Definitions of Stage D heart failure and outcomes among outpatients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: An operational consensus definition of Stage D heart failure (HF) is currently lacking. METHODS: We evaluated 512 outpatients (median age, 63 years; 35.0% women; 45.5% white and 45.9% black; median ejection fraction was 25%; 67.4% had coronary artery disease) with HF and reduced (≤40%) ejection fraction. We applied 3 hypothetical definitions for Stage D: (1) designation as "Stage D" or "advanced" HF by treating physician; (2) INTERMACS profiles, defining Stage D as profiles 2-6; and (3) European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Association (ESC-HFA) criteria. RESULTS: Physicians, INTERMACS profiles, and ESC-HFA criteria identified 64 (12.5%), 93 (18.2%), and 67 (13.1%) patients, respectively, as Stage D, with modest concordance between definitions (κ = 0.37). After a median of 3.1 years, 97 patients died (3-year mortality 20.4%). Among patients identified as Stage D by physicians, 3-year mortality was 43.7% vs. 17.0% for non-Stage D patients (age-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 3.17; 95%CI 1.94-5.18; P < 0.001). The corresponding mortalities for the INTERMACS-based definition were 41.0% vs. 16.2% (HR 3.28; 95%CI 2.11-5.11; P < 0.001) and for ESC-HFA criteria 33.5% vs. 18.6% (HR 2.02; 95%CI 1.22-3.33; P = 0.006); the INTERMACS-based definition provided the best prognostic separation. Results were similar with an alternative INTERMACS-based definition considering only profiles 2-5 as Stage D HF. The INTERMACS-based definition best separated all-cause and HF-specific hospitalization and composite endpoint risk between Stage D and non-Stage D patients also. CONCLUSIONS: INTERMACS profiles provide a practical alternative for the identification of Stage D HF in ambulatory populations with systolic HF. The ESC-HFA criteria offer limited prognostic information.

INTERMACS Profiles and Outcomes Among Non-Inotrope-Dependent Outpatients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) profiles for prognostic use among ambulatory non-inotrope-dependent patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: Data for INTERMACS profiles and prognoses in ambulatory patients with HFrEF are limited. METHODS: We evaluated 3-year outcomes in 969 non-inotrope-dependent outpatients with HFrEF (EF: ≤40%) not previously receiving advanced HF therapies. Patients meeting an INTERMACS profile at baseline were classified as profile 7 (n = 348 [34.7%]); 146 patients (14.5%) were classified profile 6; and 52 patients (5.2%) were classified profile 4 to 5. Remaining patients were classified "stable Stage C" (n = 423 [42.1%]). RESULTS: Three-year mortality rate was 10.0% among stable Stage C patients compared with 21.8% among INTERMACS profile 7 (hazard ratio [HR] vs. Stage C: 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.64 to 3.66), 26.0% among profile 6 (HR: 3.93; 95% CI: 1.64 to 3.66), and 43.8% among profile 4 to 5 (HR: 6.35; 95% CI: 3.51 to 11.5) patients. Hospitalization rates for HF were 4-fold higher among INTERMACS profile 7 (38 per 100 patient-years; rate ratio [RR] vs. Stage C: 3.88; 95% CI: 2.70 to 5.35), 6-fold higher among profile 6 patients (54 per 100 patient-years; RR: 5.69; 95% CI: 3.72 to 8.71), and 10-fold higher among profile 4 to 5 patients (69 per 100 patient-years; RR: 9.96; 95% CI: 5.15 to 19.3) than stable Stage C patients (11 per 100 patient-years). All-cause hospitalization rates had similar trends. INTERMACS profiles offered better prognostic separation than NYHA functional classifications. CONCLUSIONS: INTERMACS profiles strongly predict subsequent mortality and hospitalization burden in non-inotrope-dependent outpatients with HFrEF. These simple profiles could therefore facilitate and promote advanced HF awareness among clinicians and planning for advanced HF therapies.

