Eligibility for the 4 Pharmacological Pillars in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction at Discharge

Background Guidelines recommend using multiple drugs in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, but there is a paucity of real‐world data on the simultaneous initiation of the 4 pharmacological pillars at discharge after a decompensation event. Methods and Results A retrospective data mart, including patients diagnosed with HF, was implemented. Consecutively admitted patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction were selected through an automated approach and categorized according to the number/type of treatments prescribed at discharge. The prevalence of contraindications and cautions for HF with reduced ejection fraction treatments was systematically assessed. Logistic regression models were fitted to assess predictors of the number of treatments (≥2 versus <2 drugs) prescribed and the risk of rehospitalization. A population of 305 patients with a first episode of HF hospitalization and a diagnosis of HF with reduced ejection fraction (ejection fraction, <40%) was selected. At discharge, 49.2% received 2 current recommended drugs, β‐blockers were prescribed in 93.4%, while a renin‐angiotensin system inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor was prescribed in 68.2%. A mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist was prescribed in 32.5%, although none of the patients showed contraindications to mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist prescription. A sodium‐glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor could be prescribed in 71.1% of patients. On the basis of current recommendations, 46.2% could receive the 4 foundational drugs at discharge. Renal dysfunction was associated with <2 foundational drugs prescribed. After adjusting for age and renal function, use of ≥2 drugs was associated with lower risk of rehospitalization during the 30 days after discharge. Conclusions A quadruple therapy could be directly implementable at discharge, potentially providing prognostic advantages. Renal dysfunction was the main prevalent condition limiting this approach

GENERATOR HEART FAILURE DataMart: An integrated framework for heart failure research

BackgroundHeart failure (HF) is a multifaceted clinical syndrome characterized by different etiologies, risk factors, comorbidities, and a heterogeneous clinical course. The current model, based on data from clinical trials, is limited by the biases related to a highly-selected sample in a protected environment, constraining the applicability of evidence in the real-world scenario. If properly leveraged, the enormous amount of data from real-world may have a groundbreaking impact on clinical care pathways. We present, here, the development of an HF DataMart framework for the management of clinical and research processes. MethodsWithin our institution, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli in Rome (Italy), a digital platform dedicated to HF patients has been envisioned (GENERATOR HF DataMart), based on two building blocks: 1. All retrospective information has been integrated into a multimodal, longitudinal data repository, providing in one single place the description of individual patients with drill-down functionalities in multiple dimensions. This functionality might allow investigators to dynamically filter subsets of patient populations characterized by demographic characteristics, biomarkers, comorbidities, and clinical events (e.g., re-hospitalization), enabling agile analyses of the outcomes by subsets of patients. 2. With respect to expected long-term health status and response to treatments, the use of the disease trajectory toolset and predictive models for the evolution of HF has been implemented. The methodological scaffolding has been constructed in respect of a set of the preferred standards recommended by the CODE-EHR framework. ResultsSeveral examples of GENERATOR HF DataMart utilization are presented as follows: to select a specific retrospective cohort of HF patients within a particular period, along with their clinical and laboratory data, to explore multiple associations between clinical and laboratory data, as well as to identify a potential cohort for enrollment in future studies; to create a multi-parametric predictive models of early re-hospitalization after discharge; to cluster patients according to their ejection fraction (EF) variation, investigating its potential impact on hospital admissions. ConclusionThe GENERATOR HF DataMart has been developed to exploit a large amount of data from patients with HF from our institution and generate evidence from real-world data. The two components of the HF platform might provide the infrastructural basis for a combined patient support program dedicated to continuous monitoring and remote care, assisting patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals

A 3-Year Single Center Experience With Left Atrial Pressure Remote Monitoring: The Long and Winding Road

N/

Impact of coronary microvascular dysfunction in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a meta‐analysis

Aims: Several mechanisms have been identified in the aetiopathogenesis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Among these, coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) may play a key pathophysiological role. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the prevalence, echocardiographic correlates, and prognostic implications of CMD in patients with HFpEF. Methods and results: A systematic search for articles up to 1 May 2023 was performed. The primary aim was to assess the prevalence of CMD. Secondary aims were to compare key echocardiographic parameters (E/e' ratio, left atrial volume index [LAVi], and left ventricular mass index [LVMi]), clinical outcomes [death and hospitalization for heart failure (HF)], and prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) between patients with and without CMD. Meta-regressions according to baseline patient characteristics and study features were performed to explore potential heterogeneity sources. We identified 14 observational studies, enrolling 1138 patients with HFpEF. The overall prevalence of CMD was 58%. Compared with patients without CMD, patients with HFpEF and CMD had larger LAVi [mean difference (MD) 3.85 confidence interval (CI) 1.19-6.5, P < 0.01)], higher E/e' ratio (MD 2.76 CI 1.54-3.97; P < 0.01), higher prevalence of AF (odds ratio 1.61 CI 1.04-2.48, P = 0.03) and higher risk of death or hospitalization for HF [hazard ratio 3.19, CI 1.04-9.57, P = 0.04]. Conclusions: CMD is present in little more than half of the patients with HFpEF and is associated with echocardiographic evidence of more severe diastolic dysfunction and a higher prevalence of AF, doubling the risk of death or HF hospitalization