Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 149
Filtrar
1.
JACC Heart Fail ; 2020 May 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32387066

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to characterize the clinical profile, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of patients with comorbid diabetes mellitus (DM) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in a contemporary, real-world U.S. outpatient registry in the context of evolving treatment strategies. BACKGROUND: Specific antihyperglycemic classes have differential risks and benefits with respect to HF. Limited data are available evaluating contemporary treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with comorbid DM and HFrEF. METHODS: Among 4,970 patients with chronic HFrEF (≤40%) across 152 U.S. sites in the CHAMP-HF prospective, observational registry (2015 to 2017), we examined therapies and clinical outcomes by DM status. RESULTS: Median age was 68 (58 to 75) years of age; 29% were women; 73.5% were white; and 64% had coronary artery disease. Overall, 42% (n = 2,085) had comorbid DM with a median hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 7.2% (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.4% to 8.3%). One-fourth of DM patients (24%) were not treated with an antihyperglycemic therapy. Most patients with DM were taking 1 (46%) or 2 (23%) antihyperglycemic therapies: metformin (40%), insulin (33%); sulfonylureas (24%); dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (10%); glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonists (4%); sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors (2%); and thiazolidinediones (2%). Among patients with DM, 62%, 16%, 80%, and 33.5% were receiving any angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), ß-blockers, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) at baseline, respectively. Among patients without DM, corresponding baseline rates were 65%, 15%, 80%, and 37%, respectively. Patients with or without DM were infrequently treated with guideline-directed HFrEF therapies at target doses (≤27% across classes). During median 15-month follow-up, patients with DM experienced higher rates of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization (30% vs. 23%, respectively), independent of 11 pre-specified covariates (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.35 (95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 1.52); p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher risk-adjusted clinical event rates in patients with comorbid HFrEF and DM, guideline-directed medical therapies for both disease states are incomplete and represent an important target for quality improvement through multidisciplinary care pathways.

2.
Circ Heart Fail ; 13(5): e006758, 2020 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32362166

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The FIGHT (Functional Impact of GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide-1] for Heart Failure Treatment) trial randomized 300 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and a recent hospitalization for heart failure to liraglutide versus placebo. While there was no difference in the primary outcome (rank score of time to death, time to rehospitalization for heart failure, and change in NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide]), there was a significant increase in cystatin C among patients randomized to liraglutide raising concern of adverse renal outcomes. We performed a post hoc analysis of FIGHT to investigate whether liraglutide was associated with worsening renal function (WRF). METHODS: The relationship between randomization to liraglutide and WRF was evaluated using logistic regression models. Two hundred seventy-four patients (91%) had complete data to assess for WRF defined as: increase in SCr ≥0.3 mg/dL, or ≥25% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, or an increase in cystatin C ≥0.3 mg/L from baseline to 180-days. RESULTS: Patients with WRF (n=113, 41%), compared with those without, were older, had more comorbidities, and lower utilization of guideline-directed medical treatment. Logistic regression models showed that age and baseline cystatin C levels were associated with WRF. In adjusted models, liraglutide was not associated with excess risk of WRF compared with placebo (odds ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.62-1.67]). There was also no difference in the rank score when WRF was added as a fourth-tier outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide was not associated with WRF among patients with HFrEF and a recent hospitalization for heart failure. These data support the relative renal safety profile of liraglutide among patients with HFrEF. Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01800968.

3.
JACC Heart Fail ; 2020 May 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32417413

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: An early report of recipient heart transplantation outcomes under the new U.S. heart allocation system introduced in late 2018 found a lower post-transplant survival rate compared with that of the prior system. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine recipient survival under the new system by using an updated dataset. METHODS: The 2015 to 2019 United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried for adult heart transplant recipients, stratified according to whether the subjects were listed and underwent transplant before or after October 18, 2018, when the new allocation system was implemented. The association between allocation system and recipient mortality was analyzed by using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: A total of 7,119 recipients met inclusion criteria: 6,004 (84%) and 1,115 (16%) listed and undergoing transplant in the old and new allocation systems, respectively. This registry update included 576 new-system recipients, more than double the amount previously analyzed. Recipients from the new system were more likely to be bridged to transplant with temporary mechanical circulatory support devices instead of durable left ventricular assist devices and had longer graft ischemic times. After adjustment, the new system was not associated with poorer survival on Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (log-rank test; p = 0.075) or multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.18; 95% confidence interval: 0.90 to 1.55). CONCLUSIONS: The short-term survival of recipients listed and receiving a transplant under the old and new allocation systems seems to be comparable. The modification to the allocation system has resulted in several changes to the clinical profiles of patients undergoing transplants that must be closely monitored in the coming years.

