The Association of Digital Health Application Use With Heart Failure Care and Outcomes: Insights From CONNECT-HF.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether digital applications can improve guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Care Optimization Through Patient and Hospital Engagement Clinical Trial for Heart Failure trial (CONNECT-HF) included an optional, prospective ancillary study of a mobile health application among patients hospitalized due to HFrEF. Digital users were matched to nonusers from the usual-care group. Coprimary outcomes included change in opportunity-based composite HF quality scores and HF rehospitalization or all-cause mortality. Among 2431 patients offered digital applications across the United States, 1526 (63%) had limited digital access or insufficient data, 425 (17%) were digital users, and 480 (20%) declined use. Digital users were similar in age to those who declined use (mean 58 vs 60 years; P = 0.031). Digital users (n = 368) vs matched nonusers (n = 368) had improved composite HF quality scores (48.0% vs 43.6%; + 4.76% [3.27-6.24]; P = 0.001) and composite clinical outcomes (33.0% vs 39.6%; HR 0.76 [0.59-0.97]; P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Among participants in the CONNECT-HF trial, use of digital applications was modest but was associated with higher HF quality-of-care scores, including use of GDMT and better clinical outcomes. Although cause and effect cannot be determined from this study, the application of technology to guide GDMT use and dosing among patients with HFrEF warrants further investigation.

A history of heart failure predicts arrhythmia treatment efficacy: data from the Antiarrythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) study.

BACKGROUND: In survivors of life-threatening ventricular tachycardia (VT), a history of CHF (HxCHF) before the VT episode may provide different prognostic information than their measured left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: We evaluated outcomes from patients in the AVID study. Patients were included in the study if they presented with ventricular fibrillation, VT with syncope or VT with hemodynamic compromise, and LVEF < or = 40%. Treatment options included implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), usually amiodarone. RESULTS: As expected, a HxCHF is associated with an increased and high risk of arrhythmic and nonarrhythmic death. However, an interaction was observed between arrhythmia treatment (ICD or AAD) and HxCHF status: the survival advantage with an ICD, as compared with AAD therapy, is largely restricted to HxCHF patients. CONCLUSIONS: The ICD is no better than AAD therapy in preventing arrhythmic death in patients with no HxCHF. In this data set, a HxCHF is somewhat more accurate in predicting prognosis and the response to therapy than a reduced LVEF.

The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study: approaches to control rate in atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate approaches used to control rate, the effectiveness of rate control, and switches from one drug class to another in the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study. BACKGROUND: The AFFIRM study showed that atrial fibrillation (AF) can be treated effectively with rate control and anticoagulation, but drug efficacy to control rate remains uncertain. METHODS: Patients (n = 2,027) randomized to rate control in the AFFIRM study were given rate-controlling drugs by their treating physicians. Standardized rate-control efficacy criteria developed a priori included resting heart rate and 6-min walk tests and/or ambulatory electrocardiographic results. RESULTS: Average follow-up was 3.5 +/- 1.3 years. Initial treatment included a beta-adrenergic blocker (beta-blocker) alone in 24%, a calcium channel blocker alone in 17%, digoxin alone in 16%, a beta-blocker and digoxin in 14%, or a calcium channel blocker and digoxin in 14% of patients. Overall rate control was achieved in 70% of patients given beta-blockers as the first drug (with or without digoxin), 54% with calcium channel blockers (with or without digoxin), and 58% with digoxin alone. Adequate overall rate control was achieved in 58% of patients with the first drug or combination. Multivariate analysis revealed an association between first drug class and several clinical variables. There were more changes to beta-blockers than to the other two-drug classes (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Rate control in AF is possible in the majority of patients with AF. Beta-blockers were the most effective drugs. To achieve the goal of adequate rate control in all patients, frequent medication changes and drug combinations were needed.

Prognostic value of baseline electrophysiology studies in patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia: the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the value of electrophysiology (EP) testing in patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF), ventricular tachycardia (VT) with syncope, or sustained VT in the setting of left ventricular dysfunction. BACKGROUND: Traditionally, EP testing is part of the workup of patients with sustained VT or VF. Recently, some have suggested that EP testing is unnecessary in these patients, many of whom are likely to receive an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). METHODS: Within a multicenter trial (Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators) designed to evaluate whether drugs or ICD resulted in a better outcome, data were analyzed regarding EP testing. Although this testing was not required, it was performed in >50% of patients. Information regarding the results of EP testing was correlated to baseline clinical characteristics and outcome. RESULTS: Of 572 patients subjected to an EP test, 384 (67%) had inducible sustained VT or VF. Inducible patients were more likely to have coronary artery disease, previous infarction, and VT as their index arrhythmic event. Inducibility of VT or VF did not predict death or recurrent VT or VF. CONCLUSIONS: Information derived from EP testing in this patient population, particularly those with VF, is of limited value and may not be worth the risks and costs of the procedure, particularly in those patients likely to receive an ICD.