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.

Eligibility and Projected Benefits of Rapid Initiation of Quadruple Medical Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: U.S. nationwide estimates of the proportion of patients newly diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) eligible for quadruple medical therapy, and the associated benefits of rapid implementation, are not well characterized. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize the degree to which patients newly diagnosed with HFrEF are eligible for quadruple medical therapy, and the projected benefits of in-hospital initiation. METHODS: Among patients hospitalized for newly diagnosed HFrEF in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry from 2016 to 2023, eligibility criteria based on regulatory labeling, guidelines, and expert consensus documents were applied for angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, beta-blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor therapies. Of those eligible, the projected effect of quadruple therapy on 12-month mortality was modeled using treatment effects from pivotal clinical trials utilized by the AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure, and compared with observed outcomes among patients treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and beta-blockers. RESULTS: Of 33,036 patients newly diagnosed with HFrEF, 27,158 (82%) were eligible for quadruple therapy, and 30,613 (93%) were eligible for ≥3 components. From 2021 to 2023, of patients eligible for quadruple therapy, 15.3% were prescribed quadruple therapy and 41.5% were prescribed triple therapy. Among Medicare beneficiaries eligible for quadruple therapy, 12-month incidence of mortality was 24.7% and HF hospitalization was 22.2%. Applying the relative risk reductions in clinical trials, complete implementation of quadruple therapy by time of discharge was projected to yield absolute risk reductions in 12-month mortality of 10.4% (number needed to treat = 10) compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and beta-blocker, and 24.8% (number needed to treat = 4) compared with no GDMT. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide U.S. cohort of patients hospitalized for newly diagnosed HFrEF, >4 of 5 patients were projected as eligible for quadruple therapy at discharge; yet, <1 in 6 were prescribed it. If clinical trial benefits can be fully realized, in-hospital initiation of quadruple medical therapy for newly diagnosed HFrEF would yield large absolute reductions in mortality.

Treatment patterns of patients with worsening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: Patients with HFrEF and worsening HF events (WHFE) are at particularly high risk and urgently need disease-modifying therapy. CHART-HF assessed treatment patterns and reasons for medication decisions among HFrEF patients with and without WHFE. METHODS AND RESULTS: CHART-HF collected retrospective electronic medical records of outpatients with HF and EF < 45% between 2017-2019 from a nationwide panel of 238 cardiologists (458 patients) and the Geisinger Health System (GHS) medical record (1000 patients). The index visit in the WHFE cohort was the first outpatient cardiologist visit ≤6 months following the WHFE, and in the reference cohort was the last visit in a calendar year without WHFE. Demographic characteristics were similar between patients with and without WHFE in both the nationwide panel and GHS. In the nationwide panel, the proportion of patients with versus without WHFE receiving ≥50% of guideline-recommended dose on index visit was 35% versus 40% for beta blocker, 74% versus 83% for ACEI/ARB/ARNI, and 48% versus 49% for MRA. The proportion of patients receiving ≥50% of guideline-recommended dose was lower in the GHS: 29% versus 34% for beta-blocker, 16% versus 31% for ACEI/ARB/ARNI, and 18% versus 22% for MRA. For patients with and without WHFE, triple therapy on index date was 42% and 44% of patients from the nationwide panel, and 14% and 17% in the GHS. Comparing end of index clinic visit with 12-month follow-up in the GHS, the proportion of patients on no GDMT increased from 14% to 28% in the WHFE cohort and from 14 to 21% in the non-WHFE group. CONCLUSIONS: Major gaps in use of GDMT, particularly combination therapy, remain among US HFrEF patients. These gaps persist during longitudinal follow-up and are particularly large among patients with recent WHFE.

