Prevalence and Rate of Resolution of Left Atrial Thrombus in Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Two-Center Retrospective Real-World Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Thromboembolic events due to left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombosis are the main complication of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Although anticoagulants are effective in patients with NVAF, a minimal residual thromboembolic risk persists. Little is known about the prevalence of LAA thrombus and the rate of resolution after the recommended period of anticoagulation therapy, including vitamin K antagonists (VKA), heparin, and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). METHODS AND RESULTS: We aimed to study the prevalence of LAA thrombus in an unselected cohort of patients undergoing transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE), and the determinants of LAA thrombus resolution. We retrospectively analyzed 8888 consecutive TEEs performed over five years in two high-volume centers and included all patients with LAA thrombus. A total of 265 patients (3%) had an LAA thrombus. Among these, 97% presented with AF. Fifty-eight percent of patients were on anticoagulants at least three weeks before the diagnosis. After the LAA thrombus diagnosis, VKAs were prescribed in 52%, heparin in 18.5%, and NOAC in 27% of patients. Among the 183 patients with repeat TEE, performed at (25-75th) 39 days (21-84), 67% showed resolution of the LAA thrombus. Although the rate of thrombus resolution was higher in patients treated with NOACs (NOACs 71%, VKA 66%, Heparin 60%) the difference between anticoagulants was statistically non-significant (VKA, OR 0.9, p = 0.83; NOAC, OR 1.23, p = 0.42; heparin, OR 0.69, p = 0.35). Thus, NOACs were demonstrated to be at least as effective as other anticoagulants in the rate of LAA thrombus resolution. Upon multivariate-adjusted analysis, higher LAA emptying velocities were the only predictor of thrombus resolution. In conclusion, the majority of patients were already on anticoagulants. NOACs could be at least as effective as other anticoagulants, yielding an LAA thrombus resolution in two-thirds of patients. This may have clinical relevance, especially in patients undergoing cardioversion or catheter ablation.

Thromboembolism in Heart Failure Patients in Sinus Rhythm: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, Clinical Trials, and Future Direction.

Despite advances in medical and device therapy, patients with heart failure remain at high risk for morbidity and mortality. Experimental and clinical studies have shown an association between heart failure and a hypercoagulable state, and that patients with heart failure experience an increased incidence of stroke and other thromboembolic events, regardless of whether they are in atrial fibrillation. Although oral anticoagulation is recommended when atrial fibrillation is present, the benefits of this therapy in patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm are uncertain. Older randomized controlled trials comparing warfarin with antiplatelet therapy were, for the most part, underpowered and failed to show convincing benefits of warfarin therapy in this population. Several recent studies that assessed the effects of low-dose direct-acting oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with coronary artery disease in sinus rhythm either included or specifically targeted patients with heart failure. Post hoc analysis of their results showed that this treatment strategy was associated with improved outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome or stable coronary artery disease and also a significant reduction in thromboembolic events, including ischemic stroke. This review presents the rationale for anticoagulant therapy in patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm, discusses gaps in our knowledge base, offers suggestions for when anticoagulation might be considered, and identifies potential directions for future research.

Utility of Restricted Mean Survival Time Analysis for Heart Failure Clinical Trial Evaluation and Interpretation.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to demonstrate the statistical and utilitarian properties of restricted mean survival time (RMST) and restricted mean time lost (RMTL) for assessing treatments for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. BACKGROUND: Although the hazard ratio (HR) is the most commonly used measure to quantify treatment effects in HF clinical trials, HRs may be difficult to interpret and require the proportional hazards assumption to be valid. RMST and RMTL are intuitive summaries of groupwise survival that measure treatment effects without model assumptions. METHODS: Patient time-to-event data were reconstructed from published landmark HF clinical trial Kaplan-Meier curves. We estimated RMST differences (ΔRMSTs) and RMTL ratios between treatment groups for primary and secondary outcomes, and compared test statistics and effect sizes with proportional hazards models. We fit Weibull estimations to extrapolate trial data to 5 years of treatment. RESULTS: Using RMSTs and RMTLs yielded similar statistical conclusions as HR analysis for a compendium of 16 HF clinical trials including 48,581 patients. RMTL ratios approximated HRs for each trial, but ΔRMSTs provided absolute effect sizes unavailable with HRs. For instance, spironolactone added 2.2 months of life over 34 months of treatment, and dapagliflozin added 0.3 months of life over 24 months of treatment. When normalized to 5-years follow-up with Weibull estimation, spironolactone and dapagliflozin added 6.0 months and 1.8 months of life for patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically, RMST and RMTL perform similarly to proportional hazards modeling but may help patients by providing clinically relevant intuitive estimates of treatment effects without prohibitive assumptions.

