Six-minute walk distance after coronary artery bypass grafting compared with medical therapy in ischaemic cardiomyopathy

Background: In patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction, coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) may decrease mortality, but it is not known whether CABG improves functional capacity. Objective: To determine whether CABG compared with medical therapy alone (MED) increases 6 min walk distance in patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction and coronary artery disease amenable to revascularisation. Methods: The Surgical Treatment in Ischemic Heart disease trial randomised 1212 patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction to CABG or MED. A 6 min walk distance test was performed both at baseline and at least one follow-up assessment at 4, 12, 24 and/or 36 months in 409 patients randomised to CABG and 466 to MED. Change in 6 min walk distance between baseline and follow-up were compared by treatment allocation. Results: 6 min walk distance at baseline for CABG was mean 340±117 m and for MED 339±118 m. Change in walk distance from baseline was similar for CABG and MED groups at 4 months (mean +38 vs +28 m), 12 months (+47 vs +36 m), 24 months (+31 vs +34 m) and 36 months (−7 vs +7 m), P>0.10 for all. Change in walk distance between CABG and MED groups over all assessments was also similar after adjusting for covariates and imputation for missing values (+8 m, 95% CI −7 to 23 m, P=0.29). Results were consistent for subgroups defined by angina, New York Heart Association class ≥3, left ventricular ejection fraction, baseline walk distance and geographic region. Conclusion: In patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction CABG compared with MED alone is known to reduce mortality but is unlikely to result in a clinically significant improvement in functional capacity

Health Insurance and Cardiac Transplantation A Call for Reform

Cardiac transplantation is an accepted therapy for patients with end-stage heart failure (ESHF). Presently in the U.S., patients with ESHF need to have health insurance or another funding source to be considered eligible for cardiac transplantation. Whether it is appropriate to exclude potential recipients solely due to lack of finances has received considerable interest including being the subject of a recent major motion picture (John Q, New Line Cinema, 2002). However, one important aspect of this debate has been underappreciated and insufficiently addressed. Specifically, organ donation does not require the donor to have health insurance. Thus, individuals donate their hearts although they themselves would not have been eligible to receive a transplant had they needed one. By querying Siminoff’s National Study of Family Consent to Organ Donation database, we find that this situation is not uncommon as ∼23% of organ donors are uninsured. Herein we also discuss how the funding requirement for cardiac transplantation has been addressed by the federal government in the past, its implications on the organ donor consent process, and its potential impact on organ donation rates. We call for a government-sponsored, multidisciplinary task force to address this situation in hopes of remedying the inequities in the present system of organ allocation

Increased left ventricular mass is a risk factor for the development of a depressed left ventricular ejection fraction within five years The Cardiovascular Health Study

AbstractObjectivesOur aim in this study was to determine whether increased left ventricular mass (LVM) is a risk factor for the development of a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).BackgroundPrior studies have shown that increased LVM is a risk factor for heart failure but not whether it is a risk factor for a low LVEF.MethodsAs part of the Cardiovascular Health Study, a prospective population-based longitudinal study, we performed echocardiograms upon participant enrollment and again at follow-up of 4.9 ± 0.14 years. In the present analysis, we identified 3,042 participants who had at baseline a normal LVEF and an assessment of LVM (either by electrocardiogram or echocardiogram), and at follow-up a measurable LVEF. The frequency of the development of a qualitatively depressed LVEF on two-dimensional echocardiography, corresponding approximately to an LVEF <55%, was analyzed by quartiles of baseline LVM. Multivariable regression determined whether LVM was independently associated with the development of depressed LVEF.ResultsBaseline quartile of echocardiographic LVM indexed to body surface area was associated with development of a depressed LVEF (4.8% in quartile 1, 4.4% in quartile 2, 7.5% in quartile 3, and 14.1% in quartile 4 [p < 0.001]). A similar relationship was seen in the subgroup of participants without myocardial infarction (p < 0.001). In multivariable regression that adjusted for confounders, both baseline echocardiographic (p < 0.001) and electrocardiographic (p < 0.001) LVM remained associated with development of depressed LVEF.ConclusionsIncreased LVM as assessed by electrocardiography or echocardiography is an independent risk factor for the development of depressed LVEF

The four pillars of HFrEF therapy : is it time to treat heart failure regardless of ejection fraction?

