Evaluation of renal sodium handling in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A pilot study.

The pathophysiology behind sodium retention in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains poorly understood. We hypothesized that patients with HFpEF have impaired natriuresis and diuresis in response to volume expansion and diuretic challenge, which is associated with renal hypo-responsiveness to endogenous natriuretic peptides. Nine HFpEF patients and five controls received saline infusion (0.25 mL/kg/min for 60 min) followed by intravenous furosemide (20 mg or home dose) 2 h after the infusion. Blood and urine samples were collected at baseline, 2 h after saline infusion, and 2 h after furosemide administration; urinary volumes were recorded. The urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate (ucGMP)/plasma B-type NP (BNP) ratio was calculated as a measure of renal response to endogenous BNP. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the groups. Compared to controls, HFpEF patients had reduced urine output (2480 vs.3541 mL; p = 0.028), lower urinary sodium excretion over 2 h after saline infusion (the percentage of infused sodium excreted 12% vs. 47%; p = 0.003), and a lower baseline ucGMP/plasma BNP ratio (0.7 vs. 7.3 (pmol/mL)/(mg/dL)/(pg/mL); p = 0.014). Patients with HFpEF had impaired natriuretic response to intravenous saline and furosemide administration and lower baseline ucGMP/plasma BNP ratios indicating renal hypo-responsiveness to NPs.

Bridge-to-transplant temporary mechanical circulatory support and risk of allosensitization.

INTRODUCTION: Since the 2018 change in the US adult heart allocation policy, more patients are bridged-to-transplant on temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS). Previous studies indicate that durable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) may lead to allosensitization. The goal of this study was to assess whether tMCS implantation is associated with changes in sensitization. METHODS: We included patients evaluated for heart transplants between 2015 and 2022 who had alloantibody measured before and after MCS implantation. Allosensitization was defined as development of new alloantibodies after tMCS implant. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients received tMCS before transplant. Nine (22.0%) patients developed alloantibodies following tMCS implantation: 3 (12.0%) in the intra-aortic balloon pump group (n = 25), 2 (28.6%) in the microaxial percutaneous LVAD group (n = 7), and 4 (44.4%) in the veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation group (n = 9)-p = .039. Sensitized patients were younger (44.7 ± 11.6 years vs. 54.3 ± 12.5 years, p = .044), were more likely to be sensitized at baseline - 3 of 9 (33.3%) compared to 2 out of 32 (6.3%) (p = .028) and received more transfusions with red blood cells (6 (66.6%) vs. 8 (25%), p = .02) and platelets (6 (66.6%) vs. 5 (15.6%), p = .002). There was no significant difference in tMCS median duration of support (4 [3,15] days vs. 8.5 [5,14.5] days, p = .57). Importantly, out of the 11 patients who received a durable LVAD after tMCS, 5 (45.5%) became sensitized, compared to 4 out of 30 patients (13.3%) who only had tMCS-p = .028. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that patients bridged-to-transplant with tMCS, without significant blood product transfusions and a subsequent durable LVAD implant, have a low risk of allosensitization. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings and determine whether risk of sensitization varies by type of tMCS and duration of support.

Epidemiology and Management of Patients With Kidney Disease and Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) comprises approximately one-half of all diagnoses of heart failure. There is significant overlap of this clinical syndrome with chronic kidney disease (CKD), with many shared comorbid conditions. The presence of CKD in patients with HFpEF is one of the most powerful risk factors for adverse clinical outcomes, including death and heart failure hospitalization. The pathophysiology linking HFpEF and CKD remains unclear, but it is postulated to consist of numerous bidirectional pathways, including endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, obesity, insulin resistance, and impaired sodium handling. The diagnosis of HFpEF requires certain criteria to be satisfied, including signs and symptoms consistent with volume overload caused by structural or functional cardiac abnormalities and evidence of increased cardiac filling pressures. There are numerous overlapping metabolic clinical syndromes in patients with HFpEF and CKD that can serve as targets for intervention. With an increasing number of therapies available for HFpEF and CKD as well as for obesity and diabetes, improved recognition and diagnosis are paramount for appropriate management and improved clinical outcomes in patients with both HFpEF and CKD.