BNP and NT-proBNP Interpretation in the Neprilysin Inhibitor Era.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Describe the mechanisms that may influence change in measured natriuretic peptide levels when using the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril to treat a patient with heart failure. RECENT FINDINGS: Prior to the introduction of the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril as part of a chemical combination with the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan shown to reduce mortality and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the natriuretic peptide assays for B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and the amino-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) assays were shown to have similar diagnostic accuracy to differentiate heart failure from other etiologies of shortness of breath. Sacubitril/valsartan use has been shown to result in a modest and chronic elevation of BNP while reducing levels of NT-prBNP. This review explores the potential impact of these findings on interpreting natriuretic peptide results for diagnosis and prognosis, as well as explore the challenges associated with the heterogeneity of this finding, highlighting the impact of inhibiting neprilysin, a non-specific endopeptidase with multiple target sites within BNP and other proteins. With increased uptake of sacubitril/valsartan expected in patients with heart failure, interpretation of natriuretic peptide assays becomes somewhat more complex, particularly for BNP. However, knowing a baseline steady-state concentration and using the same assay can assist with BNP interpretation for diagnosis and prognosis.

In-hospital and long-term mortality for acute heart failure: analysis at the time of admission to the emergency department.

AIMS: Acute heart failure (AHF) leads to a drastic increase in mortality and rehospitalization. The aim of the study was to identify prognostic variables in a real-life population of AHF patients admitted to the emergency department with acute shortness of breath. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated potential predictors of mortality in 728 consecutive patients admitted to the emergency department with AHF. Possible predictors of all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality were investigated by Cox and Fine and Gray models at multivariable analysis. Among the 728 patients, 256 died during the entire follow-up, 142 of these due to CV cause. The 1 year mortality rate was 20%, with the highest risk of death during the index hospitalization (with 8% estimate in-hospital mortality at 30 days). A higher risk of events during the index hospitalization was more evident for the CV deaths, for which we found a cumulative 1 year incidence of 12% with a cumulative incidence in the first 30 days of hospitalization of about 5%. At multivariable analysis, age (P < 0.001), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV vs. I-II-III (P = 0.001), systolic blood pressure (P < 0.001), non-cardiac co-morbidities (≥3 vs. 0, P = 0.05), oxygen saturation (P = 0.03), serum creatinine (P < 0.001), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (40-49% vs. <40%, P = 0.004; ≥50% vs. <40%, P = 0.003) were independent predictors of all-cause mortality during the entire follow-up. Age (P = 0.03), systolic blood pressure (P = 0.01), oxygen saturation (P = 0.03), serum creatinine (P = 0.02), and LVEF (40-49% vs. <40%, P = 0.03; ≥50% vs. <40%, P = 0.004) were independent predictors of CV mortality during the entire follow-up. NYHA class IV vs. I-II-III (P < 0.001), serum creatinine (P = 0.01), and LVEF (40-49% vs. <40%, P = 0.02; ≥50% vs. <40%, P < 0.001) remained independent predictors for in-hospital death, while only serum creatinine (P = 0.04), LVEF (40-49% vs. <40%: 0.32, P = 0.04; ≥50% vs. <40%, P < 0.001), and NYHA class vs. I-II-III (P = 0.02) remained predictors for in-hospital CV mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-life cohort of patients with AHF, the results showed a similar mortality rate comparing with other analysis and with the most important registries. Age, NYHA class IV, systolic blood pressure, creatinine levels, sodium levels, and ejection fraction were independent predictors of 1 year mortality, while LVEF <40% was the only predictor of both all-cause mortality and CV mortality.

