The Impact of Specialised Heart Failure Outpatient Care on the Long-Term Application of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy and on Prognosis in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.

(1) Background: Besides the use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), multidisciplinary heart failure (HF) outpatient care (HFOC) is of strategic importance in HFrEF. (2) Methods: Data from 257 hospitalised HFrEF patients between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Application and target doses of GDMT were compared between HFOC and non-HFOC patients at discharge and at 1 year. 1-year all-cause mortality (ACM) and rehospitalisation (ACH) rates were compared using the Cox proportional hazard model. The effect of HFOC on GDMT and on prognosis after propensity score matching (PSM) of 168 patients and the independent predictors of 1-year ACM and ACH were also evaluated. (3) Results: At 1 year, the application of RASi, MRA and triple therapy (TT: RASi + ßB + MRA) was higher (p < 0.05) in the HFOC group, as was the proportion of target doses of ARNI, ßB, MRA and TT. After PSM, the composite of 1-year ACM or ACH was more favourable with HFOC (propensity-adjusted HR = 0.625, 95% CI = 0.401-0.974, p = 0.038). Independent predictors of 1-year ACM were age, systolic blood pressure, application of TT and HFOC, while 1-year ACH was influenced by the application of TT. (4) Conclusions: HFOC may positively impact GDMT use and prognosis in HFrEF even within the first year of its initiation.

Incidence and predictors of heart failure with improved ejection fraction category in a HFrEF patient population.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to assess the incidence and predictive factors of the development of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) category during a 1 year follow-up period in a heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patient population managed in a heart failure outpatient clinic. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study evaluated data from patients enrolled in the Hungarian Heart Failure Registry (HHFR). The incidence and predictive factors of the development of the HFimpEF category after 1 year follow-up were assessed in the group of patients who had HFrEF at baseline. We evaluated the incidence and predictors of the development of HFimpEF after a 1 year follow-up in relation to time since diagnosis of HFrEF in patients diagnosed within 3 months, between 3 months and 1 year, and beyond 1 year. The predictive factors of the development of HFimpEF were analysed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Of the 833 HFrEF patients enrolled in the HHFR, the development of HFimpEF was observed in 162 patients (19.5%) during 1 year follow-up. In the whole patient population, independent predictors of the development of HFimpEF were female gender [odds ratio (OR): 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-2.96; P < 0.05], non-ischaemic aetiology (OR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.15-3.30; P < 0.05), and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) <60 mm (OR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.18-3.51; P < 0.05). The 1 year incidence of HFimpEF decreased in relation to time since diagnosis of HFrEF. The incidence of HFimpEF was 27.1% in patients diagnosed within 3 months, 18.4% in patients diagnosed between 3 months and 1 year, and 12.2% in patients diagnosed beyond 1 year. Non-ischaemic aetiology (OR: 4.76; 95% CI: 1.83-12.4; P < 0.01) and QRS width (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.71-0.94; P < 0.01) for patients diagnosed within 3 months, LVEDD (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.32-0.90; P < 0.05) and left atrial diameter ≤45 mm (OR: 5.44; 95% CI: 1.45-20.4; P < 0.05) for patients diagnosed between 3 months and 1 year, and LVEDD < 67 mm (OR: 2.71; 95% CI: 1.07-6.88; P < 0.05) for patients diagnosed beyond 1 year were found to be independent predictive factors. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, in this HFrEF patient population managed in a heart failure outpatient clinic, the 1 year incidence of HFimpEF was found to be ~20%. The 1 year incidence of HFimpEF decreased in relation to time since diagnosis of HFrEF. The most important predictors of the development of HFimpEF were female sex, non-ischaemic aetiology, narrower QRS width, and smaller diameter of the left ventricle and left atrium.