4.
Am J Cardiol ; 125(11): 1655-1660, 2020 Jun 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32273054

RESUMO

The TOPCAT trial investigated spironolactone vs placebo in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Although the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, treatment with spironolactone did reduce heart failure hospitalizations compared with placebo. TOPCAT's impact on prescribing patterns in the United States is not well-characterized. We performed a retrospective analysis of discharge prescribing data in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry among patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% discharged between January 2009 and December 2016 to assess prescribing trends upon dissemination of TOPCAT results. Of 142,201 patients included in the study, 18,581 (13.1%) were prescribed mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) at discharge. Compared with those not prescribed MRAs, patients discharged on MRAs were generally younger (75 vs 78 years), and report white race (76.7% vs 72.0%), more likely to have had prior heart failure hospitalizations (75.5% vs 65.7%), lower brain natriuretic peptide levels (492 vs 545 pg/mL), but similar serum creatinine levels (1.2 vs 1.2 mg/dL) upon admission. MRA prescribing modestly increased over time (p <0.0001), without significant change in the overall trend of prescribing rate for MRAs after TOPCAT results were presented (p =0.17). In conclusion, our findings suggest that for patients with HFpEF, the use of MRAs at hospital discharge is low, with only modest increases over time and no discernible change in the rate of MRA use after the TOPCAT results were released. There remains an important need for more clinical trials to better establish the efficacy and safety of MRAs for the treatment of HFpEF.

5.
Circ Heart Fail ; 13(4): e006645, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32248695

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-pro BNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode), the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) was well-tolerated and led to improved outcomes. We aim to determine the representativeness of the PIONEER-HF trial among patients hospitalized for ADHF using real-world data. METHODS: The study population was derived from all patients discharged alive for ADHF in the Get With The Guidelines-HF registry from 2006 to 2018 with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; all HFrEF with ADHF). We then determined the proportion of patients meeting PIONEER-HF eligibility criteria (PIONEER-HF eligible) and those meeting a set of limited eligibility criteria (actionable cohort). Rates of HF readmissions and all-cause mortality were then compared between the all HFrEF with ADHF, PIONEER-HF eligible, and actionable cohorts using linked Medicare claims data. RESULTS: A total of 99 767 patients with HFrEF in Get With The Guidelines-HF were hospitalized for ADHF. PIONEER-HF inclusion criteria were met by 71 633 (71.8%) patients, and both inclusion and exclusion criteria were met by 20 704 (20.8%) patients. Further, 68 739 (68.9%) patients met the criteria for the actionable cohort. Among the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid-linked patients, the HF rehospitalization rate at 1 year was 35.1% (95% CI, 34.5-35.8) for all HFrEF with ADHF patients, 32.6% (95% CI, 31.3-33.9) for the PIONEER-HF eligible cohort, and 33.1% (95% CI, 32.3-33.9) for the actionable cohort. The 1-year all-cause mortality was 36.7% (95% CI, 36.1-7.4) for all HFrEF with ADHF patients, 31.6% (95% CI, 30.3-32.9) for the PIONEER-HF eligible cohort, and 32.2% (95% CI, 31.4-33.0) for the actionable cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes for patients eligible for PIONEER-HF only modestly differ when compared with those encountered in routine practice, suggesting that the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan should be routinely considered for patients with HFrEF hospitalized for ADHF.

6.
Am Heart J ; 223: 98-105, 2020 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32217365

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Ivabradine is guideline-recommended to reduce heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with stable chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF). Ivabradine initiation following acute HF has had limited evaluation, and there are few randomized data in US patients. The PredischaRge initiation of Ivabradine in the ManagEment of Heart Failure (PRIME-HF) study was conducted to address predischarge ivabradine initiation in stabilized acute HF patients. METHODS: PRIME-HF was an investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label study of predischarge initiation of ivabradine versus usual care. Eligible patients were hospitalized for acute HF but stabilized, with EF ≤35%, on maximally tolerated ß-blocker and in sinus rhythm with heart rate ≥70 beats/min. Ivabradine was acquired per routine care. The primary end point was the proportion of patients on ivabradine at 180 days. Additional end points included heart rate change, patient-reported outcomes, ß-blocker use/dose, and safety events (symptomatic bradycardia and hypotension). RESULTS: Overall, 104 patients (36% women, 64% African American) were randomized, and the study was terminated early because of funding limitations. At 180 days, 21 of 52 (40.4%) of patients randomized to predischarge initiation were treated with ivabradine compared with 6 of 52 (11.5%) randomized to usual care (odds ratio 5.19, 95% CI 1.88-14.33, P = .002). The predischarge initiation group experienced greater reduction in heart rate through 180 days (mean -10.0 beats/min, 95% CI -15.7 to -4.3 vs 0.7 beats/min, 95% CI -5.4 to 6.7, P = .011). Patient-reported outcomes, ß-blocker use/dose, and safety events were similar (all P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Ivabradine initiation prior to discharge among stabilized HF patients increased ivabradine use at 180 days and lowered heart rates without reducing ß-blockers or increasing adverse events. As the trial did not achieve the planned enrollment, additional studies are needed.