Publication Rates of Heart Failure Clinical Trials Remain Low.

BACKGROUND: Under-reporting of clinical trial results inhibits dissemination of knowledge, limits understanding of therapeutic interventions, and may ultimately harm patients. OBJECTIVES: This study examined the rates and predictors of heart failure clinical trial publication and how they have changed over time. METHODS: This study assessed cross-sectional analysis of all heart failure clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with at least 2 years follow-up after trial completion. The content area was chosen for the robust clinical trial activity in the field. The primary outcome was manuscript publication with multivariable proportional hazards adjustment to identify associations with publication. RESULTS: Of the 1,429 included studies, 806 (56%) were published as manuscripts, 623 were unpublished, and 97 (7%) reported results without manuscript publication. Of the total, 1,243 were completed after 2007, when the mean 1-year publication rate for interventional trials rose from 12.7% to 19.6% (p = 0.049), which was possibly associated with changes in government regulation. However, there was no further sustained improvement over time, and there was no multivariable association between later completion dates and reporting or publication of results. Funding from the National Institutes of Health and use of clinical (death, hospitalization, myocardial infarction, changes in functional classification) rather than nonclinical primary endpoints were associated with earlier publication. Whether the results were consistent with the primary study hypothesis was not associated with likelihood of publication. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of heart failure clinical trial publication or reporting of results remain unacceptably low. Additional efforts by all stakeholders, including investigators, sponsors, regulators, societies, editors, and journals are needed to improve data dissemination.

Depression and heart failure: the lonely comorbidity.

Depression is a frequent and debilitating comorbidity that affects heart failure (HF) patients. Up to 30% of HF patients suffer from depression and even more have depressive symptoms. Moreover, depression carries a risk for HF, especially in high-risk groups, and is significantly associated with worse quality of life and clinical outcomes. The pathophysiology of depression and HF is poorly understood, but both diseases share several mechanisms and risk factors, including dysregulation of platelet reactivity, inflammation, neuroendocrine function, arrhythmias, high-risk behaviours, and social factors. Current HF guidelines advise to screen HF patients for depression and several screening questionnaires are available. Ultimately, the diagnosis of depression is based on DSM-5 criteria. Depression treatment consists of non-pharmacological and pharmacological therapies. Non-pharmacological therapies, such as exercise training and cognitive-behavioural therapy, have been shown to have beneficial effects on depressive symptoms. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the mainstay of antidepressant therapy, appear to be safe in HF but have not shown superiority over placebo in HF in short- and long-term randomized clinical trials. New therapies to treat depression are under investigation and may offer the opportunity to improve depression management in HF, including N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and omega-3 supplementation. New technologies may offer several advantages for the screening and diagnosis of depression but they remain to be tested in future research. In this review, we examine the intersection of depression and HF, summarize the epidemiology and pathophysiology, and discuss new opportunities to diagnose and treat HF patients with depression.

