Framework of the Strengths and Challenges of Clinically Integrated Trials: An Expert Panel Report.

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

Transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy among patients hospitalized for heart failure and performance of an adapted wild-type ATTR-CM machine learning model: Findings from GWTG-HF.

BACKGROUND: An 11-factor random forest model has been developed among ambulatory heart failure (HF) patients for identifying potential wild-type amyloidogenic TTR cardiomyopathy (wtATTR-CM). The model has not been evaluated in a large sample of patients hospitalized for HF. METHODS: This study included Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years hospitalized for HF in the Get With The Guidelines-HF® Registry from 2008-2019. Patients with and without a diagnosis of ATTR-CM were compared, as defined by inpatient and outpatient claims data within 6 months pre- or post-index hospitalization. Within a cohort matched 1:1 by age and sex, univariable logistic regression was used to evaluate relationships between ATTR-CM and each of the 11 factors of the established model. Discrimination and calibration of the 11-factor model were assessed. RESULTS: Among 205,545 patients (median age 81 years) hospitalized for HF across 608 hospitals, 627 patients (0.31%) had a diagnosis code for ATTR-CM. Univariable analysis within the 1:1 matched cohort of each of the 11-factors in the ATTR-CM model found pericardial effusion, carpal tunnel syndrome, lumbar spinal stenosis, and elevated serum enzymes (e.g., troponin elevation) to be strongly associated with ATTR-CM. The 11-factor model showed modest discrimination (c-statistic 0.65) and good calibration within the matched cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Among US patients hospitalized for HF, the number of patients with ATTR-CM defined by diagnosis codes on an inpatient/outpatient claim within 6 months of admission was low. Most factors within the prior 11-factor model were associated with greater odds of ATTR-CM diagnosis. In this population, the ATTR-CM model demonstrated modest discrimination.

Patient-reported and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure With Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Differences between patients hospitalized for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) vs HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) are not well-characterized, particularly as pertains to in-hospital decongestion and longitudinal patient-reported outcomes. The objective of this analysis was to compare patient-reported and clinical outcomes between patients hospitalized with HFrEF vs HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure (ASCEND-HF) trial enrolled 7141 patients hospitalized for HF with reduced or preserved EF. We assessed the association between an EF ≤ 40% vs an EF >40% with in-hospital decongestion, risk of rehospitalization and mortality, and quality of life as measured by the EuroQOL 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D). Among 5800 patients (81%) with complete EF data, 4782 (82%) had an EF ≤40% and 1018 (18%) had an EF >40%. Both groups demonstrated similar rates of decongestion by weight change and urine volume through 24 hours, a similar risk of 30-day mortality and HF rehospitalization, and a similar 180-day mortality. Patients with HFpEF had worse EQ-5D scores at hour 24 (median 0.76, [interquartile range (IQR) 0.51-0.84] vs 0.78 [IQR 0.57-0.84]; P = .01) that persisted through discharge (0.81 [IQR 0.69-0.86] vs 0.83 [IQR 0.71-1.00]; P < .001) and the 30-day follow-up (0.78 [IQR 0.60-0.85] vs 0.83 [IQR 0.71-1.00]; P < .001). After adjustment, these differences were attenuated and not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multinational cohort of patients hospitalized for HF, patients with an EF ≤ 40% vs an EF >40% experienced similar in-hospital decongestion and postdischarge clinical outcomes. Patients with an EF >40% reported worse in-hospital and postdischarge patient-reported health status, but these measures were similar to HFrEF after accounting for other clinical factors.

Comparative Analysis of Established Risk Scores and Novel Hemodynamic Metrics in Predicting Right Ventricular Failure in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular failure (RVF) portends poor outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Although numerous RVF predictive models have been developed, there are few independent comparative analyses of these risk models. METHODS AND RESULTS: RVF was defined as use of inotropes for >14 days, inhaled pulmonary vasodilators for >48 hours or unplanned right ventricular mechanical support postoperatively during the index hospitalization. Risk models were evaluated for the primary outcome of RVF by means of logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves. Among 93 LVAD patients with complete data from 2011 to 2016, the Michigan RVF score (C = 0.74 [95% CI 0.61-0.87]; P = .0004) was the only risk model to demonstrate significant discrimination for RVF, compared with newer risk scores (Utah, Pitt, EuroMACS). Among individual hemodynamic/echocardiographic metrics, preoperative right ventricular dysfunction (C = 0.72 [95% CI 0.58-0.85]; P = .0022) also demonstrated significant discrimination of RVF. The Michigan RVF score was also the best predictor of in-hospital mortality (C = 0.67 [95% CI 0.52-0.83]; P = .0319) and 3-year survival (Kaplan-Meier log-rank 0.0135). CONCLUSIONS: In external validation analysis, the more established Michigan RVF score-which emphasizes preoperative hemodynamic instability and target end-organ dysfunction-performed best, albeit modestly, in predicting RVF and demonstrated association with in-hospital and long-term mortality.