7.
Circ Heart Fail ; 13(4): e006963, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32207996

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend evaluation for underlying heart disease and reversible conditions for patients with new-onset heart failure (HF). There are limited data on contemporary testing for coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with new-onset HF. METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study using the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry linked to Medicare claims. All patients were aged ≥65 and hospitalized for new-onset HF from 2009 to 2015. We collected left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), prior HF history, and in-hospital CAD testing from the registry, as well as testing for CAD using claims from 90 days before to 90 days after index HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 17 185 patients with new-onset HF, 6672 (39%) received testing for CAD, including 3997 (23%) during the index hospitalization. Testing for CAD differed by LVEF: 53% in HF with reduced EF (LVEF ≤40%), 42% in HF with borderline EF (LVEF, 41%-49%), and 31% in HF with preserved EF (LVEF ≥50%). After multivariable adjustment, patients who received testing for CAD, compared with those who did not, were younger and more likely to be male, have a smoking history, have hyperlipidemia, and have HF with reduced ejection fraction or HF with borderline ejection fraction (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients hospitalized for new-onset HF did not receive testing for CAD either during the hospitalization or in the 90 days before and after. The rates of testing for CAD were higher in patients with LVEF ≤40% though remained low. These data highlight an opportunity to improve care by identifying appropriate candidates for optimal CAD medical therapy and revascularization.

8.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 2020 Mar 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32212297

RESUMO

AIMS: Non-cardiac comorbidities are highly prevalent in patients with heart failure (HF). Our objective was to define the association between non-cardiac comorbidity burden and clinical outcomes, costs of care, and length of stay within a large randomized trial of acute HF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with complete medical history for the following comorbidities were included: diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic liver disease, history of cancer within the last 5 years, chronic renal disease (baseline serum creatinine >3.0 mg/mL), current smoking, alcohol abuse, depression, anaemia, peripheral arterial disease, and cerebrovascular disease. Patients were classified by overall burden of non-cardiac comorbidities (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4+). Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to assess associations between comorbidity burden and 30-day all-cause death or HF hospitalization and 180-day all-cause death in addition to costs of care and length of stay. A total of 6945 patients were included in the final analysis. Mean comorbidity number was 2.2 (± 1.34). Patients with 4+ comorbidities had higher rates of 30-day all-cause death/HF hospitalization as compared with patients with no comorbidities [odds ratio (OR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61-6.84; P < 0.01]. Similar results were seen with respect to 180-day death (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.33-3.43; P < 0.01). Higher comorbidity burden was associated with higher 180-day costs of care and length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Higher comorbidity burden is associated with poor clinical outcomes, higher costs of care, and extended length of stay. Further studies are needed to define the impact of comorbidity management programmes on outcomes for HF patients.

9.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 2020 Feb 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32078214

RESUMO

AIMS: Hyperkalaemia and hypokalaemia are common in heart failure and associated with worse outcomes. However, the optimal potassium range is unknown. We sought to determine the optimal range of potassium in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (< 40%) by exploring the relationship between baseline potassium level and short- and long-term outcomes using the Swedish Heart Failure Registry from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2012. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the association between baseline potassium level and all-cause mortality at 30 days, 12 months, and maximal follow-up, in uni- and multivariable stratified and restricted cubic spline Cox regressions. Of 13 015 patients, 93.3% had potassium 3.5-5.0 mmol/L, 3.7% had potassium <3.5 mmol/L, and 3.0% had potassium >5.0 mmol/L. Potassium <3.5 mmol/L and >5.0 mmol/L were more common with lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and heart failure of longer duration and greater severity. The potassium level associated with the lowest hazard risk for mortality at 30 days, 12 months, and maximal follow-up was 4.2 mmol/L, and there was a steep increase in risk with both higher and lower potassium levels. In adjusted strata analyses, lower potassium was independently associated with all-cause mortality at 12 months and maximal follow-up, while higher potassium levels only increased risk at 30 days. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide registry, the relationship between potassium and mortality was U-shaped, with an optimal potassium value of 4.2 mmol/L. After multivariable adjustment, hypokalaemia was associated with increased long-term mortality but hyperkalaemia was associated with increased short-term mortality.