Impact of baseline kidney dysfunction on oral diuretic efficacy following hospitalization for heart failure - insights from TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide showed no difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization. Clinicians have traditionally favoured torsemide in the setting of kidney dysfunction due to better oral bioavailability and longer half-life, but direct supportive evidence is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: The TRANSFORM-HF trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to a long-term strategy of torsemide versus furosemide, and enrolled patients across the spectrum of renal function (without dialysis). In this post-hoc analysis, baseline renal function during the index hospitalization was assessed as categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; <30, 30-<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2). The interaction between baseline renal function and treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide was assessed with respect to mortality and hospitalization outcomes, and the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS). Of 2859 patients randomized, 336 (11.8%) had eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, 1138 (39.8%) had eGFR 30-<60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 1385 (48.4%) had eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Baseline eGFR did not modify treatment effects of torsemide versus furosemide on all adverse clinical outcomes including individual components or composites of all-cause mortality and all-cause (re)-hospitalizations, both when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously (p-value for interaction all >0.108). Similarly, no treatment effect modification by eGFR was found for the change in KCCQ-CSS (p-value for interaction all >0.052) when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously. CONCLUSION: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, there was no significant difference in clinical and patient-reported outcomes between torsemide and furosemide, irrespective of renal function.

Torsemide Versus Furosemide After Discharge in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: Findings From TRANSFORM-HF.

BACKGROUND: The TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization among patients randomized to a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide following a heart failure (HF) hospitalization. However, outcomes and responses to some therapies differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Thus, we sought to explore the effect of torsemide versus furosemide by baseline LVEF and to assess outcomes across LVEF groups. METHODS: We compared baseline patient characteristics and randomized treatment effects for various end points in TRANSFORM-HF stratified by LVEF: HF with reduced LVEF, ≤40% versus HF with mildly reduced LVEF, 41% to 49% versus HF with preserved LVEF, ≥50%. We also evaluated associations between LVEF and clinical outcomes. Study end points were all-cause mortality or hospitalization at 30 days and 12 months, total hospitalizations at 12 months, and change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score. RESULTS: Overall, 2635 patients (median 64 years, 36% female, 34% Black) had LVEF data. Compared with HF with reduced LVEF, patients with HF with mildly reduced LVEF and HF with preserved LVEF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in risk of clinical outcomes across the LVEF groups (adjusted hazard ratio for 12-month all-cause mortality, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39] for HF with mildly reduced LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17] for HF with preserved LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF; P=0.73). In addition, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide (1) for mortality and hospitalization outcomes, irrespective of LVEF group and (2) in changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score in any LVEF subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Despite baseline demographic and clinical differences between LVEF cohorts in TRANSFORM-HF, there were no significant differences in the clinical end points with torsemide versus furosemide across the LVEF spectrum. There was a substantial risk for all-cause mortality and subsequent hospitalization independent of baseline LVEF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Cost Effectiveness of Dapagliflozin for Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: An Economic Evaluation Based on Pooled, Individual Participant Data From the DELIVER and DAPA-HF Trials.

BACKGROUND: The sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors are guideline-recommended to treat heart failure across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction; however, economic evaluations of adding sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors to standard of care in chronic heart failure across a broad left ventricular ejection fraction range are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a US-based cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin added to standard of care in a chronic heart failure population using pooled, participant data from the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) and DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trials. The 3-state Markov model used estimates of transitional probabilities, effectiveness of dapagliflozin, and utilities from the pooled trials. Costs estimates were obtained from published sources, including published rebates in dapagliflozin cost. Adding dapagliflozin to standard of care was estimated to produce an additional 0.53 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with standard of care alone. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios were $85 554/QALY when using the publicly reported full (undiscounted) Medicare cost ($515/month) and $40 081/QALY, at a published nearly 50% rebate ($263/month). The addition of dapagliflozin to standard of care would be of at least intermediate value (<$150 000/QALY) at a cost of <$872.58/month, of high value (<$50 000/QALY) at <$317.66/month, and cost saving at <$40.25/month. Dapagliflozin was of at least intermediate value in 92% of simulations when using the full (undiscounted) Medicare list cost in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Cost effectiveness was most sensitive to the dapagliflozin cost and the effect on cardiovascular death. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of dapagliflozin to standard of care in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of ejection fraction was at least of intermediate value at the undiscounted Medicare cost and may be potentially of higher value on the basis of the level of discount, rebates, and price negotiations offered. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01035255 & NCT01920711.

