ambulatory Hemodynamic Monitoring Program in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory hemodynamic monitoring (AHM) using an implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensor (CardioMEMS) is effective in improving outcomes for patients with heart failure. The operations of AHM programs are crucial to clinical efficacy of AHM yet have not been described. METHODS AND RESULTS: An anonymous, voluntary, web-based survey was developed and emailed to clinicians at AHM centers in the United States. Survey questions were related to program volume, staffing, monitoring practices, and patient selection criteria. Fifty-four respondents (40%) completed the survey. Respondents were 44% (n = 24) advanced HF cardiologists and 30% (n = 16) advanced nurse practitioners. Most respondents practice at a center that implants left ventricular assist devices (70%) or performs heart transplantation (54%). Advanced practice providers provide day-to-day monitoring and management in most programs (78%), and use of protocol-driven care is limited (28%). Perceived patient nonadherence and inadequate insurance coverage are cited as the primary barriers to AHM. CONCLUSIONS: Despite broad US Food and Drug Administration approval for patients with symptoms and at increased risk for worsening heart failure, the adoption of pulmonary artery pressure monitoring is concentrated at advanced heart failure centers, and modest numbers of patients are implanted at most centers. Understanding and addressing the barriers to referral of eligible patients and to broader adoption in community heart failure programs is needed to maximize the clinical benefits of AHM.

Impact of exercise on pulmonary artery pressure in patients with heart failure using an ambulatory pulmonary artery pressure monitor.

Background: In this multicenter prospective study, we explored the relationship between pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) at rest and in response to a 6-min walk test (6MWT) in ambulatory patients with heart failure (HF) with an implantable PAP sensor (CardioMEMS, Abbott). Methods: Between 5/2019 and 2/2021, HF patients with a CardioMEMS sensor were recruited from seven sites. PAP was recorded in the supine and seated position at rest and in the seated position immediately post-exercise. Results: In our cohort of 66 patients, mean age was 70 ± 12 years, 67% male, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% in 53%, mean 6MWT distance was 277 ± 95 meters. Resting seated PAPs were 31 ± 15 mmHg (systolic), 13 ± 8 mmHg (diastolic), and 20 ± 11 mmHg (mean). The pressures were lower in the seated rather than the supine position. After 6MWT, the pressures increased to PAP systolic 37 ± 19 mmHg (p < 0.0001), diastolic 15 ± 10 mmHg (p = 0.006), and mean 24 ± 13 mmHg (p < 0.0001). Patients with elevated PAP diastolic at rest (>15 mmHg) demonstrated a greater increase in post-exercise PAP. Conclusion: The measurement of PAP with CardioMEMS is feasible immediately post-exercise. Despite being well-managed, patients had severely limited functional capacity. We observed a significant increase in PAP with ambulation which was greater in patients with higher baseline pressures.

