Contemporary clinical role of echocardiography in patients with advanced heart failure.

Echocardiography represents an essential tool for imagers and clinical cardiologists in the management of patients with heart failure. Advanced heart failure (AdHF) is a more severe and, typically, later stage of HF that exposes patients to a high risk of adverse outcomes, with a 1-year mortality rate of around 50%. Currently, several therapies are available to improve the outcomes of these patients, reduce their mortality rate, and, possibly, delay the need for advanced therapies such as heart transplant and long-term mechanical circulatory support. When accurately performed and interpreted, echocardiography provides crucial information to properly tailor medical and device therapy of patients with AdHF and to identify those at even higher risk. In this review, we present the state of the art of echocardiography applications in the clinical management of patients with AdHF. We will discuss the role of echocardiography chronologically, beginning with the prediction of AdHF, proceeding through diagnosis, and detailing how echocardiography informs clinical decision-making, before concluding with indications for advanced therapies.

Mid-term survival after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device versus heart transplantation.

There is a paucity of data about mid-term outcome of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) treated with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in Europe, where donor shortage and their aging limit the availability and the probability of success of heart transplantation (HTx). The aim of this study is to compare Italian single-centre mid-term outcome in prospective patients treated with LVAD vs. HTx. We evaluated 213 consecutive patients with advanced HF who underwent continuous-flow LVAD implant or HTx from 1/2006 to 2/2012, with complete follow-up at 1 year (3/2013). We compared outcome in patients who received a LVAD (n = 49) with those who underwent HTx (n = 164) and in matched groups of 39 LVAD and 39 HTx patients. Patients that were treated with LVAD had a worse risk profile in comparison with HTx patients. Kaplan-Meier survival curves estimated a one-year survival of 75.5 % in LVAD vs. 82.3 % in HTx patients, a difference that was non-statistically significant [hazard ratio (HR) 1.46; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.74-2.86; p = 0.27 for LVAD vs. HTx]. After group matching 1-year survival was similar between LVAD (76.9 %) and HTx (79.5 %; HR 1.15; 95 % CI 0.44-2.98; p = 0.78). Concordant data was observed at 2-year follow-up. Patients treated with LVAD as bridge-to-transplant indication (n = 22) showed a non significant better outcome compared with HTx with a 95.5 and 90.9 % survival, at 1- and 2-year follow-up, respectively. Despite worse preoperative conditions, survival is not significantly lower after LVAD than after HTx at 2-year follow-up. Given the scarce number of donors for HTx, LVAD therapy represents a valid option, potentially affecting the current allocation strategy of heart donors also in Europe.

SGLT2 inhibitor therapy in patients with advanced heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: Sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors (SGLT2-i) improve outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, evidence in patients with advanced HF is lacking. We aimed to determine the effect of SGLT2-i in advanced HFrEF compared to their effect on a non-advanced population. METHODS: Consecutive HFrEF outpatients who started SGLT2-i were observed for 6-months. Patients were categorized as having advanced or non-advanced HFrEF. The primary outcome was the trend of NTproBNP in the two groups. Secondary outcomes included changes in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and ejection fraction (LVEF). The association between advanced HF diagnosis and including N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP) reduction was tested using multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 105 patients (45 advanced, 60 non-advanced) were included. Mean age was 56 ± 10 years, 22 % were female, and 35 % had ischemic heart disease. Median NTproBNP at baseline for advanced and non-advanced patients was 1672pg/ml (IQR 520-3320) vs. 481 pg/ml (IQR 173-917), respectively (p < 0.001). At follow-up, only non-advanced patients reduced their NTproBNP (-32 % (95 % CI -51 to -3), p < 0.001), while advanced patients had an increase in NTproBNP. LVEF and NYHA class improved only in non-advanced patients. GFR was stable in both subgroups. At multivariate analysis a diagnosis of advanced HF was independently associated with a reduced probability of NTproBNP reduction (OR 0.041 (95 % CI 0.002-0.752), p = 0.031). Only one patient discontinued the drug due to side effects. CONCLUSION: In advanced HFrEF, SGLT2-i do not impact on NTproBNP, LVEF or NYHA class but are well tolerated.

A prospective comparison of mid-term outcomes in patients treated with heart transplantation with advanced age donors versus left ventricular assist device implantation.

OBJECTIVES: In Europe, the age of heart donors is constantly increasing. Ageing of heart donors limits the probability of success of heart transplantation (HTx). The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) treated with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) with indication as bridge to transplantation (BTT) or bridge to candidacy (BTC) versus recipients of HTx with the donor's age above 55 years (HTx with donors >55 years). METHODS: we prospectively evaluated 301 consecutive patients with advanced HF treated with a CF-LVAD (n = 83) or HTx without prior bridging (n = 218) in our hospital from January 2006 to January 2015. We compared the outcome of CF-LVAD-BTT (n = 37) versus HTx with donors >55 years (n = 45) and the outcome of CF-LVAD-BTT plus BTC (n = 62) versus HTx with donors >55 years at the 1- and 2-year follow-up. Survival was evaluated according to the first operation. RESULTS: The perioperative (30-day) mortality rate was 0% in the LVAD-BTT group vs 20% (n = 9) in the HTx group with donors >55 years (P = 0.003). Perioperative mortality occurred in 5% of the LVAD-BTT/BTC patients (n = 3) and in 20% of the HTx with donors >55 year group (P = 0.026). Kaplan-Meier curves estimated a 2-year survival rate of 94.6% in CF-LVAD-BTT vs 68.9% in HTx with donors >55 years [age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.81; P = 0.02 in favour of CF-LVAD]. Considering the post-HTx outcome, a trend in favour of CF-LVAD-BTT was also observed (age- and sex-adjusted HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.17-1.16; P = 0.09 in favour of CF-LVAD), whereas CF-LVAD-BTT/BTC showed a similar survival at 2 years compared with HTx with donors >55 years, both censoring the follow-up at the time of HTx and considering the post-HTx outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Early and mid-term outcomes of patients treated with a CF-LVAD with BTT indication seem better than HTx with old donors. It must be emphasized that up to 19% of patients in the CF-LVAD/BTT group underwent transplantation in an urgent condition due to complications related to the LVAD. At the 2-year follow-up, CF-LVAD with BTT and BTC indications have similar outcome than HTx using old heart donors. These results must be confirmed in a larger and multicentre population and extending the follow-up.