Impact of ß-blocker therapy on right ventricular function in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction. A prospective evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blocker (ß-blocker) therapy has been shown to improve mortality and reduce hospitalizations in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Although the physiological action mechanisms of ß-blockers are well described, their effects on right ventricular (RV) function have not been prospectively studied. OBJECTIVE: This prospective study aimed to (a) evaluate whether ß-blocker therapy impacts RV remodeling based on echo parameters and (b) determine the predictive echo factors of ß-blocker therapy response. METHODS: From September 2017 to September 2018, HF patients were prospectively enrolled using CIBIS criteria: Class II, III, or IV HF; left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤40%; hospitalized for HF within the previous 12 months. Echo evaluation was performed before initiating ß-blocker therapy and 3 months after optimal dose adjustment. Based on previous studies, patients with (absolute) LVEF ≥ 5% improvement were considered significant ß-blocker therapy responders. RESULTS: Overall, 40 patients (pts) completed the study, characterized as follows by age: 70 ± 10 years; gender: 10 women; cardiomyopathy etiology: idiopathic in 24 and ischemic in 16; NYHA Class: II in 22 and III in 10; LVEF: 32 ± 5%; and NTProBNP: 2665 ± 2400 pg/mL. The final population comprised 32 pts (79%), with eight (21%) excluded: two because of ß-blocker therapy intolerance, one lost to follow-up, and five withdrew from the study. Under ß-blocker therapy, several echo parameters significantly improved: LVEF from 31.7 ± 9 to 40.5 ± 9 (P < .0001); LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) from 154 ± 54 to 143 ± 45 mL (P = .06); LV end-systolic volume (ESV) from 107 ± 49 to 88 ± 37 mL (P = .0006); LV ES from 46 ± 11 to 64 ± 13 mL (P = .008); LV end-diastolic diameter (EDD) from 57 ± 9 to 54 ± 6 mm (P = .04); LV end-systolic diameter (ESD) from 48 ± 10 to 44 ± 7 mm (P = .007); and right ventricular systolic pressure (RV SP) from 39 ± 10 to 32 ± 8 mm Hg (P = .0001). Significant modifications were observed in terms of RV echo parameters: right ventricular (RV) size decreased from 30 ± 4 to 27 ± 5 mm (P = .03), while RV systolic function significantly improved based on tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (16.5 ± 4 vs. 19 ± 4 mm; 0.0006); DTI-derived tricuspid lateral annular systolic velocity wave (S') (10 ± 2 vs. 11.3 ± 3 cm/s; P = .03); and RIMP (Tei index) (0.5 ± 0.1 vs 0.46 ± 0.1; P = .04). RV 2D fractional area change (%) did not significantly differ despite a clear improvement tendency (35 ± 6 vs. 37 ± 4%; P = .1). No significant modifications were observed concerning LV diastolic parameters. Overall, ß-blocker echo responders (n = 23/32; 72%) exhibited the same left and right echo parameters. No echo variables predicted the ß-blocker response. CONCLUSIONS: In HFrEF pts, ß-blocker therapy significantly improves LV and RV systolic remodeling. Accordingly, ß-blocker therapy could be applied as soon as possible in HFrEF patients with right ventricular dysfunction so as to limit RV remodeling.

Optimizing heart failure pathways to enhance patient care: the Program to Optimize Heart Failure Patient Pathways (PRO-HF).

AIMS: Many European healthcare providers struggle to adopt multidisciplinary, integrated care pathways for people with heart failure (HF) as recommended by the European Society of Cardiology. PRO-HF (Program to Optimize Heart Failure Patient Pathways) was developed to help clinicians identify strengths, gaps, and shortcomings in their HF pathways and support tailored interventions to optimize pathways and enhance patient care. We report initial findings from baseline assessments of HF pathway characteristics and challenges from 10 hospitals in six European countries (France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, The Netherlands, and United Kingdom). METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline assessments were holistic appraisals of full HF services to calibrate current status and development needs and assist management teams in prioritizing improvement projects. Assessments were performed using a comprehensive checklist of measures covering the HF patient journey from diagnosis to ongoing follow-up. These included a digital survey sent to full HF care teams and one-to-one interviews. The digital survey focused on four key areas (HF outpatient clinic; remote patient management; efficient device implantation and inpatient pathways; and network maximization) and 16 dimensions of excellence. Priority areas and themes for action identified in baseline assessments were (i) provision of HF specialist care; (ii) data capture and analysis; (iii) institutional care protocols; (iv) hospital-wide strategies; and (v) multidisciplinary teams (MDTs). Suboptimal specialist care of emergency inpatients was an issue at all hospitals and prioritized at 8/10. Availability and accessibility of data on patients, activities, and outcomes was an issue at all hospitals and prioritized by 4/10. A lack of clear protocols, templates, and tools for some HF activities created variability in patient care (e.g., HF specialist consultations, diagnostic testing, follow-up appointments, medications, and device eligibility) and inefficient use of clinician time. This made it difficult to initiate new technologies (e.g., remote patient monitoring) due to the risk of overburdening staff. MDTs were frequently understaffed. Multiple interventions were identified to address gaps and shortcomings that could be tailored to specific needs of individual hospitals (e.g., inpatient pathway optimization, creation/optimization of HF outpatient clinics, development of an HF performance dashboard, enhancement of protocol adherence, streamlining cardiac resynchronisation therapy pathways, and MDT coordination). CONCLUSIONS: PRO-HF provides a valuable opportunity to identify gaps and significant shortcomings in HF pathways in European hospitals. Preliminary findings from hospitals that have initiated suggested changes to address these challenges are encouraging, though longer-term follow-up from more hospitals is needed to confirm the impact of PRO-HF on HF pathway optimization and patient care.

Impact of sacubitril/valsartan on echo parameters in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction a prospective evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan has been shown to improve mortality and reduce hospitalizations in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Although the physiological action mechanisms of sacubitril/valsartan are well described, its effects on left ventricular (LV) remodelling and other echocardiographic (echo) parameters have not been prospectively studied. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study was to: McMurray et al. (2012) [1] evaluate if sacubitril/valsartan impacts LV remodelling based on echo parameters; Ponikowski et al. (2016) [2] identify the predictive factors of sacubitril/valsartan response or intolerance. METHODS: From May 2017 to September 2018, 52 HF patients were prospectively enrolled using PARADIGM-HF criteria: Class II, III, or IV HF; ejection fraction (EF) of 40% or less; hospitalized for HF within the previous 12 months. Echo evaluation was performed before initiating sacubitril/valsartan and 3 months after optimal dose adjustment. Based on previous studies, patients with (absolute) improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 5% were considered significant sacubitril/valsartan responders. RESULTS: The 52 patients completing the study were characterized by age: 70 ±â€¯10 years; gender: 11women; aetiology: idiopathic in 20 and ischaemic in 32; NYHA Class: II in 17 and III in 35; LVEF: 32 ±â€¯5%; NTProBNP: 1805 ±â€¯1914 pg/mL. The final population comprised 41 pts (79%), as 11 (21%) did not tolerate sacubitril/valsartan therapy. Under sacubitril/valsartan, several echo parameters significantly improved: LVEF from 32.6 ±â€¯5 to 36 ±â€¯6% (p < 0.0001); LVES volume from 117 ±â€¯40 to 108 ±â€¯46 mL (p = 0.0051); SEV from 59 ±â€¯12 to 64 ±â€¯13 (p = 0.0061); LVEDD from 60 ±â€¯4 to 57 ±â€¯5 mm (p = 0.0002); mean right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) from 39 ±â€¯10 to 32 ±â€¯8 (p = 0.0001). No significant modifications were observed concerning LV diastolic parameters or RV echo parameters. Sacubitril/valsartan echo responders (n = 18/41; 42%) had less severe LV remodelling, as shown by LVEDV: 144 ±â€¯37 vs. 193 ±â€¯47 mL, p = 0.0009; LVESV: 96 ±â€¯28 vs. 133 ±â€¯42 mL; p = 0.003; LVTDD: 61 ±â€¯4 vs. 57 ±â€¯5 mm; p = 0.02; significant mitral regurgitation: 6/18 (33%) vs. 16/23 (69%), p = 0.02; no diastolic LV or RV parameters impacted sacubitril/valsartan response. Predictors of sacubitril/valsartan intolerance were baseline creatinine level: 137 ±â€¯99 vs. 100 ±â€¯24, p = 0.03; LVEF: 29 ±â€¯6 vs. 33 ±â€¯5%; p = 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: In HFrEF patients, sacubitril/valsartan significantly improves LV systolic remodelling, without any significant effects on LV diastolic or RV systolic echo parameters. Sacubitril/valsartan responders exhibit both less severe LV remodelling and less significant mitral regurgitation. Accordingly, sacubitril/valsartan could be used as soon as possible in HFrEF patients in order to limit LV remodelling, while precluding non-response or intolerance.