Haemodynamic-guided management of heart failure (GUIDE-HF): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that haemodynamic-guided management using an implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor reduces heart failure hospitalisations in patients with moderately symptomatic (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class III) chronic heart failure and a hospitalisation in the past year, irrespective of ejection fraction. It is unclear if these benefits extend to patients with mild (NYHA functional class II) or severe (NYHA functional class IV) symptoms of heart failure or to patients with elevated natriuretic peptides without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. This trial was designed to evaluate whether haemodynamic-guided management using remote pulmonary artery pressure monitoring could reduce heart failure events and mortality in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of symptom severity (NYHA funational class II-IV), including those with elevated natriuretic peptides but without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. METHODS: The randomised arm of the haemodynamic-GUIDEed management of Heart Failure (GUIDE-HF) trial was a multicentre, single-blind study at 118 centres in the USA and Canada. Following successful implantation of a pulmonary artery pressure monitor, patients with all ejection fractions, NYHA functional class II-IV chronic heart failure, and either a recent heart failure hospitalisation or elevated natriuretic peptides (based on a-priori thresholds) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either haemodynamic-guided heart failure management based on pulmonary artery pressure or a usual care control group. Patients were masked to their study group assignment. Investigators were aware of treatment assignment but did not have access to pulmonary artery pressure data for control patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and total heart failure events (heart failure hospitalisations and urgent heart failure hospital visits) at 12 months assessed in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients. A pre-COVID-19 impact analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03387813. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2018, and Dec 20, 2019, 1022 patients were enrolled, with 1000 patients implanted successfully, and follow-up was completed on Jan 8, 2021. There were 253 primary endpoint events (0·563 per patient-year) among 497 patients in the haemodynamic-guided management group (treatment group) and 289 (0·640 per patient-year) in 503 patients in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·74-1·05; p=0·16). A prespecified COVID-19 sensitivity analysis using a time-dependent variable to compare events before COVID-19 and during the pandemic suggested a treatment interaction (pinteraction=0·11) due to a change in the primary endpoint event rate during the pandemic phase of the trial, warranting a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis. In the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis, there were 177 primary events (0·553 per patient-year) in the intervention group and 224 events (0·682 per patient-year) in the control group (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·66-1·00; p=0·049). This difference in primary events almost disappeared during COVID-19, with a 21% decrease in the control group (0·536 per patient-year) relative to pre-COVID-19, virtually no change in the treatment group (0·597 per patient-year), and no difference between groups (HR 1·11, 95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·53). The cumulative incidence of heart failure events was not reduced by haemodynamic-guided management (0·85, 0·70-1·03; p=0·096) in the overall study analysis but was significantly decreased in the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis (0·76, 0·61-0·95; p=0·014). 1014 (99%) of 1022 patients had freedom from device or system-related complications. INTERPRETATION: Haemodynamic-guided management of heart failure did not result in a lower composite endpoint rate of mortality and total heart failure events compared with the control group in the overall study analysis. However, a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis indicated a possible benefit of haemodynamic-guided management on the primary outcome in the pre-COVID-19 period, primarily driven by a lower heart failure hospitalisation rate compared with the control group. FUNDING: Abbott.

Empagliflozin Effects on Pulmonary Artery Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure: Results From the EMBRACE-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2 inhibitors) prevent heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in patients with type 2 diabetes and improve outcomes in those with HF and reduced ejection fraction, regardless of type 2 diabetes. Mechanisms of HF benefits remain unclear, and the effects of SGLT2 inhibitor on hemodynamics (filling pressures) are not known. The EMBRACE-HF trial (Empagliflozin Evaluation by Measuring Impact on Hemodynamics in Patients With Heart Failure) was designed to address this knowledge gap. METHODS: EMBRACE-HF is an investigator-initiated, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. From July 2017 to November 2019, patients with HF (regardless of ejection fraction, with or without type 2 diabetes) and previously implanted pulmonary artery (PA) pressure sensor (CardioMEMS) were randomized across 10 US centers to empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo and treated for 12 weeks. The primary end point was change in PA diastolic pressure (PADP) from baseline to end of treatment (average PADP weeks 8-12). Secondary end points included health status (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score), natriuretic peptides, and 6-min walking distance. RESULTS: Overall, 93 patients were screened, and 65 were randomized (33 to empagliflozin, 32 to placebo). The mean age was 66 years; 63% were male; 52% had type 2 diabetes; 54% were in New York Heart Association class III/IV; mean ejection fraction was 44%; median NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide) was 637 pg/mL; and mean PADP was 22 mm Hg. Empagliflozin significantly reduced PADP, with effects that began at week 1 and amplified over time; average PADP (weeks 8-12) was 1.5 mm Hg lower (95% CI, 0.2-2.8; P=0.02); and at week 12, PADP was 1.7 mm Hg lower (95% CI, 0.3-3.2; P=0.02) with empagliflozin versus placebo. Results were consistent for PA systolic and PA mean pressures. There was no difference in mean loop diuretic management (daily furosemide equivalents) between treatment groups. No significant differences between treatment groups were observed in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, natriuretic peptide levels, and 6-min walking distance. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF and CardioMEMS PA pressure sensor, empagliflozin produced rapid reductions in PA pressures that were amplified over time and appeared to be independent of loop diuretic management. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03030222.