Machine Learning Multicenter Risk Model to Predict Right Ventricular Failure After Mechanical Circulatory Support: The STOP-RVF Score.

Importance: The existing models predicting right ventricular failure (RVF) after durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support might be limited, partly due to lack of external validation, marginal predictive power, and absence of intraoperative characteristics. Objective: To derive and validate a risk model to predict RVF after LVAD implantation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a hybrid prospective-retrospective multicenter cohort study conducted from April 2008 to July 2019 of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) requiring continuous-flow LVAD. The derivation cohort included patients enrolled at 5 institutions. The external validation cohort included patients enrolled at a sixth institution within the same period. Study data were analyzed October 2022 to August 2023. Exposures: Study participants underwent chronic continuous-flow LVAD support. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was RVF incidence, defined as the need for RV assist device or intravenous inotropes for greater than 14 days. Bootstrap imputation and adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator variable selection techniques were used to derive a predictive model. An RVF risk calculator (STOP-RVF) was then developed and subsequently externally validated, which can provide personalized quantification of the risk for LVAD candidates. Its predictive accuracy was compared with previously published RVF scores. Results: The derivation cohort included 798 patients (mean [SE] age, 56.1 [13.2] years; 668 male [83.7%]). The external validation cohort included 327 patients. RVF developed in 193 of 798 patients (24.2%) in the derivation cohort and 107 of 327 patients (32.7%) in the validation cohort. Preimplant variables associated with postoperative RVF included nonischemic cardiomyopathy, intra-aortic balloon pump, microaxial percutaneous left ventricular assist device/venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD configuration, Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profiles 1 to 2, right atrial/pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, platelet count, and serum sodium, albumin, and creatinine levels. Inclusion of intraoperative characteristics did not improve model performance. The calculator achieved a C statistic of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.79) in the derivation cohort and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.80) in the validation cohort. Cumulative survival was higher in patients composing the low-risk group (estimated <20% RVF risk) compared with those in the higher-risk groups. The STOP-RVF risk calculator exhibited a significantly better performance than commonly used risk scores proposed by Kormos et al (C statistic, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53-0.63) and Drakos et al (C statistic, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.57-0.67). Conclusions and Relevance: Implementing routine clinical data, this multicenter cohort study derived and validated the STOP-RVF calculator as a personalized risk assessment tool for the prediction of RVF and RVF-associated all-cause mortality.

Dapagliflozin and Mode of Death in Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction: A Post Hoc Analysis of the DELIVER Trial.