Progression to Stage D Heart Failure Among Outpatients With Stage C Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to estimate the rate of progression to Stage D heart failure (HF) among outpatients with Stage C HF and to identify risk factors for progression. BACKGROUND: The pool of patients who may be candidates for advanced HF therapies is growing. METHODS: We estimated 3-year progression to clinically determined Stage D HF and competing mortality among 964 outpatients with Stage C heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), where ejection fraction is ≤40%. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 62 ± 15 years; 35% were women; 47% were white; 46% were black, and 7% were of other races; median baseline ejection fraction was 28% (25th to 75th percentile: 20% to 35%); and 47% had ischemic heart disease. After 3.0 years (25th to 75th percentile: 1.7 to 3.2 years), 112 patients progressed to Stage D (3-year incidence: 12.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.2% to 14.6%; annualized: 4.5%; 95% CI: 3.8% to 5.5%), and 116 patients died before progression (3-year competing mortality: 12.9%; annualized: 4.7%; 95% CI: 3.9% to 5.6%). By 3 years, 25.1% of patients (95% CI: 22.2% to 28.1%) had either progressed to Stage D or died (annualized: 9.2%; 95% CI: 8.1% to 10.5%). Annualized progression rates were higher in black versus white patients (6.3% vs. 2.7%, respectively; p < 0.001), nonischemic versus ischemic patients (6.1% vs. 2.9%, respectively; p < 0.001), and in New York Heart Association functional class III to IV versus I to II patients (7.5% vs. 1.9%, respectively; p < 0.001) but were similar for men and women (4.7% vs. 4.2%, respectively; p = 0.53). Lower ejection fraction and blood pressure, renal and hepatic dysfunction, and chronic lung disease rates were additional predictors of progression. Predictors of competing mortality were different from those of disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with Stage C HFrEF receiving care in a referral center, 4.5% progressed to Stage D HF each year, with earlier progression among black and nonischemic patients. These findings have implications for healthcare planning and resource allocation for these patients.

De novo DQ donor-specific antibodies are associated with worse outcomes compared to non-DQ de novo donor-specific antibodies following heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) resulting from de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSA) leads to adverse outcomes following heart transplantation (HTx). It remains unclear what role dnDSA to specific HLA antigens play in adverse outcomes. This study compares outcomes in patients developing dnDSA to DQ antigens with those developing non-DQ dnDSA and those free from dnDSA. METHODS: The present study was a single-center, retrospective analysis of 122 consecutive HTx recipients. The primary outcome was a composite of death or graft dysfunction. RESULTS: After 3.3 years of follow-up, 31 (28%) patients developed dnDSA. Mean time to dnDSA was 539 days. Of 31 patients, 19 developed DQ antibodies and 12 developed non-DQ antibodies. Compared to non-DQ dnDSA, DQ antibodies presented with higher MFI values (P=.001) were more likely persistent (P=.001) and appeared later post-HTx (654 vs 359 days, P=.035). In a multivariable analysis, DQ dnDSA was associated with increased risk of the primary endpoint (HR 6.15, 95% CI 2.57-14.75, P=.001), whereas no increased risk was seen with non-DQ dnDSA (P=.749). CONCLUSIONS: dnDSA to DQ antigens following HTx are associated with increased risk of death and graft dysfunction.

Physical activity in the prevention of coronary heart disease: implications for the clinician.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) continues to be a leading cause of death worldwide. Because regular physical activity (PA) independently decreases the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) while also having a positive, dose-related impact on other cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, it has increasingly become a focus of CHD prevention. Current guidelines recommend 30 min of moderate-intensity PA 5 days a week, but exercise regimens remain underused. PA adherence can be fostered with a multilevel approach that involves active individual participation, physician counselling and health coaching, community involvement, and policy change, with incorporation of cardiac rehabilitation for patients requiring secondary prevention. Viewing exercise quantity as a vital sign, prescribing PA like a medication, and using technology, such as smartphone applications, encourage a global shift in focus from CVD treatment to prevention. Community-wide, home-based and internet-based prevention initiatives may also offer a developing pool of resources that can be tapped into to promote education and PA compliance. This review summarises the underlying rationale, current guidelines for and recommendations to cultivate a comprehensive focus in the endorsement of PA in the primary and secondary prevention of CHD.

Nonadherence in the Advanced Heart Failure Population.

The number of patients living with heart failure (HF) in the USA now exceeds 5 million. Although HF is a disease readily treated by medications and lifestyle interventions, nonadherence is common, leading to worse clinical outcomes and increased healthcare costs. While adherence to medical therapy and clinician recommendations is key in the management of HF, it is perhaps more critical in patients with the most advanced disease, including those receiving home inotropic infusion, heart transplantation, or a left ventricular assist device. Yet, there is a paucity of data on the effects of nonadherence on the advanced heart failure population and little information on the most effective management strategies in these patients. Future studies of nonadherence in HF should utilize uniform definitions of adherence and, ideally, more objective measurements of adherence such as the novel "digital pill" technology.