Ambulatory Hemodynamic Monitoring Reduces Heart Failure Hospitalizations in "Real-World" Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: In the CHAMPION (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in New York Heart Association [NYHA] Functional Class III Heart Failure Patients) trial, heart failure hospitalization (HFH) rates were lower in patients managed with guidance from an implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensor compared with usual care. OBJECTIVES: This study examined the effectiveness of ambulatory hemodynamic monitoring in reducing HFH outside of the clinical trial setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using U.S. Medicare claims data from patients undergoing pulmonary artery pressure sensor implantation between June 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Rates of HFH during pre-defined periods before and after implantation were compared using the Andersen-Gill extension to the Cox proportional hazards model while accounting for the competing risk of death, ventricular assist device implantation, or cardiac transplantation. Comprehensive heart failure (HF)-related costs were compared over the same periods. RESULTS: Among 1,114 patients receiving implants, there were 1,020 HFHs in the 6 months before, compared with 381 HFHs, 139 deaths, and 17 ventricular assist device implantations and/or transplants in the 6 months after implantation (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49 to 0.61; p < 0.001). This lower rate of HFH was associated with a 6-month comprehensive HF cost reduction of $7,433 per patient (IQR: $7,000 to $7,884), and was robust in analyses restricted to 6-month survivors. Similar reductions in HFH and costs were noted in the subset of 480 patients with complete data available for 12 months before and after implantation (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.76; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As in clinical trials, use of ambulatory hemodynamic monitoring in clinical practice is associated with lower HFH and comprehensive HF costs. These benefits are sustained to 1 year and support the "real-world" effectiveness of this approach to HF management.

Impact of Practice-Based Management of Pulmonary Artery Pressures in 2000 Patients Implanted With the CardioMEMS Sensor.

BACKGROUND: Elevated pulmonary artery (PA) pressures in patients with heart failure are associated with a high risk for hospitalization and mortality. Recent clinical trial evidence demonstrated a direct relationship between lowering remotely monitored PA pressures and heart failure hospitalization risk reduction with a novel implantable PA pressure monitoring system (CardioMEMS HF System, St. Jude Medical). This study examines PA pressure changes in the first 2000 US patients implanted in general practice use. METHODS: Deidentified data from the remote monitoring Merlin.net (St. Jude Medical) database were used to examine PA pressure trends from the first consecutive 2000 patients with at least 6 months of follow-up. Changes in PA pressures were evaluated with an area under the curve methodology to estimate the total sum increase or decrease in pressures (mm Hg-day) during the follow-up period relative to the baseline pressure. As a reference, the PA pressure trends were compared with the historic CHAMPION clinical trial (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in New York Heart Association [NYHA] Functional Class III Heart Failure Patients). The area under the curve results are presented as mean±2 SE, and P values comparing the area under the curve of the general-use cohort with outcomes in the CHAMPION trial were computed by the t test with equal variance. RESULTS: Patients were on average 70±12 years old; 60% were male; 34% had preserved ejection fraction; and patients were followed up for an average of 333±125 days. At implantation, the mean PA pressure for the general-use patients was 34.9±10.2 mm Hg compared with 31.3±10.9 mm Hg for CHAMPION treatment and 32.0±10.5 mm Hg for CHAMPION control groups. The general-use patients had an area under the curve of -32.8 mm Hg-day at the 1-month time mark, -156.2 mm Hg-day at the 3-month time mark, and -434.0 mm Hg-day after 6 months of hemodynamic guided care, which was significantly lower than the treatment group in the CHAMPION trial. Patients consistently transmitted pressure information with a median of 1.27 days between transmissions after 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The first 2000 general-use patients managed with hemodynamic-guided heart failure care had higher PA pressures at baseline and experienced greater reduction in PA pressure over time compared with the pivotal CHAMPION clinical trial. These data demonstrate that general use of implantable hemodynamic technology in a nontrial setting leads to significant lowering of PA pressures.