The syndrome of heart failure (HF) has historically been dichotomized based on clinical trial inclusion criteria into patients with a reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) using a cut-off of above or below 40%. The majority of trial evidence for the benefits of disease-modifying pharmacological therapy has been in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), i.e. those with an LVEF ≤40%. Recently, the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors empagliflozin and dapagliflozin have been shown to be the first drugs to improve outcomes in HF across the full spectrum of LVEF. There is, however, growing evidence that the benefits of many of the neurohumoral modulators shown to be beneficial in patients with HFrEF may extend to those with a higher LVEF above 40% but still below the normal range, i.e. HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). Whether the benefits of some of these medications also extend to patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is an area of ongoing debate. This article will review the evidence for HF treatments across the full spectrum of LVEF, provide an overview of recently updated clinical practice guidelines, and address the question whether it may now be time to treat HF with some therapies regardless of ejection fraction

2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA/ISHLT/ACP Advanced Training Statement on Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology (Revision of the ACCF/AHA/ACP/HFSA/ISHLT 2010 Clinical Competence Statement on Management of Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Cardiac Transplant)

Since the 1995 publication of its Core Cardiovascular Training Statement (COCATS),1 the American College of Cardiology (ACC) has played a central role in defining the knowledge, experiences, skills, and behaviors expected of all clinical cardiologists upon completion of training. Subsequent updates have incorporated major advances and revisions—both in content and structure—including, most recently,

Natriuretic peptides and integrated risk assessment for cardiovascular disease: an individual-participant-data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases focus on prediction of coronary heart disease and stroke. We assessed whether or not measurement of N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration could enable a more integrated approach than at present by predicting heart failure and enhancing coronary heart disease and stroke risk assessment. METHODS: In this individual-participant-data meta-analysis, we generated and harmonised individual-participant data from relevant prospective studies via both de-novo NT-proBNP concentration measurement of stored samples and collection of data from studies identified through a systematic search of the literature (PubMed, Scientific Citation Index Expanded, and Embase) for articles published up to Sept 4, 2014, using search terms related to natriuretic peptide family members and the primary outcomes, with no language restrictions. We calculated risk ratios and measures of risk discrimination and reclassification across predicted 10 year risk categories (ie, <5%, 5% to <7·5%, and ≥7·5%), adding assessment of NT-proBNP concentration to that of conventional risk factors (ie, age, sex, smoking status, systolic blood pressure, history of diabetes, and total and HDL cholesterol concentrations). Primary outcomes were the combination of coronary heart disease and stroke, and the combination of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. FINDINGS: We recorded 5500 coronary heart disease, 4002 stroke, and 2212 heart failure outcomes among 95 617 participants without a history of cardiovascular disease in 40 prospective studies. Risk ratios (for a comparison of the top third vs bottom third of NT-proBNP concentrations, adjusted for conventional risk factors) were 1·76 (95% CI 1·56-1·98) for the combination of coronary heart disease and stroke and 2·00 (1·77-2·26) for the combination of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. Addition of information about NT-proBNP concentration to a model containing conventional risk factors was associated with a C-index increase of 0·012 (0·010-0·014) and a net reclassification improvement of 0·027 (0·019-0·036) for the combination of coronary heart disease and stroke and a C-index increase of 0·019 (0·016-0·022) and a net reclassification improvement of 0·028 (0·019-0·038) for the combination of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. INTERPRETATION: In people without baseline cardiovascular disease, NT-proBNP concentration assessment strongly predicted first-onset heart failure and augmented coronary heart disease and stroke prediction, suggesting that NT-proBNP concentration assessment could be used to integrate heart failure into cardiovascular disease primary prevention. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, Austrian Science Fund, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, European Research Council, and European Commission Framework Programme 7