Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction after pharmacological up-titration in new-onset heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have reported suboptimal up-titration of heart failure (HF) therapies in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Here, we report on the achieved doses after nurse-led up-titration, reasons for not achieving the target dose, subsequent changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and mortality. METHODS: From 2012 to 2018, 378 HFrEF patients with a recent (< 3 months) diagnosis of HF were referred to a specialised HF-nurse led clinic for protocolised up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). The achieved doses of GDMT at 9 months were recorded, as well as reasons for not achieving the optimal dose in all patients. Echocardiography was performed at baseline and after up-titration in 278 patients. RESULTS: Of 345 HFrEF patients with a follow-up visit after 9 months, 69% reached ≥ 50% of the recommended dose of renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitors, 73% reached ≥ 50% of the recommended dose of beta-blockers and 77% reached ≥ 50% of the recommended dose of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The main reasons for not reaching the target dose were hypotension (RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers), bradycardia (beta-blockers) and renal dysfunction (RAS inhibitors). During a median follow-up of 9 months, mean LVEF increased from 27.6% at baseline to 38.8% at follow-up. Each 5% increase in LVEF was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.84 (0.75–0.94, p = 0.002) for mortality and 0.85 (0.78–0.94, p = 0.001) for the combined endpoint of mortality and/or HF hospitalisation after a mean follow-up of 3.3 years. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that protocolised up-titration in a nurse-led HF clinic leads to high doses of GDMT and improvement of LVEF in patients with new-onset HFrEF. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-021-01591-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

The Need for Routine Native Nephrectomy in the Workup for Kidney Transplantation in Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease Patients

Introduction: There is no consensus if nor when a native nephrectomy should be performed in the workup for kidney transplantation in ADPKD patients. In our PKD Expertise Center, a restrictive approach is pursued in which nephrectomy is performed only in patients with severe complaints, i.e., in case of serious volume-related complaints, lack of space for the allograft, recurrent cyst infections, persistent cyst bleedings, or chronic refractory pain. We analyzed in a retrospective cohort study whether this approach is justified. Methods: All ADPKD patients who received kidney transplantation between January 2000 and January 2019 were reviewed. Patients were subdivided into three groups: no nephrectomy (no-Nx), nephrectomy performed before (pre-Tx), or after kidney transplantation (post-Tx). Simultaneous nephrectomy together with transplantation were not performed in our center. Results: 391 patients (54 +/- 9 years, 55% male) were included. The majority of patients did not undergo a nephrectomy (n = 257, 65.7%). A nephrectomy was performed pre-Tx in 114 patients (29.2%). After Tx, nephrectomy was performed in only 30 patients (7.7%, median 4.4 years post-Tx). Surgery-related complication rates did not differ between both groups (38.3% pre-Tx vs. 27.0% post-Tx, p = 0.2), nor were there any differences in 10-year patient survival (74.4% pre-Tx vs. 80.7% post-Tx vs. 67.6% no-Nx, p = 0.4), as well as in 10-year death-censored graft survival (84.4% pre-Tx vs. 85.5% post-Tx vs. 90.0% no-Nx, p = 0.9). Conclusions: This study indicates that with a restrictive nephrectomy policy in the workup for kidney transplantation, only a part of ADPKD patients need a native nephrectomy