Implications of trial eligibility in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Clinical trials in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF) commonly have detailed eligibility criteria. This may contribute to challenges with efficient enrolment and questions regarding the generalizability of trial findings. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF from a large US healthcare system were identified through a computable phenotype applied in linked imaging and electronic health record databases. We evaluated shared eligibility criteria from five recent/ongoing HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (PARAGON-HF, EMPEROR-Preserved, DELIVER, FINE-ARTS, and SPIRRIT-HFpEF) and compared clinical and echocardiographic features as well as outcomes between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible patients. Among 5552 patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF, 792 (14%) were eligible for trial consideration, having met all criteria assessed. Causes of ineligibility included lack of recent loop diuretics (37%), significant pulmonary disease (24%), reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (17%), recent stroke/transient ischaemic attack (13%), or low natriuretic peptides (12%); 53% of ineligible patients had >1 reason for exclusion. Compared with eligible patients, ineligible patients were younger (age 71 vs. 75 years, P < 0.001) with higher rates of coronary artery disease (66% vs. 59%, P < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (40% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), but less mitral regurgitation, lower E/e' ratio, and smaller left atrial sizes. Both eligible and ineligible patients demonstrated high rates of structural heart disease consistent with HFpEF [elevated left atrial size or left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy/increased LV mass], although this was slightly higher among eligible patients (95% vs. 92%, P = 0.001). The two cohorts demonstrated similar LV global longitudinal strain along with a similar prevalence of atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and obesity. Ineligible patients had similar all-cause mortality (33% vs. 33% at 3 years) to those eligible but lower rates of heart failure hospitalization (20% vs. 28% at 3 years, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF from a large health system, approximately one in seven were eligible for major trials based on key criteria applied through a clinical computable phenotype. These findings highlight the large proportion of patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF ineligible for contemporary trials for whom the generalizability of trial findings may be questioned and further investigation would be beneficial.

Continuous Monitoring of Heart Rate Variability and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.

While heart rate variability (HRV) is an established marker of cardiovascular health, the extent to which continuously measured HRV changes over time and the relationship between these changes and clinical outcomes are less clear. We performed a health system analysis of 225 patients implanted with a cardiac defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization device (CRT) with continuous HRV recording capabilities. We found that continuously measured HRV changed modestly over 2 years. Low baseline HRV, which is associated with low parasympathetic tone and/or increases in sympathetic tone, pertains a worse clinical prognosis as reflected by a significant association with all-cause hospitalization. Observed changes in HRV over 6-months of follow-up were not associated with subsequent outcomes.

Echocardiographic Features Beyond Ejection Fraction and Associated Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to classify patients and guide therapy implementation. However, LVEF alone may be insufficient to adequately characterize patients with HF, especially those with mildly reduced or preserved LVEF. Recommendations on additional testing are lacking, and there are limited data on use of echocardiographic features beyond LVEF in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved LVEF. METHODS: In patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved LVEF identified in a large US health care system, the association of the following metrics with mortality was evaluated: LV global longitudinal strain (LV GLS>-16), left atrial volume index (>28 mL/m2), left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), and E/e´>13 and e´<9. A multivariable model for mortality was constructed including age, sex, and key comorbidities followed by stepwise selection of echocardiographic features. Characteristics and outcomes of subgroups with normal versus abnormal LV GLS and LVEF were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 2337 patients with complete echocardiographic data assessed between 2017 and 2020, the following features were associated with all-cause mortality on univariate analysis over 3 years of follow-up: E/e´+e´, LV GLS, left atrial volume index (all P<0.01). In the multivariable model (C-index=0.65), only abnormal LV GLS was independently associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.11-1.63]; P=0.002). Among patients with LVEF>55%, 498/1255 (40%) demonstrated abnormal LV GLS. Regardless of specific LVEF, patients with abnormal LV GLS demonstrated a higher burden of multiple comorbidities and higher event rates compared with patients with normal LV GLS. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, real-world HF with mildly reduced or preserved LVEF population, echocardiographic features, led by LV GLS, were associated with adverse outcomes irrespective of LVEF. A large proportion of patients demonstrate adverse myocardial function by LV GLS despite preserved LVEF and may represent a key cohort of interest for HF medical therapies and future clinical studies.