Assessment of Limitations to Optimization of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Heart Failure From the GUIDE-IT Trial: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Despite evidence that guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) improves outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction, many patients are undertreated. The Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment (GUIDE-IT) trial tested whether a strategy of using target concentrations of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) to guide optimization of GDMT could improve outcomes. Objective: To examine medical therapy for HF in GUIDE-IT and potential reasons why the intervention did not produce improvements in medical therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: GUIDE-IT, a randomized clinical trial performed at 45 sites in the United States and Canada, was conducted from January 16, 2013, to September 20, 2016. A total of 894 patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (≤40%) were randomized to NT-proBNP-guided treatment with a goal to suppress NT-proBNP concentrations to less than 1000 pg/mL vs usual care. This secondary analysis examined the medical therapy titration and reasons why the intervention did not produce improvements in care and outcomes. Data were analyzed March 27 to June 28, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: For each encounter, medication titrations were captured. A reason was requested if a modification was not made. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to assess the independent association of drug class with outcomes. Results: Among the 838 patients available for analysis (566 men [67.5%]; median age, 62.0 years), 6223 visits occurred during 24 months. Adjustments of HF medication were made during 2847 of 5218 qualified visits (54.6%) (all usual care visits and all guided care visits with NT-proBNP level ≥1000 pg/mL) in 862 patients (96.4%). Most adjustments occurred within the first 6 months, primarily within the first 6 weeks. The most common reasons for not adjusting were "clinically stable" and "already at maximally tolerated therapy." Only 130 patients (15.5%) achieved optimal GDMT (≥50% of the target dose of ß-blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers or any dose of mineralocorticoid antagonists) at 6 months, an increase from the baseline (79 of 891 [8.9%]) but not different by treatment arm. Higher doses of ß-blockers were associated with reduced risk of the composite outcome of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00; P = .008) and of all-cause death (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P = .01). Higher doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93; P < .001) and angiotensin receptor blockers (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99; P = .04) were associated with reduced risk of all-cause death. Increasing doses of mineralocorticoid antagonists did not appear to be associated with improved outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite a protocol-driven approach, many patients in GUIDE-IT did not receive medication adjustments and did not achieve optimal GDMT, including those with known elevated NT-proBNP concentrations. These results suggest that opportunities exist to titrate medications for maximal benefit in HF. GUIDE-IT may have failed to achieve treatment benefit because of therapeutic inertia in clinical practice, or current GDMT goals may be unrealistic. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01685840.

Endpoints in Heart Failure Drug Development: History and Future.

Heart failure (HF) patients experience a high burden of symptoms and functional limitations, and morbidity and mortality remain high despite successful therapies. The majority of HF drugs in the United States are approved for reducing hospitalization and mortality, while only a few have indications for improving quality of life, physical function, or symptoms. Patient-reported outcomes that directly measure patient's perception of health status (symptoms, physical function, or quality of life) are potentially approvable endpoints in drug development. This paper summarizes the history of endpoints used for HF drug approvals in the United States and reviews endpoints that measure symptoms, physical function, or quality of life in HF patients.

Acute heart failure: More questions than answers.

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a life-threatening condition with a dramatic burden in terms of symptoms, morbidity and mortality. It is a specific syndrome requiring urgent, life-saving treatment. Multiple specific pathophysiologic mechanisms may be involved, including congestion, inflammation, and neurohormonal activation. This process eventually leads to symptoms, end-organ damage, and adverse outcomes. Clinical presentation varies, but it almost universally includes worsening of congestion associated with different degrees of hypoperfusion. Due to substantial early symptoms burden and high morbidity and mortality, patients with AHF require intensive monitoring and intravenous treatment. However, beyond variable improvement in congestion, none of the available intravenous therapies for AHF was shown to improve longer term outcomes. Although oral treatment with guideline-directed therapies for stable patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) before discharge may fully prevent subsequent episodes, proof that this strategy may benefit patients is lacking. First, most patients with AHF have preserved EF (HFpEF) where no therapies have been shown to be effective. Second, all therapies developed for patients with HFrEF were tested for efficacy on outcomes in patients who were stable without recent AHF. Hence, the implementation of these chronic therapies during an AHF episode is untested. Third, the problem to better treat AHF patients in their early phase remains crucial with treatment strategies largely untested, yet. Further studies targeting AHF specific mechanisms, such as inflammation and end-organ damage, and finding effective intravenous drugs remain therefore warranted.

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: pro and cons of the new classification of Heart Failure by European Society of Cardiology guidelines.

