Physiological and psychological outcomes of high intensity interval training in patients with heart failure compared to moderate continuous training and usual care: a systematic review with meta analysis.

An important component of secondary prevention of CVD (including HF) is comprehensive cardiac rehab, including exercise. Novel, individualised approaches are needed to increase uptake and adherence to exercise programmes. One area offering potential is HIIT. HIIT has been shown to be both safe and effective for improving cardiovascular fitness in both coronary artery disease and HF patients. The objective of this study was to provide a current and up-to-date evaluation of the physiological and psychological outcomes of HIIT in patients with HF, compared to MCT and UC. A secondary objective was to perform sub-group analyses comparing short and long HIIT protocols. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was undertaken. Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and SportDISCUS were searched up to July 2022. Trials were included if they carried out a HIIT intervention (defined at intensity ≥ 80% peak HR or ≥ 80% VO2peak) in HF patients (HFpEF or HFrEF) for at least 6 weeks. Comparator group was UC or MCT. HIIT was shown to be superior to MCT and UC for improving VO2peak (HIIT mean improvement 3.1mL.kg-1min-1). HITT was superior to MCT and UC for improving LVEF (HIIT mean improvement 5.7%). HIIT was superior to MCT and UC for improving HRQoL, using the MLHFQ (HIIT mean point change of -12.8). Subgroup analysis showed no difference between long and short HIIT. The study therefore concluded that HIIT improves VO2peak, LVEF and HRQoL in patients with HF, with the improvements seen in VO2peak and LVEF being superior in HIIT compared to MCT and UC

Clinical and health economic evaluation of a post-stroke arrhythmia monitoring service

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major cause of recurrent stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) in the UK. As many patients can have asymptomatic paroxysmal AF, prolonged arrhythmia monitoring is advised in selected patients following a stroke or TIA. This service evaluation assessed the clinical and potential health economic impact of prolonged arrhythmia monitoring post-stroke using R-TEST monitoring devices.This was a prospective, case-controlled, service evaluation in a single health board in the North of Scotland. Patients were included if they had a recent stroke or TIA, were in sinus rhythm, and did not have another indication for, or contraindication to, oral anticoagulation. A health economic model was developed to estimate the clinical and economic value delivered by the R-TEST monitoring. Approval to use anonymised patient data in this service evaluation was obtained.During the evaluation period, 100 consecutive patients were included. The average age was 70 ± 11 years, 46% were female. Stroke was the presenting complaint in 83% of patients with the other 17% having had a TIA. AF was detected in seven of 83 (8.4%) patients who had had a stroke and one of 17 (5.9%) patients with a TIA. Health economic modelling predicted that adoption of R-TEST monitoring has a high probability of demonstrating both clinical and economic benefits.In conclusion, developing a post-stroke arrhythmia monitoring service using R-TEST devices is feasible, effective at detecting AF, and represents a probable clinical and economic benefi

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

High-intensity interval training in patients with heart failure

Cardiac rehabilitation is a key component in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. However, uptake and adherence to programmes is suboptimal, especially for patients with heart failure. Traditionally, cardiac rehabilitation programmes have involved moderate-intensity continuous training; however, there is growing evidence that high-intensity interval training can produce equal or superior effects in both healthy and diseased populations. High-intensity interval training has already been shown to be both safe and effective, but the optimal protocols and delivery mechanisms are yet to be determined. Despite this, high-intensity interval training has the potential to offer an alternative mechanism of cardiac rehabilitation delivery to patients with heart failure, with the possibility of overcoming some of the challenges usually faced (such as patients' lack of time) in implementing successful cardiac rehabilitation programmes. This article aims to summarise the current knowledge surrounding the inclusion of high-intensity interval training in cardiac rehabilitation programmes, specifically focusing on those patients living with heart failure

Clinical application of physical-activity monitoring in patients with CIEDs

Regular physical activity for secondary prevention in cardiovascular disease has many well-recognised benefits, with declines in physical activity being associated with worsening cardiovascular disease, suboptimal treatment or worsening comorbidities that might be rectified by early intervention. Most cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) now have the ability to detect, analyse and interpret physical activity data through an inbuilt accelerometer. Currently, these data are not being utilised to their full potential. We present three cases that demonstrate some of the possible uses of CIED-collected physical-activity data. These data have the potential to detect a deteriorating patient, to monitor the effects of an intervention, and/or provide motivational feedback to a patient. However, for the data to be used in this manner in the future, greater transparency from manufacturers and robust validation studies will be needed

A Study of IMGN632, a Novel CD123-Targeting Antibody-Drug Conjugate, for Patients with Frontline and Relapsed/Refractory Blastic Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Neoplasm (BPDCN)

International audienc