Phenomapping in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: insights, limitations, and future directions.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous entity with complex pathophysiology and manifestations. Phenomapping is the process of applying statistical learning techniques to patient data to identify distinct subgroups based on patterns in the data. Phenomapping has emerged as a technique with potential to improve the understanding of different HFpEF phenotypes. Phenomapping efforts have been increasing in HFpEF over the past several years using a variety of data sources, clinical variables, and statistical techniques. This review summarizes methodologies and key takeaways from these studies, including consistent discriminating factors and conserved HFpEF phenotypes. We argue that phenomapping results to date have had limited implications for clinical care and clinical trials, given that the phenotypes, as currently described, are not reliably identified in each study population and may have significant overlap. We review the inherent limitations of aggregating and utilizing phenomapping results. Lastly, we discuss potential future directions, including using phenomapping to optimize the likelihood of clinical trial success or to drive discovery in mechanisms of the disease process of HFpEF.

Quality of Care and Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure in Rural vs Urban US Hospitals: The Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry.

Importance: Prior studies have suggested patients with heart failure (HF) from rural areas have worse clinical outcomes. Contemporary differences between rural and urban hospitals in quality of care and clinical outcomes for patients hospitalized for HF remain poorly understood. Objective: To assess quality of care and clinical outcomes for US patients hospitalized for HF at rural vs urban hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 774 419 patients hospitalized for HF across 569 sites in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2021. Postdischarge outcomes were assessed in a subset of 161 996 patients linked to Medicare claims. Data were analyzed from August 2022 to January 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: GWTG-HF quality measures, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and 30-day mortality and readmission outcomes. Results: This study included 19 832 patients (2.6%) and 754 587 patients (97.4%) hospitalized at 49 rural hospitals (8.6%) and 520 urban hospitals (91.4%), respectively. Of 774 419 included patients, 366 161 (47.3%) were female, and the median (IQR) age was 73 (62-83) years. Compared with patients at urban hospitals, patients at rural hospitals were older (median [IQR] age, 74 [64-84] years vs 73 [61-83] years; standardized difference, 10.63) and more likely to be non-Hispanic White (14 572 [73.5%] vs 498 950 [66.1%]; standardized difference, 34.47). In adjusted models, patients at rural hospitals were less likely to be prescribed cardiac resynchronization therapy (adjusted risk difference [aRD], -13.5%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.92), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (aRD, -3.7%; aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.96), and an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (aRD, -5.0%; aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.98) at discharge. In-hospital mortality was similar between rural and urban hospitals (460 of 19 832 [2.3%] vs 20 529 of 754 587 [2.7%]; aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70-1.07). Patients at rural hospitals were less likely to have a length of stay of 4 or more days (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.85). Among Medicare beneficiaries, there were no significant differences between rural and urban hospitals in 30-day HF readmission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.90-1.19), all-cause readmission (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.04), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.91-1.21). Conclusions and Relevance: In this large contemporary cohort of US patients hospitalized for HF, care at rural hospitals was independently associated with lower use of some guideline-recommended therapies at discharge and shorter length of stay. In-hospital mortality and 30-day postdischarge outcomes were similar at rural and urban hospitals.

Proteomic Pathways across Ejection Fraction Spectrum in Heart Failure: an EXSCEL Substudy.