Currently, the assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the cornerstone of the classification of patients with heart failure (HF). The mid-range LVEF (HFmrEF) category was identified in an attempt to uncover specific characteristics of these patients. So far, the analysis of trials, registries, and observational studies have demonstrated that patients with mid-range LVEF belong to a patient cohort with generally intermediate clinical profile as compared with other groups but with a remarkable variety of intrinsic phenotypes. This is due to the limitations of LVEF as the sole criterion to categorize patients with HF and characterize their prognosis, above all when it is >40%. To better define the HFmrEF phenotype, it is reasonable to consider other parameters, such as LVEF changes over time, HF aetiology, co-morbidities, and other imaging parameters. A multiparametric evaluation may contextualize a patient with HFmrEF in a more defined phenotype with a specific prognosis.

A new score based on the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 criteria for risk stratification of patients with acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients are at increased risk of death and recurrent ischemic events. We aimed to elaborate a risk score, based on the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 criteria, to predict mortality and non-fatal AMI in AMI patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed two prospectively collected AMI cohorts. We calculated a cut-off for the developed score and investigated its 1-year prognostic power in the derivation cohort (n = 1257). We externally validated our score in 913 AMI patients with a longer follow-up. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, the area under the curve of the score for the primary endpoint (1-year death and non-fatal AMI) was 0.70 (95% CI 0.65-0.76; P < 0.0001) and a cut-off of 6 was identified. The primary endpoint incidence in patients with a score above and below the cut-off was 12% and 3% (P < 0.001) in the derivation cohort and 16% and 6% in the validation cohort (P < 0.001). At multivariate analysis, the HR for the primary endpoint associated with a score ≥ 6 was 4.45 (P < 0.0001) in the derivation cohort and 2.86 (P < 0.0001) in the validation cohort. One-year major bleeding rate was low (<0.2% overall) and similar between risk groups. The prognostic performance of the score cut-off persisted beyond the first year after AMI in the validation cohort, maintaining a similar risk for death and non-fatal AMI (HR 3) at every following year. CONCLUSIONS: Our score, based on the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 criteria, may identify AMI patients at high risk of recurrent ischemic events, who might benefit from thorough preventive strategies.

Blood pressure control in older patients with carotid artery stenosis.

Stroke is the second largest cause of European cardiovascular and total mortality, largely due to atherosclerotic carotid artery narrowing or thromboembolism consequent to internal carotid artery stenosis. Current therapeutic indications suggest lifestyle interventions (smoking cessation, healthy diet and physical activity), adequate control of LDL-cholesterol and glycemic balance. It is nonetheless established that the most important factors in preventing stroke are antiplatelet therapy and blood pressure regulation. In fact, many physiological parameters, including age, drugs' effects and especially systemic blood pressure, can be involved in maintaining cerebral blood flow through compensation for impairment of flow within carotid arteries. Many studies demonstrate the benefits of blood pressure lowering in terms of prevention of stroke, but there are conflicting data about a specific pressure target to achieve, with some evidence in favor of "the lower the better" idea, while other identifying a too low systolic blood pressure as a cause of cerebral ischemia worsening, especially in symptomatic patients. In summary, the available data suggest the need of a tailored blood pressure treatment without inflexible targets, according to the assessment of the cardiovascular risk of each patient, the benefits of an intensive antihypertensive therapy and the comorbidities-related response to the treatment.

Preoperative cardiac risks in noncardiac surgery: The role of coronary angiography.

The preoperative  evaluation of  patients candidates  to noncardiac  surgery requires a knowledge  of  factors  related  both to  type of  surgery and  to  features of the  single patient, potentially  responsible  for  perioperative  cardiovascular  complications , fatal and nonfatal. The assessment of   symptoms  and/or noninvasive  testing indicating the  presence of  coronary  artery  disease may  suggest the  need  for  medical therapy  optimization and, eventually, coronary  arteriography  before  the  scheduled timing  of noncardiac  surgery. There is  no evidence  favoring  a prophylactic  myocardial revascularization (percutaneous or  surgical) and more  studies are needed to  define  the role of coronary artery  disease diagnosis and treatment before  high-risk non  cardiac  surgery.