10.
Am J Cardiol ; 125(6): 894-900, 2020 Mar 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31980141

RESUMO

Randomized data suggest lenient rate control (resting heart rate <110 beats/min) is noninferior to strict rate control (resting heart rate <80 beats/min) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the optimal rate control strategy in patients with AF and heart failure (HF) remains unknown. Accordingly, we performed an observational analysis using data from the Get With The Guidelines-HF Program linked with Medicare data from July 1, 2011, to September 30, 2014. Of 13,981 patients with AF and HF, 9,100 (65.0%) had strict rate control, 4,617 (33.0%) had lenient rate control, and 264 (1.9%) had poor rate control by resting heart rate on the day of discharge. After multivariable adjustment, compared with strict rate control, lenient rate control was associated with higher adjusted risks of death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11 to 1.33, p <0.001), all-cause readmission (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.15, p <0.002), death or all-cause readmission (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.18, p <0.001), but not cardiovascular readmission (HR1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.16, p = 0.051) at 90 days. Associations were comparable in patients with poor rate control and with heart rate modeled as a continuous variable. The presence or absence of reduced ejection fraction did not impact the magnitude of most observed associations. In conclusion, in patients with HF and AF, 2 of 3 patients had a heart rate that met strict-control goals at discharge. Heart rates >80 beats/min were associated with adverse outcomes irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction.

11.
Ann Thorac Surg ; 2020 Jan 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31904371

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage heart failure are increasingly being bridged to heart transplant (BTT) with mechanical circulatory support; however the association between a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) BTT strategy and posttransplant renal outcomes is unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze the association of LVAD BTT with the development of posttransplant renal failure using a large national registry. METHODS: We queried the 2009 to 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing registry for all adults undergoing first-time heart or heart-kidney transplantation and stratified patients by use of pretransplant durable LVAD. The primary outcome of interest was posttransplant renal failure, which was evaluated with multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 18,307 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 7887 were (43%) and 10,420 were not (57%) BTT with an LVAD. BTT patients had slightly better baseline renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 68.7 vs 65.8 mL/min, P < .001) and were less likely to receive a heart-kidney transplant (2.7% vs 4.8%, P < .001). On multivariable logistic regression, LVAD BTT strategy was not independently associated with posttransplant renal failure (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.49). Similarly LVAD BTT among patients with preoperative renal dysfunction was not associated with posttransplant renal failure (adjusted odds ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-2.18). CONCLUSIONS: BTT with an LVAD does not appear to be associated with worse renal outcomes regardless of baseline renal function. Furthermore, an LVAD BTT strategy in patients with chronic kidney disease may enable clinicians to identify candidates suitable for isolated heart transplantation without increasing their risk for posttransplant renal failure.

12.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 9(2): e013047, 2020 Jan 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31937195

RESUMO

Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) objectively measure health-related quality of life and provide prognostic information. Advances in technology now allow for rapid, patient-friendly PRO assessment and scoring, yet the adoption of PROs in clinic has been slow. We conducted a multicenter qualitative study of diverse providers to describe the barriers and facilitators of routine PRO use in heart failure clinics. Methods and Results Sixty heart failure providers from 5 institutions participated in 8 focus groups to explore provider perspectives on the use of heart failure-specific and generic PROs in clinical practice. A qualitative editing approach was used to analyze the data, whereby a coding dictionary was iteratively developed and applied using the qualitative software program Altas.ti. Three main themes, supporting and impeding PRO use, emerged: (1) data collection; (2) presentation and interpretation; and (3) utility and value. For each construct, we identified perspectives that highlighted both barriers and facilitators. Providers identified burden, survey fatigue, and language/health literacy barriers as potentially impeding data collection. Optimal workflow, PRO frequency and length, use of PRO translations, and assistance of a patient's proxy were suggested as facilitators. Focus group discussions provided insight on how to display PROs to support its interpretability and sharing. Furthermore, the need to educate providers on the utility and value PROs over and above current clinical approaches emerged. Conclusions Overcoming the barriers and supporting facilitators of PRO adoption could potentially lead to more successful adoption of PROs in heart failure clinics.

