Is It Time to Consider a "Time-Out" Before Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Currently or Recently Hospitalized Older Patients with Heart Failure?

BACKGROUND: Trajectories of mortality after primary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement for older heart failure (HF) patients during or soon after acute hospitalization have not been assessed. OBJECTIVES: To compare trajectories of mortality after primary ICD placement during or soon after acute cardiac or non-cardiac hospitalization. METHODS: We identified older HF patients with primary ICD using 20% Medicare data (2008-2018). Placement settings were: 1) 'current-H' during current hospitalization, 2) 'recent-H' within 90 days of hospitalization, or 3) 'chronic stable'. Hospitalization was categorized cardiac vs. non-cardiac. Interval mortality and hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression were estimated at 0-30 days, 31-90 days, and 91-365 days after ICD placement. RESULTS: Of 61,710 patients (mean age 76; 35% female; 85% White), 19%, 25%, and 56% had ICDs in 'current-H', 'recent-H', and 'chronic stable' settings. Mortality rates (per 100 person-years) were highest during 0-30 days with 38(34-42) and 22(19-24) for 'current-H' and 'recent-H', which declined to 21(20-22) and 16(15-17) during 91-365 days, respectively. Compared to 'chronic stable', HRs were greatest during 0-30 days post-ICD placement ('current-H' = 5.5[4.5-6.8], 'recent-H' = 3.4[2.8-4.2]) and decreased during 91-365 days ('current-H' = 2.0[1.8-2.1], 'recent-H' = 1.6[1.5-1.7]). HR pattens were similar for cardiac and non-cardiac hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Primary ICD placement during or soon after hospitalization for any reason was associated with worse mortality with diminishing risks after 90 days. Hospitalization likely identifies a sicker population in whom early mortality with or without ICD may be higher. Our results support careful consideration regarding ICD placement during the 90 days following hospitalization.

Remote Monitoring for Heart Failure Management at Home.

Early telemonitoring of weights and symptoms did not decrease heart failure hospitalizations but helped identify steps toward effective monitoring programs. A signal that is accurate and actionable with response kinetics for early re-assessment is required for the treatment of patients at high risk, while signal specifications differ for surveillance of low-risk patients. Tracking of congestion with cardiac filling pressures or lung water content has shown most impact to decrease hospitalizations, while multiparameter scores from implanted rhythm devices have identified patients at increased risk. Algorithms require better personalization of signal thresholds and interventions. The COVID-19 epidemic accelerated transition to remote care away from clinics, preparing for new digital health care platforms to accommodate multiple technologies and empower patients. Addressing inequities will require bridging the digital divide and the deep gap in access to HF care teams, who will not be replaced by technology but by care teams who can embrace it.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. STRUCTURE: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. STRUCTURE: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (AHA/ACC/HFSA) Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure replaces the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure and the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews and other evidence conducted in human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies published through September 2021 were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments that have high-quality published economic analyses.

Remote Hemodynamic-Guided Therapy of Patients With Recurrent Heart Failure Following Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Background Patients with recurring heart failure (HF) following cardiac resynchronization therapy fare poorly. Their management is undecided. We tested remote hemodynamic-guided pharmacotherapy. Methods and Results We evaluated cardiac resynchronization therapy subjects included in the CHAMPION (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in New York Heart Association Class III Heart Failure Patients) trial, which randomized patients with persistent New York Heart Association Class III symptoms and ≥1 HF hospitalization in the previous 12 months to remotely managed pulmonary artery (PA) pressure-guided management (treatment) or usual HF care (control). Diuretics and/or vasodilators were adjusted conventionally in control and included remote PA pressure information in treatment. Annualized HF hospitalization rates, changes in PA pressures over time (analyzed by area under the curve), changes in medications, and quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores) were assessed. Patients who had cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=190, median implant duration 755 days) at enrollment had poor hemodynamic function (cardiac index 2.00±0.59 L/min per m2), high comorbidity burden (67% had secondary pulmonary hypertension, 61% had estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2), and poor Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores (57±24). During 18 months randomized follow-up, HF hospitalizations were 30% lower in treatment (n=91, 62 events, 0.46 events/patient-year) versus control patients (n=99, 93 events, 0.68 events/patient-year) (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.96; P=0.028). Treatment patients had more medication up-/down-titrations (847 versus 346 in control, P<0.001), mean PA pressure reduction (area under the curve -413.2±123.5 versus 60.1±88.0 in control, P=0.002), and quality of life improvement (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire decreased -13.5±23 versus -4.9±24.8 in control, P=0.006). Conclusions Remote hemodynamic-guided adjustment of medical therapies decreased PA pressures and the burden of HF symptoms and hospitalizations in patients with recurring Class III HF and hospitalizations, beyond the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00531661.