Background: Ejection fraction (EF) is a key component of heart failure (HF) classification, including the increasingly codified HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF) category. However, the biologic basis of HFmrEF as an entity distinct from HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) and reduced EF (HFrEF) has not been well characterized. Methods: The EXSCEL trial randomized participants with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) to once-weekly exenatide (EQW) vs. placebo. For this study, profiling of ∼5000 proteins using the SomaLogic SomaScan platform was performed in baseline and 12-month serum samples from N=1199 participants with prevalent HF at baseline. Principal component analysis (PCA) and ANOVA (FDR p<0.1) were used to determine differences in proteins between three EF groups, as previously curated in EXSCEL (EF>55% [HFpEF], EF 40-55% [HFmrEF], EF<40% [HFrEF]). Cox proportional hazards was used to assess association between baseline levels of significant proteins, and changes in protein level between baseline and 12-month, with time-to-HF hospitalization. Mixed models were used to assess whether significant proteins changed differentially with exenatide vs. placebo therapy. Results: Of N=1199 EXSCEL participants with prevalent HF, 284 (24%), 704 (59%) and 211 (18%) had HFpEF, HFmrEF and HFrEF, respectively. Eight PCA protein factors and 221 individual proteins within these factors differed significantly across the three EF groups. Levels of the majority of proteins (83%) demonstrated concordance between HFmrEF and HFpEF, but higher levels in HFrEF, predominated by the domain of extracellular matrix regulation, e.g. COL28A1 and tenascin C [TNC]; p<0.0001. Concordance between HFmrEF and HFrEF was observed in a minority of proteins (1%) including MMP-9 (p<0.0001). Biologic pathways of epithelial mesenchymal transition, ECM receptor interaction, complement and coagulation cascades, and cytokine receptor interaction demonstrated enrichment among proteins with the dominant pattern, i.e. HFmrEF-HFpEF concordance. Baseline levels of 208 (94%) of the 221 proteins were associated with time-to-incident HF hospitalization including domains of extracellular matrix (COL28A1, TNC), angiogenesis (ANG2, VEGFa, VEGFd), myocyte stretch (NT-proBNP), and renal function (cystatin-C). Change in levels of 10 of the 221 proteins from baseline to 12 months (including increase in TNC) predicted incident HF hospitalization (p<0.05). Levels of 30 of the 221 significant proteins (including TNC, NT-proBNP, ANG2) were reduced differentially by EQW compared with placebo (interaction p<0.0001). Conclusions: In this HF substudy of a large clinical trial of people with T2DM, we found that serum levels of most proteins across multiple biologic domains were similar between HFmrEF and HFpEF. HFmrEF may be more biologically similar to HFpEF than HFrEF, and specific related biomarkers may offer unique data on prognosis and pharmacotherapy modification with variability by EF.

Pharmacologic Therapy for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

The management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is rapidly evolving. The pharmacologic treatment of patients with HFpEF includes symptom management with diuretics and optimization of comorbidities, including hypertension, obesity, diabetes mellitus, and atrial fibrillation. Specific therapies, including angiotensin II receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, are well tolerated and can reduce the risk of HF hospitalization, particularly in those on the lower end of the HFpEF left ventricular ejection fraction spectrum. Ongoing trials should continue to inform optimal therapy in this evolving field.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Suspected Digoxin Toxicity and Immune Fab Treatment Over the Past Two Decades-2000-2020.

The role of digoxin in clinical practice has narrowed over time. Data on digoxin toxicity trends and outcomes are variable and lack granularity for treatment outcomes. This study aimed to address data gaps in digoxin toxicity trends and outcomes in patients treated with or without digoxin immune fab (DIF). This single-center analysis examined patients with signs/symptoms concerning digoxin toxicity, defined as hospital admission or emergency department visit with elevated digoxin serum concentrations (>2 ng/ml) and/or a primary diagnosis code of digoxin toxicity and/or DIF order. Between 2000 and 2020, 727 patients were identified with signs concerning for digoxin toxicity with a mortality rate of 12.7% during admission and 42.7% at 1 year. DIF was ordered in 9% of cases. Incidence of digoxin toxicity per 1,000 patients with a digoxin prescription and frequency of DIF treatment fluctuated over time without a clear trend toward increase or reduction. DIF-treated patients demonstrated a heavier co-morbidity burden and lower presenting heart rates (median 53 [39.5 to 69.5] vs 77 [64.0 to 91.5] beats/min, p <0.001), worse renal function (median estimated glomerular filtration rate, 30.3 [14.8 to 48.6] vs 40.0 [24.2 to 61.2] ml/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.013), and higher potassium (median 4.5 [4.0 to 5.3] vs 4.3 [3.9 to 4.8] mEq/L, p = 0.022). Compared with a matched cohort, DIF-treated patients experienced a nonsignificant, numerically lower in-hospital mortality (8.2% vs 15.8%, p = 0.199) and 30-day all-cause hospitalization (14.3% vs 24.7%, p = 0.112) and similar 6-month and 1-year hospitalization and mortality. In conclusion, digoxin toxicity remains a pertinent public health issue despite reduction in digoxin utilization. DIF therapy is used in a medically complex population with a high-acuity illness at presentation and is associated with nonsignificant trends toward reduced in-hospital mortality and early readmission that are attenuated over time.

An evaluation of torsemide in patients with heart failure and renal disease.

INTRODUCTION: Torsemide is a loop diuretic that inhibits the Na+/K+/2Cl- cotransporter type 2 in the thick ascending loop of Henle, leading to increased excretion of urinary sodium and chloride and associated diuresis. While furosemide remains the dominant diuretic utilized in current practice, increasing evidence supports potential advantages of torsemide in heart failure (HF) and/or renal disease. AREAS COVERED: This narrative review covers the evidence for use of torsemide in HF and renal disease. Comparative effectiveness with regards to clinical outcomes is reviewed, as well as the ongoing multicenter trial, TRANSFORM-HF, comparing the effect of torsemide versus furosemide among patients with HF. EXPERT OPINION: Compared with furosemide, torsemide has favorable pharmacodynamics/pharmacokinetics including higher bioavailability, longer duration of effect, minor renal excretion, decreased kaliuresis, and enhanced natriuresis/diuresis. These properties may be further supported by differential effects on RAAS regulation and fibrosis modulation as compared with other diuretics. The limited current body of evidence indicates that torsemide may be superior to furosemide with respect to improving HF functional status and reducing HF hospitalization, and there are mixed data regarding effect on reducing overall cardiovascular hospitalizations/mortality. Further, randomized data are necessary to definitively determine if torsemide can reduce risk of mortality and hospitalization among patients with HF.

A multicenter program for electronic health record screening for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Lessons from the DELIVER-EHR initiative.

Efficiency in clinical trial recruitment and enrollment remains a major challenge in many areas of clinical medicine. In particular, despite the prevalence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), identifying patients with HFpEF for clinical trials has proven to be especially challenging. In this manuscript, we review strategies for contemporary clinical trial recruitment and present insights from the results of the DELIVER Electronic Health Record (EHR) Screening Initiative. The DELIVER trial was designed to evaluate the effects of dapagliflozin on clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF. Within this trial, the multicenter DELIVER EHR Screening Initiative utilized EHR-based techniques in order to improve recruitment at selected sites in the United States. For this initiative, we developed and deployed a computable phenotype from the trial's eligibility criteria along with additional EHR tools at interested sites. Sites were then surveyed at the end of the program regarding lessons learned. Six sites were recruited, trained, and supported to utilize the EHR methodology and computable phenotype. Sites found the initiative to be helpful in identifying eligible patients and cited the individualized expert technical support as a critical factor in utilizing the program effectively. We found that the major challenge of implementation was the process of converting traditional inclusion/exclusion criteria into a computable phenotype within an established and ongoing trial. Other significant challenges noted by sites were the following: impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, engagement/support by local institutions, and limited availability of internal EHR experts/resources to execute programming. The study represents a proof-of-concept in the ability to utilize EHR-based tools in clinical trial recruitment for patients with HFpEF and provides important lessons for future initiatives. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03619213.

Obesity Status and Physical Rehabilitation in Older Patients Hospitalized With Acute HF: Insights From REHAB-HF.

BACKGROUND: In the REHAB-HF (Rehabilitation Therapy in Older Acute Heart Failure Patients) trial, a novel, early, transitional, multidomain rehabilitation intervention improved physical function, frailty, quality of life (QOL), and depression in older patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), but the potential impact of baseline obesity on this intervention has not been studied. OBJECTIVES: This study assessed for treatment interactions by body mass index (BMI) subgroups for a novel rehabilitation intervention in ADHF. METHODS: Three-month outcomes including Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) (primary outcome), 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) were assessed by baseline BMI (≥30 kg/m2 vs <30 kg/m2). Six-month end points included all-cause rehospitalization and death. All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, clinical site, and ejection fraction category, and 3-month outcomes were also adjusted for baseline measure. The prespecified significance level for treatment interaction by BMI category was P ≤ 0.10. RESULTS: Of 349 trial participants, 204 (58%) had BMI ≥30 kg/m2 and 145 (42%) <30 kg/m2. Compared with patients with BMI <30 kg/m2, participants with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 were younger (age 71 ± 7 years vs 75 ± 9 years), more frequently women (57% vs 46%), and had significantly worse baseline physical function and QOL. Although interaction P values for 3-month outcomes by BMI were not significant (interaction P > 0.15 for overall measures), adjusted SPPB effect sizes were nominally larger for participants with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 compared with those with BMI <30 kg/m2: +1.7 (95% CI: 0.8-2.7) vs +1.1 (95% CI: -0.1 to 2.2). This difference in SPPB effect size was due largely to improvements in the balance component of the SPPB for participants with BMI ≥30 kg/m2: +0.6 (95% CI: 0.2-1.0) vs 0.0 (-0.6 to 0.5) for those with BMI <30 kg/m2 (interaction P = 0.02). In contrast, adjusted 6MWD and KCCQ effect sizes were smaller for participants with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 compared with those with BMI <30 kg/m2: +21 meters (-17 to 59) vs +53 meters (6-100), and +5.0 (-4 to 14) vs +11 (-0.5 to 22), respectively. There was no significant interaction by BMI for 6-month clinical outcomes (all interaction P > 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with ADHF benefit from the rehabilitation therapy regardless of BMI. Benefits for patients with obesity may be more evident in the multidomain measure of physical function (SPPB), compared with the 6MWD or KCCQ, which may be driven, in part, by the unique aspects of the novel rehabilitation intervention. (A Trial of Rehabilitation Therapy in Older Acute Heart Failure Patients [REHAB-HF]; NCT02196038).

Circulating fibrocyte levels correlate with infarct size in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Infarct size is a strong predictor of outcomes after ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Circulating fibrocytes are bone marrow-derived progenitor cells associated with fibrotic processes. We tested whether fibrocytes correlate with infarct size in STEMI patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects with STEMI treated with primary PCI. INTERVENTIONS: Peripheral blood draw and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Correlation of fibrocyte levels with infarct size. METHODS: Peripheral blood fibrocytes were quantified at discharge from STEMI hospitalization and at 6 months follow-up using flow cytometry. Infarct size was determined within 2 weeks of discharge and at 6 months follow-up using late gadolinium enhancement on CMR. RESULTS: Among 14 patients (median age 54 years, 79% men) with STEMI, there was a statistically significant positive correlation between fibrocyte levels at 6 months and 6-month infarct size on CMR (r = 0.58, p = 0.031). In addition, there was positive correlation between peak troponin I level (r = 0.85, p < 0.001), and white blood cell count (r = 0.55, p = 0.042) during the hospital stay and 6-month infarct size on CMR. CONCLUSIONS: Circulating fibrocytes measured 6 months after STEMI positively correlate with 6-month infarct size assessed by CMR.

Association of liver fibrosis risk scores with clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: findings from TOPCAT.

AIMS: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease leads to progressive liver fibrosis and appears to be a frequent co-morbid disease in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). It is well known that liver fibrosis severity predicts future liver-related morbidity and mortality, but its impact on outcomes in patients with HFpEF remains unknown. This analysis aimed to describe the prevalence of liver fibrosis, as assessed using surrogate biomarkers, in patients with HFpEF and the association of such biomarkers in predicting clinical outcomes in these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFpEF from TOPCAT Americas were included in the analysis. The non-alcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score (NFS) and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) scores were calculated using a combination of clinical characteristics and laboratory parameters. Risk of advanced fibrosis was classified as low, intermediate, and high. For the 1423 with sufficient data, we used Cox regression analysis to test the association between the risk of fibrosis severity and the combined primary endpoint of all cardiovascular death, aborted cardiac arrest, and hospitalization for heart failure. Advanced fibrosis, as determined by high fibrosis scores, was present in 37.57% by the NFS and 8.02% by the FIB-4. Higher risk of advanced hepatic fibrosis was associated with older age. In unadjusted models, the risk of advanced fibrosis was associated with the primary cardiovascular outcome [NFS high vs. low, hazard ratio (HR) 1.709 (95% confidence interval, CI 1.238-2.358, P = 0.0011) and FIB-4 high vs. low, HR 1.561 (95% CI 1.139-2.140, P = 0.0056)]. After multivariable adjustment, this association was diminished [NFS high vs. low, HR 1.349 (95% CI 0.938-1.939, P = 0.1064) and FIB-4 high vs. low, HR 1.415 (95% CI 0.995-2.010, P = 0.0531)]. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that advanced liver fibrosis, as estimated by fibrosis risk scores, may not be uncommon in patients with HFpEF, and there appears to be a limited independent association between liver fibrosis risk scores and clinical outcomes related to heart failure events.