13.
J Card Surg ; 35(2): 383-389, 2020 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31808964

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Stroke remains a significant complication of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy. We performed a single-center retrospective study evaluating patients undergoing first-time HeartWare HVAD (Medtronic Inc) or HeartMate 3 (Abbott Inc) implantation from September 2009-February 2018. METHODS: Exclusion criteria were age <18 and preoperative ECMO. The primary endpoint was stroke-free survival. Stroke was defined as new neurological deficits persisting >24 hours with corresponding radiographic evidence. Risk factors evaluated included demographics, medical comorbidities, heart failure etiology, LVAD indication, INTERMACS profile, and device type. Univariate predictors (P < .15) and variables clinically suspected to raise stroke risk were entered in a multivariate hazard regression model, specified using backward selection of covariates and accounting for competing risks of transplant/LVAD exchange. RESULTS: A total of 163 HVAD and 84 HM3 patients were analyzed. Median follow up (until death, censoring for transplant/LVAD removal, or end of follow up) was 1.2 years in HVAD patients and 1.4 years in HM3 patients. Stroke occurred in 24 HVAD patients (15 ischemic, 9 hemorrhagic) and 6 HM3 patients (4 ischemic, 2 hemorrhagic). One-year stroke-free survival was 76.8% for HVAD and 84.3% for HM3. Thirty-day mortality following stroke was 41.7% for HVAD and 66.7% for HM3; 54.2% of HVAD strokes were disabling compared to 83.3% of HM3 strokes. Age, LVAD indication, and device type were associated (P < .15) with stroke on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, the HVAD was associated with significantly higher stroke risk (hazard ratio, 2.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-6.44; P = .045). CONCLUSIONS: Different LVAD models appear to be associated with significantly different stroke risks.

14.
Am Heart J ; 220: 41-50, 2020 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31770656

RESUMO

Many therapies have been shown to improve outcomes for patients with heart failure (HF) in controlled settings, but there are limited data available to inform best practices for hospital and post-discharge quality improvement initiatives. The CONNECT-HF study is a prospective, cluster-randomized trial of 161 hospitals in the United States with a 2×2 factorial design. The study is designed to assess the effect of a hospital and post-discharge quality improvement intervention compared with usual care (primary objective) on HF outcomes and quality-of-care, as well as to evaluate the effect of hospitals implementing a patient-level digital intervention compared with usual care (secondary objective). The hospital and post-discharge intervention includes audit and feedback on HF clinical process measures and outcomes for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) paired with education to sites and clinicians by a trained, nationally representative group of HF and quality improvement experts. The patient-level digital intervention is an optional ancillary study and includes a mobile application and behavioral tools that are intended to facilitate improved use of guideline-directed recommendations for self-monitoring and self-management of activity and medications for HFrEF. The effects of the interventions will be measured through an opportunity-based composite score on quality and time-to-first HF readmission or death among patients with HFrEF who present to study hospitals with acute HF and who consent to participate. The CONNECT-HF study is evaluating approaches for implementing HF guideline recommendations into practice and is one of the largest HF implementation science trials performed to date.

16.
JAMA Cardiol ; 2019 Dec 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31825471

RESUMO

Importance: In PIONEER-HF, among stabilized patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated and led to improved outcomes compared with enalapril. However, there are limited data comparing the strategies of in-hospital vs postdischarge initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. Objective: To describe changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels in patients recently hospitalized for ADHF and switching from taking enalapril to taking sacubitril/valsartan after discharge and compare clinical outcomes for patients randomized to receive in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan vs in-hospital initiation of enalapril who later switched to taking sacubitril/valsartan during an open-label extension phase. Interventions: Sacubitril/valsartan titrated to 97/103 mg twice daily. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PIONEER-HF trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial conducted at 129 US sites between May 2016 and May 2018 that compared the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril (titrated to target dose, 10 mg twice daily) for 8 weeks among patients admitted for ADHF with reduced ejection fraction and hemodynamic stability. All patients were to continue in a 4-week, open-label study of sacubitril/valsartan; of 881 patients enrolled in PIONEER-HF, 832 (94%) continued in the open-label study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in NT-proBNP levels from week 8 to 12 as well as the exploratory composite of heart failure rehospitalization or cardiovascular death from randomization through week 12. Results: Of 881 participants, 226 (27.7%) were women, 487 (58.5%) were white, 297 (35.7%) were black, 15 (1.8%) were Asian, and 73 (8.8%) were of Hispanic ethnicity; the mean (SD) age was 61 (14) years. For patients who continued to take sacubitril/valsartan, NT-proBNP levels declined -17.2% (95% CI, -3.2 to -29.1) from week 8 to 12. The NT-proBNP levels declined to a greater extent for those switching from taking enalapril to sacubitril/valsartan after the week 8 visit (-37.4%; 95% CI, -28.1 to -45.6; P < .001; comparing changes in 2 groups). Over the entire 12 weeks of follow-up, patients that began taking sacubitril/valsartan in the hospital had a lower hazard for the composite outcome compared with patients that initiated enalapril in the hospital and then had a delayed initiation of sacubitril/valsartan 8 weeks later (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI 0.49-0.97). Conclusions and Relevance: Switching patients' treatment from enalapril to sacubitril/valsartan at 8 weeks after randomization led to a further 37% reduction in NT-proBNP levels in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a recent hospitalization for ADHF. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02554890.