Impact of Insurance Status and Region on Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Prescription During Heart Failure Hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: An angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) is the preferred renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Among eligible patients, insurance status and prescriber concern regarding out-of-pocket costs may constrain early initiation of ARNI and other new therapies. OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors sought to evaluate the association of insurance and other social determinants of health with ARNI initiation at discharge from HFrEF hospitalization. METHODS: The authors analyzed ARNI initiation from January 2017 to June 2020 among patients with HFrEF eligible to receive RAS inhibitor at discharge from hospitals in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. The primary outcome was the proportion of ARNI prescription at discharge among those prescribed RAS inhibitor who were not on ARNI on admission. A logistic regression model was used to determine the association of insurance status, U.S. region, and their interaction, as well as self-reported race, with ARNI initiation at discharge. RESULTS: From 42,766 admissions, 24,904 were excluded for absolute or relative contraindications to RAS inhibitors. RAS inhibitors were prescribed for 16,817 (94.2%) of remaining discharges, for which ARNI was prescribed in 1,640 (9.8%). Self-reported Black patients were less likely to be initiated on ARNI compared to self-reported White patients (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.50-0.81). Compared to Medicare beneficiaries, patients with third-party insurance, Medicaid, or no insurance were less likely to be initiated on ARNI (OR: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31-0.72], OR: 0.41 [95% CI: 0.25-0.67], and OR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.08-0.47], respectively). ARNI therapy varied by hospital region, with lowest utilization in the Mountain region. An interaction was demonstrated between the impact of insurance disparities and hospital region. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized between 2017 and 2020 for HFrEF who were prescribed RAS inhibitor therapy at discharge, insurance status, geographic region, and self-reported race were associated with ARNI initiation.

Role of telemedicine in the management of obesity: State-of-the-art review.

Obesity is a worsening public health epidemic that remains challenging to manage. Obesity substantially increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases and presents a significant financial burden on the healthcare system. Digital health interventions, specifically telemedicine, may offer an attractive and viable solution for managing obesity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for a safer alternative to in-person visits led to the increased popularity of telemedicine. Multiple studies have tested the efficacy of telemedicine modalities, including digital coaching via videoconferencing sessions, e-health monitoring using wearable devices, and asynchronous forms of communication such as online chatrooms with counselors. In this review, we discuss the available evidence for telemedicine interventions in managing obesity, review current challenges and barriers to using telemedicine, and outline future directions to optimize the management of patients with obesity using telemedicine.

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.

Acetazolamide as an Adjunctive Diuretic Therapy for Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that acetazolamide may be beneficial as an adjunctive diuretic therapy in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF). We aim to pool all the studies conducted until now and provide updated evidence regarding the role of acetazolamide as adjunctive diuretic in patients with acute decompensated HF. METHODS: PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched from inception until July 2023, for randomized and nonrandomized studies evaluating acetazolamide as add-on diuretic in patients with acute decompensated HF. Data about natriuresis, urine output, decongestion, and the clinical signs of congestion were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Data were pooled using a random effects model. Results were presented as risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. A P value of < 0.05 was considered significant in all cases. RESULTS: A total of 5 studies (n = 684 patients) were included with a median follow-up time of 3 months. Pooled analysis demonstrated significantly increased natriuresis (MD 55.07, 95% CI 35.1-77.04, P < 0.00001; I2 = 54%; moderate certainty), urine output (MD 1.04, 95% CI 0.10-1.97, P = 0.03; I2 = 79%; moderate certainty) and decongestion [odds ratio (OR) 1.62, 95% CI 1.14-2.31, P = 0.007; I2 = 0%; high certainty] in the acetazolamide group, as compared with controls. There was no significant difference in ascites (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23-1.36, P = 0.20; I2 = 0%; low certainty), edema (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.52-2.0, P = 0.95; I2 = 45%; very low certainty), raised jugular venous pressure (JVP) (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63-1.17, P = 0.35; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and pulmonary rales (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.44-1.51, P = 0.52; I2 = 25%; low certainty) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Acetazolamide as an adjunctive diuretic significantly improves global surrogate endpoints for decongestion therapy but not all individual signs and symptoms of volume overload. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ), registration number CRD498330.

Use of natriuretic peptides and echocardiography for diagnosing heart failure.