Importance: Heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF), defined as prior left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40% or lower that has increased to greater than 40%, is understudied. Objective: To examine mode of death and the association of dapagliflozin with reductions in cause-specific death in patients with HFimpEF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc analysis from the Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) randomized clinical trial, conducted from August 2018 to December 2020. The trial randomly assigned patients with HF with LVEF greater than 40%, New York Heart Association class II to IV symptoms, and elevated natriuretic peptides to treatment with dapagliflozin (10 mg, once daily) or placebo. The presence of HFimpEF was captured through study case report forms. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF events (hospitalization or urgent HF visits) or cardiovascular death. Clinical outcomes were adjudicated by a blinded clinical end points committee. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to August 2023. Intervention: Dapagliflozin vs placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The mode of death in relation to HFimpEF status was examined, as well as the association of randomized treatment with cause-specific death in Cox regression models. Results: Of 1151 patients with HFimpEF in DELIVER, 190 (16.5%) died, compared with 833 patients (16.3%) of 5112 with LVEF consistently greater than 40%. The overall distribution of mode of death was similar in those with HFimpEF compared with those with LVEF consistently greater than 40% (noncardiovascular death: 103 of 190 [54%] vs 428 of 833 [51%]; cardiovascular death: 87 of 190 [46%] vs 405 of 833 [49%], respectively). Most deaths in individuals with HFimpEF were noncardiovascular (103 of 180 [54%]). For cardiovascular deaths, sudden deaths were most common (36 of 190 events [19%]), followed by HF-related (29 of 190 events [15%]). Among patients with HFimpEF, treatment with dapagliflozin was associated with lower rates of cardiovascular death relative to placebo, a difference primarily due to lower rates of sudden death (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.79; P for interaction = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings in this study support current guideline recommendations for use of sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitor therapy, and further suggest that the addition of a sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitor therapy to other guideline-directed medical therapies may help reduce cardiovascular mortality in patients with HFimpEF. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03619213.

Decline in Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate After Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the DELIVER Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: An initial decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is expected after initiating a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) and has been observed across patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure. Objective: To examine the implications of initial changes in eGFR among patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) enrolled in the Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prespecified analysis of the results of the DELIVER randomized clinical trial, which was an international multicenter study of patients with EF greater than 40% and eGFR greater than or equal to 25. The DELIVER trial took place from August 2018 to March 2022. Data for the current prespecified study were analyzed from February to October 2023. Intervention: Dapagliflozin, 10 mg per day, or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: In this prespecified analysis, the frequency of an initial eGFR decline (baseline to month 1) was compared between dapagliflozin and placebo. Cox models adjusted for baseline eGFR and established prognostic factors were fit to estimate the association of an initial eGFR decline with cardiovascular (cardiovascular death or heart failure event) and kidney (≥50% eGFR decline, eGFR<15 or dialysis, death from kidney causes) outcomes, landmarked at month 1, stratified by diabetes. Results: Study data from 5788 participants (mean [SD] age, 72 [10] years; 3253 male [56%]) were analyzed. The median (IQR) change in eGFR level from baseline to month 1 was -1 (-6 to 5) with placebo and -4 (-9 to 1) with dapagliflozin (difference, -3; P < .001). A higher proportion of patients assigned to dapagliflozin developed an initial eGFR decline greater than 10% vs placebo (1144 of 2892 [40%] vs 737 of 2896 [25%]; odds ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.7-2.1; P difference <.001). An initial eGFR decline of greater than 10% (vs ≤10%) was associated with a higher risk of the primary cardiovascular outcome among those randomized to placebo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.10-1.62) but not among those randomized to dapagliflozin (aHR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.09; P for interaction = .01). Similar associations were observed when alternative thresholds of initial eGFR decline were considered and when analyzed as a continuous measure. An initial eGFR decline of greater than 10% was not associated with adverse subsequent kidney composite outcomes in dapagliflozin-treated patients (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.49-1.82). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF treated with dapagliflozin, an initial eGFR decline was frequent but not associated with subsequent risk of cardiovascular or kidney events. These data reinforce clinical guidance that SGLT2is should not be interrupted or discontinued in response to an initial eGFR decline. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03619213.

Impact of COVID-19 in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the DELIVER trial.

AIM: COVID-19 may affect clinical risk in patients with heart failure. DELIVER began before and was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to evaluate the association between COVID-19 and clinical outcomes among DELIVER participants. METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants with chronic heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF) were randomized to dapagliflozin or placebo across 350 sites in 20 countries. COVID-19 was investigator-reported and the contribution of COVID-19 to death was centrally adjudicated. We assessed (i) the incidence of COVID-19, (ii) event rates before/during the pandemic, and (iii) risks of death after COVID-19 diagnosis compared to risks of death in participants without COVID-19. Further, we performed a sensitivity analysis assessing treatment effects of dapagliflozin vs. placebo censored at pandemic onset. Of 6263 participants, 589 (9.4%) developed COVID-19, of whom 307 (52%) required/prolonged hospitalization. A total of 155 deaths (15% of all deaths) were adjudicated as definitely/possibly COVID-19-related. COVID-19 cases and deaths did not differ by randomized assignment. Death rate in the 12 months following diagnosis was 56.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 48.0-65.6) versus 6.4 (95% CI 6.0-6.8)/100 participant-years among trial participants with versus without COVID-19 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 8.60, 95% CI 7.18-10.30). Risk was highest 0-3 months following diagnosis (153.5, 95% CI 130.3-180.8) and remained elevated at 3-6 months (12.6, 95% CI 6.6-24.3/100 participant-years). After excluding investigator-reported fatal COVID-19 events, all-cause death rates in the 12 months following diagnosis among COVID-19 survivors (n = 458) remained higher (aHR 2.46, 95% CI 1.83-3.33) than rates for all trial participants from randomization, with censoring of participants who developed COVID-19 at the time of diagnosis. Dapagliflozin reduced cardiovascular death/worsening HF events when censoring participants at COVID-19 diagnosis (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.91) and pandemic onset (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.89). There were no diabetic ketoacidosis or major hypoglycaemic events within 30 days of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: DELIVER is one of the most extensive experiences with COVID-19 of any cardiovascular trial, with >75% of follow-up time occurring during the pandemic. COVID-19 was common, with >50% of cases leading to hospitalization or death. Treatment benefits of dapagliflozin persisted when censoring at COVID-19 diagnosis and pandemic onset. Patients surviving COVID-19 had a high early residual risk. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03619213.

Influence of background medical therapy on efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with improved ejection fraction in the DELIVER trial.

AIMS: The Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) trial demonstrated the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin to be beneficial in patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF; those with prior left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% that had improved to >40% by enrolment). Whether this benefit differs by background medical therapy is unclear. The current study aims to determine the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin among patients with HFimpEF by background medical therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Treatment effects on the primary endpoint (worsening HF or cardiovascular death) were assessed by number of background HF medical therapies (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, evidence-based beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist). Among the 6263 patients randomized in DELIVER, 1151 (18%) had HFimpEF. Of those, 21% of patients were on 0-1 therapies, 44% were on two therapies, and 35% were on three therapies. During 2.3 years of median follow-up, the incidence rate of the primary outcome was 9.7, 8.8, and 8.4 per 100 person-years for patients on 0-1, 2 and 3 HF medications at baseline, respectively. Treatment effects with dapagliflozin on the primary outcome may be greater in patients with HFimpEF on 0-1 therapies at baseline (pinteraction = 0.09), driven mostly by a significant interaction for HF hospitalization (pinteraction = 0.023) with no evidence of effect modification for cardiovascular death (pinteraction = 0.65). Treatment effects of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome were, however, consistent when assessed across the modified Heart Failure Collaboratory Medical Therapy Score integrating both therapeutic use and dosing (pinteraction = 0.39). The use of dapagliflozin was not associated with changes in use or doses of background HF therapies, and among patients on three HF medications at baseline, the addition of dapagliflozin did not lead to higher adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFimpEF, the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin were largely similar by background use and dosing of HF medical therapies. The benefit of dapagliflozin in reducing HF events tended to be greater in those patients on 0-1 medications at baseline. Among patients already on three HF medical therapies, the addition of dapagliflozin was safe without requiring de-escalation of other therapies.