17.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 8(24): e011560, 2019 Dec 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31818219

RESUMO

Background Limited data exist to guide treatment for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation, including the important decision regarding rate versus rhythm control. Methods and Results We analyzed the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry linked to Medicare claims data from 2008 to 2014 to describe current treatments for rate versus rhythm control and subsequent outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation using inverse probability weighted analysis. Rhythm control was defined as use of an antiarrhythmic medication, cardioversion, or AF ablation or surgery. Rate control was defined as use of any combination of ß-blocker, calcium channel blocker, and digoxin without evidence of rhythm control. Among 15 682 fee-for-service Medicare patients, at the time of discharge, 1857 were treated with rhythm control and 13 825 with rate control, with minimal differences in baseline characteristics between groups. There was higher all-cause death at 1 year in the rate control compared with the rhythm control group (37.5% and 30.8%, respectively, P<0.01). The lower 1-year all-cause death in the rhythm control group remained after risk adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98; P=0.02). Conclusions Rhythm control in patients aged 65 and older with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and AF was associated with a lower risk of 1 year all-cause mortality. Future prospective randomized studies are needed to explore this potential benefit.

18.
JACC Heart Fail ; 7(11): 922-932, 2019 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31672308

RESUMO

The adoption of mobile health (mHealth) devices is creating a unique opportunity to improve heart failure (HF) care. The rise of mHealth is driven by multiple factors including consumerism, policy changes in health care, and innovations in technology. Wearable health devices are one aspect of mHealth that may improve the delivery of HF care by allowing for medical data collection outside of a clinician's office or hospital. Wearable devices are externally applied and capture functional or physiological data in order to monitor and improve patients' health. Most wearable sensors capture data continuously and may be incorporated into accessories (e.g., a watch or clothing) or may be applied as a cutaneous patch. Wearable devices are often paired with another device, such as a smartphone, to collect, interpret, or transmit data. This study assessed the potential applications of wearable devices in HF care, summarizes available data for wearables, and discusses the future of wearables for improving the health of patients with HF.

20.
Am J Cardiol ; 124(12): 1900-1906, 2019 Dec 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31679641

RESUMO

Underuse of hydralazine/nitrate (HYD/NIT) in black patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has been previously described, but whether this important treatment gap persists in contemporary practice is unknown. Sacubitril/valsartan has become a part of guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF but data on utilization of this therapy in black patients is lacking. This study addressed these issues by assessing the frequency of HYD/NIT and sacubitril/valsartan use in black patients with HFrEF in the Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure Registry, a multicenter cohort study. The association of race with utilization rates of these agents was also evaluated. Clinical and medication data at baseline and during 12 months of follow-up from black and nonblack registry patients without documented contraindications or intolerance to the medications of interest were analyzed. Data were available from December 2015 to October 2017, in 4,848 HFrEF patients, of whom 853 were black (18%) and 3995 were nonblack. Black patients were younger, more likely to be female, and had lower ejection fractions compared with nonblacks. Only 11% of black patients were receiving HYD/NIT therapy at baseline and 13% at 1 year. The percentage of black patients treated at baseline with sacubitril/valsartan was also low at 18% and remained unchanged at 1 year. After adjustment for covariates, race was independently associated with HYD/NIT use (odds ratio 8.32; 95% confidence interval 6.12 to 11.3; p < 0.0001), but not for sacubitril/valsartan. In conclusion, study findings demonstrate a marked persistent treatment gap for HYD/NIT and similar poor utilization of sacubitril/valsartan in black patients with HFrEF despite current guideline recommendations.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA