Relationship between donor ejection fraction, left ventricular wall thickness and mortality in heart transplants recipients.

This study explored the impact of donor left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) and left ventricular wall thickness (LVWT) on mortality among heart transplant (HTx) recipients. Utilizing data from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry, adult HTx recipients between 2006-2022 were analyzed. Patients were categorized into four groups based on donor EF(>50 % or ≤50 %) and LVWT(<1.4 cm or ≥1.4 cm). 21,012 patients were included. There were significant differences in baseline characteristics among the groups. Unadjusted mortality was 6.3 %, 6.0 %, 6.0 %, and 2.4 %(p=0.86) at 30-days; 16.2 %, 13.5 %, 16.8 %, and 7.3 %(p=0.08) at 1-year; and 32.2 %, 29.2 %, 35.4 %, and 29.0 %(p=0.18) at 5-years, respectively. In addition, adjusted mortality did not differ across the groups. There were no significant differences in recipient mortality in groups based on donor EF and LVWT. Expanding the donor selection criteria would allow for increase in the donor pool and assist in decreasing the mortality, while on the waitlist for HTx.

Heart Failure at Admission Complicating ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in a Middle-Income Country. Experience of the ARGEN-IAM-ST Registry.

Despite advances in the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), when associated with heart failure (HF) its prognosis remains ominous. This study assessed the differences in admission and mortality of HF complicating STEMI at admission (HFad) in a middle-income country. Data from the National Registry of STEMI of Argentina (ARGEN-IAM-ST) from January 1, 2016, to September 30, 2020, were analyzed. HFad was defined by the identification of Killip/Kimball ≥2 at admission. About 3174 patients were analyzed (22.3% had HFad). Patients with HFad were older, more often women, hypertensive, and diabetic. Received less reperfusion (87.6% vs 92.6%, P < 0.001) and had increased in-hospital mortality (28.4% vs 3.0%, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis HFad was an independent predictor of death (OR: 4.88 [95%CI: 3.33-7.18], P < 0.001) and reperfusion adjusted to HFad was associated with lower mortality (OR: 0.57 [95%CI: 0.34-0.95], P = 0.03). HFad in STEMI is associated with a worse clinical profile, receives fewer reperfusion strategies, and carries a higher risk of in-hospital mortality while reperfusion reduces mortality.

Comparative value of dapagliflozin vs empagliflozin in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) imposes a high disease burden on patients, primarily because of multimorbidity and frequent hospitalizations. Recently, the American College of Cardiology Expert Consensus recommended treating all patients diagnosed with HFpEF with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, such as dapagliflozin or empagliflozin, to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization and improve health status. However, managing HFpEF can be expensive, highlighting the need to assess therapeutic alternatives that can minimize health care costs while optimizing patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin vs empagliflozin in managing patients with HFpEF from the US health care system perspective. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to simulate a cohort of patients with HFpEF (defined as having a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%) treated with dapagliflozin or empagliflozin. Transition probabilities between 3 health states (HFpEF, hospitalization for heart failure, and death), costs, and quality of life weight input variables were obtained from the literature. In the base-case analysis, we estimated total expected costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime horizon. All future expected costs and QALYs were discounted at the annual rate of 3%. We conducted sensitivity analyses to demonstrate the robustness of the cost-effectiveness model findings. RESULTS: Dapagliflozin had an incremental expected lifetime cost of $29,896 compared with empagliflozin, resulting in an ICER of $36,902/QALY. Value-based price threshold analysis suggested that for empagliflozin to be cost-effective, it would need a 29% discount on its annual price. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, dapagliflozin would be the most preferred cost-effective option at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000/QALY about 72% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis showed that, from the US health care system perspective, dapagliflozin was more cost-effective than empagliflozin, and its uptake may enhance long-term outcomes in patients with HFpEF.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dapagliflozin vs Empagliflozin for Treating Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in the United States.

PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that adding dapagliflozin to the prior standard of care is cost-effective compared with the standard of care alone. The latest guideline by the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America now recommends the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the relative cost-effectiveness of different SGLT2 inhibitors, including dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, has not been fully characterized. Therefore, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF from the US health care perspective. METHODS: To compare the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in treating HFrEF, we used a state-transition Markov model. This model was used to estimate the expected lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for both medications. The model incorporated patients who were 65 years of age at entry and simulated their health outcomes over a lifetime horizon. The perspective of the analysis was based on the US health care system. To determine the health state transition probabilities, we used a network meta-analysis. All future costs and QALYs were discounted at an annual rate of 3%, and the costs were presented in 2022 US dollars. FINDINGS: The base case analysis found that the incremental expected lifetime cost of treating patients with dapagliflozin vs empagliflozin was $37,684, resulting in an ICER of $44,763 per QALY. A price threshold analysis indicated that for empagliflozin to be the most cost-effective SGLT2 inhibitor at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY, it may require a 12% discount on its current annual prices. IMPLICATIONS: The findings of this study indicate that dapagliflozin may offer greater lifetime economic value when compared with empagliflozin. Given that the current clinical practice guideline does not recommend one SGLT2 inhibitor over the other, it is essential to implement scalable strategies to ensure affordable access to both medications. By doing so, patients and health care practitioners can make informed decisions about their treatment options without being constrained by financial barriers.

Retrospective analysis of the impact of pre-transplant implantable cardioverter-defibrillator status on long-term prognosis in heart transplant patients.

BACKGROUND: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) post-heart transplantation affects 8%-35% of patients; however, the risk profile remains to be completely elucidated. While pre-transplant ICDs are typically removed during transplantation, no information exists to suggest if this pre-transplant risk stratification is also associated with post-transplant outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of pre-transplant ICD status on long-term prognosis post-heart transplant. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried for all adult heart transplant recipients from 2010 to 2018. Patients were categorized as with versus without ICD prior to heart transplantation. Survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Proportional hazards regression analysis assessed the impact of ICDs adjusting for clinical and demographic covariates. RESULTS: Of 19 026 patients included, 78.6% (n = 14 960) had received an ICD at time of registration. Patients with an ICD were older [54.9 (±11.6) years vs. 48.6 (±15.3) years, p < .001], less likely to be female [25.7% (n = 3842) vs. 31.2% (n = 1269), p < .001], and more commonly diabetic [29.3% (n = 4376) vs 23.5% (n = 954), p < .001]. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no difference in unadjusted survival trajectory by ICD status (chi-square = .48, p = .49). Survival was unrelated to ICD status in the multivariable model (HR = .98; 95% CI .90-1.07). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving an ICD pre-transplant had a higher prevalence of risk factors for SCD than non-ICD patients, yet ICD status prior to heart transplantation was not associated with a change in long-term prognosis post-heart transplantation.