AIMS: International guidelines have recommended the use of echocardiography and natriuretic peptides (NP) testing in the diagnostic evaluation of heart failure (HF) for more than 10 years. However, real-world utilization of these diagnostic tests in the US is not known. We sought to assess contemporary trends in echocardiography and NP testing for diagnosing HF in the US. METHODS AND RESULTS: The TriNetX data were queried for the total number of first HF diagnoses in adults aged >18 years in the US from 2016 to 2019 with exclusions applied. NP testing and echocardiography any time before through 1 year following the index diagnosis were assessed. Temporal trends significance was evaluated using Cochran-Armitage trend tests. A total of 124 126 patients were included. Mean age was 68 ± 13 years, 53% were male, and 71% were White. Overall, 61 023 (49%) incident diagnoses were made in the outpatient and 63 103 (51%) in the inpatient setting with a significantly increasing trend toward inpatient diagnoses (p < 0.001). Of all incident HF diagnoses, 70 612 (57%) underwent echocardiography, 67 991 (55%) underwent NP testing, and 31 206 (25%) did not undergo either diagnostic test. There were increasing trends in the proportion of patients diagnosed in the inpatient versus outpatient setting that underwent echocardiography, NP testing, and either diagnostic test (p < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: We found low rates of echocardiography and NP testing in those with HF, with more of such testing performed amongst inpatient diagnoses. We also found increasing rates of inpatient HF diagnoses, indicating lost opportunities for earlier treatment initiation and better outcomes.

Bridging gaps and optimizing implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure.

Despite robust scientific evidence and strong guideline recommendations, there remain significant gaps in initiation and dose titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure (HF) among eligible patients. Reasons surrounding these gaps are multifactorial, and largely attributed to patient, healthcare professionals, and institutional challenges. Concurrently, HF remains a predominant cause of mortality and hospitalization, emphasizing the critical need for improved delivery of therapy to patients in routine clinical practice. To optimize GDMT, various implementation strategies have emerged in the recent decade such as in-hospital rapid initiation of GDMT, improving patient adherence, addressing clinical inertia, improving affordability, engagement in quality improvement registries, multidisciplinary clinics, and EHR-integrated interventions. This review highlights the current use and barriers to optimal utilization of GDMT, and proposes novel strategies aimed at improving GDMT in HF.

Chapter 3: Clinical Trials of Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter-2 Inhibitors for Treatment of Heart Failure.

Cardiovascular outcomes trials of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have demonstrated consistent signals of benefit in terms of both prevention and treatment of heart failure (HF), in patients with and without type 2 diabetes (T2D). In response to growing evidence of the benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors, including increased survival, reduced hospitalizations and improved patient-reported symptoms, functional status, and quality of life, the treatment landscape for HF has evolved. Importantly, these agents have also demonstrated safety and tolerability in individuals with HF across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction, with improvements in clinical and patient-reported outcomes occurring as early as days to weeks after treatment initiation. For patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), SGLT2 inhibitors are now increasingly recognized as foundational disease-modifying therapy. An updated joint guideline from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association now recommends including SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HF across the spectrum of ejection fraction, irrespective of the presence of diabetes, and regardless of background therapy (Class 1 recommendation for HFrEF, Class 2a recommendation for HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction [HFmrEF] and HF with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]). The European Society of Cardiology also include a Class I recommendation to use SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HFrEF to reduce the risk of hospitalization for HF and CV death, irrespective of T2D status. This chapter reviews published clinical trial data about the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors among patients with HFrEF, HFpEF, and patients hospitalized for HF.

Bundled Payments for Care Improvement and Quality of Care and Outcomes in Heart Failure.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program was launched in 2013 with a goal to improve care quality while lowering costs to Medicare. Objective: To compare changes in the quality and outcomes of care for patients hospitalized with heart failure according to hospital participation in the BPCI program. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a difference-in-difference approach to evaluate the BPCI program in 18 BPCI hospitals vs 211 same-state non-BPCI hospitals for various process-of-care measures and outcomes using American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry and CMS Medicare claims data from November 1, 2008, to August 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to May 2023. Exposures: Hospital participation in CMS BPCI Model 2 Heart Failure, which paid hospitals in a fee-for-service process and then shared savings or required reimbursement depending on how the total cost of an episode of care compared with a target price. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points included 7 quality-of-care measures. Secondary end points included 9 outcome measures, including in-hospital mortality and hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day and 90-day all-cause readmission rate and mortality rate. Results: During the study period, 8721 patients were hospitalized in the 23 BPCI hospitals and 94 530 patients were hospitalized in the 224 same-state non-BPCI hospitals. Less than a third of patients (30 723 patients, 29.8%) were 75 years or younger; 54 629 (52.9%) were female, and 48 622 (47.1%) were male. Hospital participation in BPCI Model 2 was not associated with significant differential changes in the odds of various process-of-care measures, except for a decreased odds of evidence-based ß-blocker at discharge (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.98; P = .04). Participation in the BPCI was not associated with a significant differential change in the odds of receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors at discharge, receiving an aldosterone antagonist at discharge, having a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-defibrillator or CRT pacemaker placed or prescribed at discharge, having implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) counseling or an ICD placed or prescribed at discharge, heart failure education being provided among eligible patients, or having a follow-up visit within 7 days or less. Participation in the BPCI was associated with a significant decrease in odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.86; P = .002). Participation was not associated with a significant differential change in hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day or 90-day all-cause readmission rate and 30-day or 90-day all-cause mortality rate. Conclusion and Relevance: In this study, hospital participation in the BPCI Model 2 Heart Failure program was not associated with improvement in process-of-care quality measures or 30-day or 90-day risk-adjusted all-cause mortality and readmission rates.

Temporal Trends in Substance Use and Cardiovascular Disease-Related Mortality in the United States.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on substance use (SU) and cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related mortality trends in the United States. We aimed to evaluate SU+CVD-related deaths in the United States using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging, Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Multiple Cause-of-Death Public Use record death certificates were used to identify deaths related to both SU and CVD. Crude, age-adjusted mortality rates, annual percent change, and average annual percent changes with a 95% CI were analyzed. Between 1999 and 2019, there were 636 572 SU+CVD-related deaths (75.6% men, 70.6% non-Hispanic White individuals, 65% related to alcohol). Age-adjusted mortality rates per 100 000 population were pronounced in men (22.5 [95% CI, 22.6-22.6]), American Indian or Alaska Native individuals (37.7 [95% CI, 37.0-38.4]), nonmetropolitan/rural areas (15.2 [95% CI, 15.1-15.3]), and alcohol-related death (9.09 [95% CI, 9.07 to 9.12]). The overall SU+CVD-related age-adjusted mortality rates increased from 9.9 (95% CI, 9.8-10.1) in 1999 to 21.4 (95% CI, 21.2-21.6) in 2019 with an average annual percent change of 4.0 (95% CI, 3.7-4.3). Increases in SU+CVD-related average annual percent change were noted across all subgroups and were pronounced among women (4.8% [95% CI, 4.5-5.1]), American Indian or Alaska Native individuals, younger individuals, nonmetropolitan areas, and cannabis and psychostimulant users. CONCLUSIONS: There was a prominent increase in SU+CVD-related mortality in the United States between 1999 and 2019. Women, non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native individuals, younger individuals, nonmetropolitan area residents, and users of cannabis and psychostimulants had pronounced increases in SU+CVD mortality.

Guideline implementation, drug sequencing, and quality of care in heart failure: design and rationale of TITRATE-HF.

AIMS: Current heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend to prescribe four drug classes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). A clear challenge exists to adequately implement guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) regarding the sequencing of drugs and timely reaching target dose. It is largely unknown how the paradigm shift from a serial and sequential approach for drug therapy to early parallel application of the four drug classes will be executed in daily clinical practice, as well as the reason clinicians may not adhere to new guidelines. We present the design and rationale for the real-world TITRATE-HF study, which aims to assess sequencing strategies for GDMT initiation, dose titration patterns (order and speed), intolerance for GDMT, barriers for implementation, and long-term outcomes in patients with de novo, chronic, and worsening HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 4000 patients with HFrEF, HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and HF with improved ejection fraction will be enrolled in >40 Dutch centres with a follow-up of at least 3 years. Data collection will include demographics, physical examination and vital parameters, electrocardiogram, laboratory measurements, echocardiogram, medication, and quality of life. Detailed information on titration steps will be collected for the four GDMT drug classes. Information will include date, primary reason for change, and potential intolerances. The primary clinical endpoints are HF-related hospitalizations, HF-related urgent visits with a need for intravenous diuretics, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSIONS: TITRATE-HF is a real-world multicentre longitudinal registry that will provide unique information on contemporary GDMT implementation, sequencing strategies (order and speed), and prognosis in de novo, worsening, and chronic HF patients.