Trends and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock in Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease: Insights From USRDS Database.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding epidemiology, temporal trends, and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) and end-stage renal disease (chronic kidney disease stage V on hemodialysis). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using the United States Renal Data System database from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2019. We analyzed trends of CS, percutaneous mechanical support (intraaortic balloon pump, percutaneous ventricular assist device [Impella and Tandemheart], and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) utilization, index mortality, 30-day mortality, and 1-year all-cause mortality in end-stage renal disease patients. RESULTS: A total of 43 825 end-stage renal disease patients were hospitalized with CS (median age, 67.8 years [IQR, 59.4-75.8] and 59.1% men). From 2006 to 2019, the incidence of CS increased from 275 to 578 per 100 000 patients (Ptrend<0.001). The index mortality rate declined from 54.1% in 2006 to 40.8% in 2019 (Ptrend=0.44), and the 1-year all-cause mortality decreased from 63% in 2006 to 61.8% in 2018 (Ptrend=0.73), but neither trend was statistically significant. There was a significantly decreased utilization of intra-aortic balloon pumps from 17 832 to 7992 (Ptrend<0.001), increased utilization of percutaneous ventricular assist device from 137 to 5201 (Ptrend<0.001) and increase in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use from 69 to 904 per 100 000 patients (Ptrend<0.001). After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in index mortality between CS patients requiring percutaneous mechanical support versus those not requiring percutaneous mechanical support (odds ratio, 0.97 [CI, 0.91-1.02]; P=0.22). On multivariable regression analysis, older age, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, and time on dialysis were independent predictors of higher index mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of CS in end-stage renal disease patients has doubled without significant change in the trend of index mortality despite the use of percutaneous mechanical support.

Major drivers of healthcare system costs and cost variability for routine atrial fibrillation ablation.

Background: Catheter ablation is an effective treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) but incurs significant financial costs to payers. Reducing variability may improve cost effectiveness. Objectives: We aimed to measure (1) the components of direct and indirect costs for routine AF ablation procedures, (2) the variability of those costs, and (3) the main factors driving ablation cost variability. Methods: Using data from the University of Utah Health Value Driven Outcomes system, we were able to measure direct, inflation-adjusted costs of uncomplicated, routine AF ablation to the healthcare system. Direct costs were considered costs incurred by pharmacy, disposable supplies, patient labs, implants, and other services categories (primarily anesthesia support) and indirect costs were considered within imaging, facility, and electrophysiology lab management categories. Results: A total of 910 patients with 1060 outpatient ablation encounters were included from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2020. Disposable supplies accounted for the largest component of cost with 44.8 ± 9.7%, followed by other services (primarily anesthesia support) with 30.4 ± 7.7% and facility costs with 16.1 ± 5.6%; pharmacy, imaging, and implant costs each contributed <5%. Direct costs were larger than indirect costs (82.4 ± 5.6% vs 17.6 ± 5.6%). Multivariable regression showed that procedure operator was the primary factor associated with AF ablation overall cost (up to 12% differences depending on operator). Conclusions: Direct costs and other services (primarily anesthesia) drive the majority costs associated with AF ablations. There is significant variability in costs for these routine, uncomplicated AF ablation procedures. The procedure operator, and not patient characteristic, is the main driver for cost variability.

Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Black Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights From GALACTIC-HF.

BACKGROUND: Omecamtiv mecarbil improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). Consistency of drug benefit across race is a key public health topic. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of omecamtiv mecarbil among self-identified Black patients. METHODS: In GALACTIC-HF (Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure) patients with symptomatic HF, elevated natriuretic peptides, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of time to first event of HF or cardiovascular death. The authors analyzed treatment effects in Black vs White patients in countries contributing at least 10 Black participants. RESULTS: Black patients accounted for 6.8% (n = 562) of overall enrollment and 29% of U.S. enrollment. Most Black patients enrolled in the United States, South Africa, and Brazil (n = 535, 95%). Compared with White patients enrolled from these countries (n = 1,129), Black patients differed in demographics, comorbid conditions, received higher rates of medical therapy and lower rates of device therapies, and experienced higher overall event rates. The effect of omecamtiv mecarbil was consistent in Black vs White patients, with no difference in the primary endpoint (HR = 0.83 vs 0.88, P-interaction = 0.66), similar improvements in heart rate and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and no significant safety signals. Among endpoints, the only nominally significant treatment-by-race interaction was the placebo-corrected change in blood pressure from baseline in Black vs White patients (+3.4 vs -0.7 mm Hg, P for interaction = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: GALACTIC-HF enrolled more Black patients than other recent HF trials. Black patients treated with omecamtiv mecarbil had similar benefit and safety compared with White counterparts.