Expected vs Actual Outcomes of Elective Initiation of Inotropic Therapy During Heart Failure Hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the intent and early outcomes of elective inotrope use during heart failure hospitalization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective multisite design was used to collect data for hemodynamically stable patients started electively on inotrope therapy between January 1 and August 31, 2018. We prospectively recorded data when intravenous inotropic therapy was initiated, including survey of the attending cardiologists regarding expectations for the clinical course. Patients were followed up for events through hospital discharge and an additional survey was administered at the end of hospitalization. RESULTS: For the 92 patients enrolled, average age was 60 years and ejection fraction was 24%±12%. At the time of inotrope initiation, attending heart failure cardiologists predicted that 50% (n=46) of the patients had a "high or very high" likelihood of becoming dependent on intravenous inotropic therapy and 58% (n=53) had a "high" likelihood of death, transplant, or durable ventricular assist device placement within the next 6 months. Provider predictions regarding death/hospice or need for continued home infusions were accurate only 51% (47 of 92) of the time. Only half the patients (n=47) had goals-of-care conversations before inotrope treatment initiation. CONCLUSION: More than half the patients (51 of 92) electively started on inotrope treatment without present or imminent cardiogenic shock ultimately required home inotrope therapy, died during admission, or were discharged with hospice. Heart failure clinicians could not reliably identify those patients at the time of inotrope therapy initiation and goals-of-care discussions were not frequently performed.

Easily Missed: A Case Series of New Heart Failure in Young Adults.

Background. While uncommon, heart failure (HF) can present in young adults from a variety of causes. Identifying HF in a young patient presents many challenges, the foremost of which is recognition of the signs and symptoms of HF. Case Summary. We present four cases of new diagnosis of HF (due to familial cardiomyopathy, tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy, spontaneous coronary artery dissection, and peripartum cardiomyopathy) to highlight the range of etiologies and presentations requiring recognition in this patient population. Discussion. A high index of suspicion is needed to diagnose HF in young adults, who may not present with classic signs and symptoms. Young adults represent a unique patient population that differs from the older patients with HF. Young adults with newly diagnosed HF should be promptly referred to a center offering full diagnostic capabilities and advanced cardiac therapies.

One-Year Mortality After Intensification of Outpatient Diuretic Therapy.

Background Mortality is increased following a hospitalization for decompensated heart failure (HF), during which diuretics are usually intensified. It is unclear how risk is affected after outpatient intensification of diuretic therapy for HF. Methods and Results From nationwide administrative registers, we identified all Danish patients who were diagnosed with HF from 2001 to 2016 and received angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and ß blocker within 120 days. Subsequent follow-up tracked progressive events of diuretic intensification and HF hospitalization. Intensification events were defined as new addition or doubling of loop diuretic or addition of thiazide to loop diuretic. These events were included in multivariable Cox regression models, calculating 1-year mortality hazard after each year since inclusion. Patients with an intensification event or hospitalization were risk set matched to 2 nonworsened HF controls and absolute 1-year mortality risks were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. We included 74 990 patients, their median age was 71 years, and 36% were women. Intensification events were associated with significantly increased mortality at all times during follow-up. One-year mortality was 18.0% after an intensification event, 22.6% after HF hospitalization, and 10.4% for matched controls with neither. In a multivariable Cox model adjusted for age, sex, ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes mellitus, the hazard ratio for 1-year death after an intensification event was 1.75 (95% CI, 1.66-1.85), and it was 2.28 (95% CI, 2.16-2.41) after HF hospitalization. Conclusions In a nationwide cohort of patients with HF, outpatient intensification events were associated with almost 2-fold risk of mortality during the next year. Although HF hospitalization was associated with a higher risk, the need to intensify diuretics in the outpatient setting is a signal to review and intensify efforts to improve HF outcomes.

Advancing Research on the Complex Interrelations Between Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: A Report From a US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Virtual Workshop.

The interrelationships between atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are complex and poorly understood, yet the number of patients with AF and HF continues to increase worldwide. Thus, there is a need for initiatives that prioritize research on the intersection between AF and HF. This article summarizes the proceedings of a virtual workshop convened by the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to identify important research opportunities in AF and HF. Key knowledge gaps were reviewed and research priorities were proposed for characterizing the pathophysiological overlap and deleterious interactions between AF and HF; preventing HF in people with AF; preventing AF in individuals with HF; and addressing symptom burden and health status outcomes in AF and HF. These research priorities will hopefully help inform, encourage, and stimulate innovative, cost-efficient, and transformative studies to enhance the outcomes of patients with AF and HF.