Torsemide vs Furosemide Among Patients With New-Onset vs Worsening Chronic Heart Failure: A Substudy of the TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Differences in clinical profiles, outcomes, and diuretic treatment effects may exist between patients with de novo heart failure (HF) and worsening chronic HF (WHF). Objectives: To compare clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of torsemide vs furosemide in patients hospitalized with de novo HF vs WHF. Design, Setting, and Participants: All patients with a documented ejection fraction who were randomized in the Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) trial, conducted from June 18 through March 2022, were included in this post hoc analysis. Study data were analyzed March to May 2023. Exposure: Patients were categorized by HF type and further divided by loop diuretic strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points included all-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes over 12 months, as well as change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS). Results: Among 2858 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [14.0] years; 1803 male [63.1%]), 838 patients (29.3%) had de novo HF, and 2020 patients (70.7%) had WHF. Patients with de novo HF were younger (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [14.5] years vs 66.1 [13.5] years), had a higher glomerular filtration rate (mean [SD], 68.6 [24.9] vs 57.0 [24.0]), lower levels of natriuretic peptides (median [IQR], brain-type natriuretic peptide, 855.0 [423.0-1555.0] pg/mL vs 1022.0 [500.0-1927.0] pg/mL), and tended to be discharged on lower doses of loop diuretic (mean [SD], 50.3 [46.2] mg vs 63.8 [52.4] mg). De novo HF was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 12 months (de novo, 65 of 838 [9.1%] vs WHF, 408 of 2020 [25.4%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66; P < .001). Similarly, lower all-cause first rehospitalization at 12 months and greater improvement from baseline in KCCQ-CSS at 12 months were noted among patients with de novo HF (median [IQR]: de novo, 29.94 [27.35-32.54] vs WHF, 23.68 [21.62-25.74]; adjusted estimated difference in means: 6.26; 95% CI, 3.72-8.81; P < .001). There was no significant difference in mortality with torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo (No. of events [rate per 100 patient-years]: torsemide, 27 [7.4%] vs furosemide, 38 [10.9%]; aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-1.14; P = .15) or WHF (torsemide 212 [26.8%] vs furosemide, 196 [24.0%]; aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32; P = .42; P for interaction = .10), In addition, no significant differences in hospitalizations, first all-cause hospitalization, or total hospitalizations at 12 months were noted with a strategy of torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo HF or WHF. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, de novo HF was associated with better clinical and patient-reported outcomes when compared with WHF. Regardless of HF type, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide with respect to 12-month clinical or patient-reported outcomes.

Medical Therapy Before, During and After Hospitalization in Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure and Diabetes: Get With The Guidelines - Heart Failure Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) are at risk for worsening clinical status. Little is known about the frequency of therapeutic changes during hospitalization. We characterized the use of medical therapies before, during and after hospitalization in patients with HF and DM. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries in Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) hospitalized between July 2014 and September 2019 with Part D prescription coverage. We evaluated trends in the use of 7 classes of antihyperglycemic therapies (metformin, sulfonylureas, GLP-1RA, SGLT2-inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, and insulins) and 4 classes of HF therapies (evidence-based ß-blockers, ACEi or ARB, MRA, and ARNI). Medication fills were assessed at 6 and 3 months before hospitalization, at hospital discharge and at 3 months post-discharge. RESULTS: Among 35,165 Medicare beneficiaries, the median age was 77 years, 54% were women, and 76% were white; 11,660 (33%) had HFrEF (LVEF ≤ 40%), 3700 (11%) had HFmrEF (LVEF 41%-49%), and 19,805 (56%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 50%). Overall, insulin was the most commonly prescribed antihyperglycemic after HF hospitalization (n = 12,919, 37%), followed by metformin (n = 7460, 21%) and sulfonylureas (n = 7030, 20%). GLP-1RA (n = 700, 2.0%) and SGLT2i (n = 287, 1.0%) use was low and did not improve over time. In patients with HFrEF, evidence-based beta-blocker, RASi, MRA, and ARNI fills during the 6 months preceding HF hospitalization were 63%, 62%, 19%, and 4%, respectively. Fills initially declined prior to hospitalization, but then rose from 3 months before hospitalization to discharge (beta-blocker: 56%-82%; RASi: 51%-57%, MRA: 15%-28%, ARNI: 3%-6%, triple therapy: 8%-20%; P < 0.01 for all). Prescription rates 3 months after hospitalization were similar to those at hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital optimization of medical therapy in patients with HF and DM is common in participating hospitals of a large US quality improvement registry.