Proportion of Patients Eligible for Cardiac Contractility Modulation: Real-Life Data from a Single-Center Heart Failure Clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Based on recently published randomized controlled trials, cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) seems to be an effective device-based therapeutic option in symptomatic chronic heart failure (HF) (CHF). The aim of the current study was to estimate what proportion of patients with CHF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% could be eligible for CCM based on the inclusion criteria of the FIX-HF-5C trial. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred and followed up at our HF clinic due to HF with reduced or mid-range LVEF were retrospectively assessed. After a treatment optimization period of 3-6 months, the inclusion criteria of the FIX-HF-5C trial (New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV, 25% ≤ LVEF ≤45%, QRS <130 ms, and sinus rhythm) were applied to determine the number of patients eligible for CCM. RESULTS: Of the 640 patients who were involved, the proportion of highly symptomatic patients in NYHA class III/IV decreased from 77.0% (n = 493) at baseline to 18.6% (n = 119) after the treatment optimization period (p < 0.001). Mean LVEF increased significantly from 29.0 ± 7.9% to 36.3 ± 9.9% (p < 0.001), while the proportion of patients with 25% ≤ LVEF ≤45% increased from 69.7% (n = 446) to 73.3% (n = 469) (p < 0.001). QRS duration was below 130 ms in 63.1% of patients, while 30.0% of patients had persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation. We found that the eligibility criteria for CCM therapy based on the FIX-HF-5C study were fulfilled for 23.0% (n = 147) of patients at baseline and 5.2% (n = 33) after treatment optimization. CONCLUSION: This single-center cohort study showed that 5% of patients with CHF and impaired LVEF immediately after treatment optimization fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the FIX-HF-5C study and would be candidates for CCM.

The impact of serum concentration-guided digoxin therapy on mortality of heart failure patients: A long-term follow-up, propensity-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Recently published studies suggested that digoxin may increase mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, in the vast majority of former trials serum digoxin concentration (SDC) was not measured and therapy was not SDC-guided. AIM: To assess the impact of SDC-guided digoxin therapy on mortality in HFrEF patients. METHODS: Data of 580 HFrEF patients were retrospectively analyzed. In patients on digoxin, SDC was measured every 3 months and digoxin dosage was SDC-guided (target SDC: 0.5-0.9 ng/mL). All-cause mortality of digoxin users and nonusers was compared after propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: After 7.1 ± 4.7 years follow-up period (FUP) all-cause mortality of digoxin users (n = 180) was significantly higher than nonusers (n = 297) (propensity-adjusted HR = 1.430; 95% CI = 1.134-1.804; P = .003). Patients having SDC of 0.9 to 1.1 ng/mL (n = 60) or > 1.1 ng/mL (n = 44) at any time during the FUP had an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.750; 95% CI = 1.257-2.436, P = .001 and HR = 1.687; 95% CI = 1.153-2.466, P = .007), while patients having a maximal SDC < 0.9 ng/mL (n = 76) had similar mortality risk (HR = 1.139; 95% CI = 0.827-1.570, P = .426), compared to digoxin nonusers. CONCLUSIONS: According to our propensity-matched analysis, SDC-guided digoxin therapy was associated with increased all-cause mortality in optimally treated HFrEF patients, especially with SDC ≥0.9 ng/mL. These results reinforce the expert opinion that digoxin in HFrEF can only be used among carefully selected patients with close SDC monitoring.

Effects of Upgrade Versus De Novo Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy on Clinical Response and Long-Term Survival: Results from a Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on morbidity and mortality in selected patients are well known. Although the number of upgrade procedures from single- or dual-chamber devices to CRT is increasing, there are only sparse data on the outcomes of upgrade procedures compared with de novo CRT. This study aimed to evaluate clinical response and survival in patients receiving de novo versus upgrade CRT defibrillator therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospectively collected outcome data were compared in patients undergoing de novo or upgrade CRT defibrillator implantation at 3 implant centers in Germany and Hungary. Clinical response was defined as an improvement by at least one New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. CRT implantation was performed in 552 consecutive patients of whom 375 underwent a de novo and 177 an upgrade procedure. Upgrade patients were more often implanted for secondary prevention, suffered more often from atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia, and had more often a non-LBBB (left bundle branch block) wide QRS complex, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. Upgrade procedures were associated with a lower response rate compared to the de novo group (57% versus 69%, P univariate=0.008, P multivariate=0.021). During the follow-up of 37±28 months, survival was worse after upgrade compared with de novo CRT defibrillator implantations (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-2.24; P=0.001) even after careful adjustment for important baseline variables (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.34; P=0.002) and after propensity-score matching (propensity-adjusted hazard ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.95; P=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Both clinical response and long-term survival were less favorable in patients undergoing CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations.