‘Hearts and minds’: association, causation and implication of cognitive impairment in heart failure

The clinical syndrome of heart failure is one of the leading causes of hospitalisation and mortality in older adults. An association between cognitive impairment and heart failure is well described but our understanding of the relationship between the two conditions remains limited. In this review we provide a synthesis of available evidence, focussing on epidemiology, the potential pathogenesis, and treatment implications of cognitive decline in heart failure. Most evidence available relates to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and the syndromes of chronic cognitive decline or dementia. These conditions are only part of a complex heart failure-cognition paradigm. Associations between cognition and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and between acute delirium and heart failure also seem evident and where data are available we will discuss these syndromes. Many questions remain unanswered regarding heart failure and cognition. Much of the observational evidence on the association is confounded by study design, comorbidity and insensitive cognitive assessment tools. If a causal link exists, there are several potential pathophysiological explanations. Plausible underlying mechanisms relating to cerebral hypoperfusion or occult cerebrovascular disease have been described and it seems likely that these may coexist and exert synergistic effects. Despite the prevalence of the two conditions, when cognitive impairment coexists with heart failure there is no specific guidance on treatment. Institution of evidence-based heart failure therapies that reduce mortality and hospitalisations seems intuitive and there is no signal that these interventions have an adverse effect on cognition. However, cognitive impairment will present a further barrier to the often complex medication self-management that is required in contemporary heart failure treatment

Association is not causation: treatment effects cannot be estimated from observational data in heart failure

Aims: Treatment ‘effects’ are often inferred from non-randomized and observational studies. These studies have inherent biases and limitations, which may make therapeutic inferences based on their results unreliable. We compared the conflicting findings of these studies to those of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in relation to pharmacological treatments for heart failure (HF). Methods and results: We searched Medline and Embase to identify studies of the association between non-randomized drug therapy and all-cause mortality in patients with HF until 31 December 2017. The treatments of interest were: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), statins, and digoxin. We compared the findings of these observational studies with those of relevant RCTs. We identified 92 publications, reporting 94 non-randomized studies, describing 158 estimates of the ‘effect’ of the six treatments of interest on all-cause mortality, i.e. some studies examined more than one treatment and/or HF phenotype. These six treatments had been tested in 25 RCTs. For example, two pivotal RCTs showed that MRAs reduced mortality in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. However, only one of 12 non-randomized studies found that MRAs were of benefit, with 10 finding a neutral effect, and one a harmful effect. Conclusion: This comprehensive comparison of studies of non-randomized data with the findings of RCTs in HF shows that it is not possible to make reliable therapeutic inferences from observational associations. While trials undoubtedly leave gaps in evidence and enrol selected participants, they clearly remain the best guide to the treatment of patients

Statins in the prevention and treatment of heart failure: a review of the evidence

Purpose of Review: We summarize the best evidence for statins in the prevention and treatment of heart failure. Recent Findings: In patients with cardiovascular risk factors or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (but without heart failure), statins reduce the risk of incident heart failure—mainly by preventing myocardial infarction although an additional benefit from reducing myocardial ischemia cannot be excluded. However, in patients with established heart failure, statins do not reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, which is mainly caused by pump failure and ventricular arrhythmias. Retrospective analyses, however, suggest that statins may reduce the rate of heart failure hospitalization and atherosclerotic events (which are proportionately much less common in these patients than heart failure hospitalization or death). Summary: Statin therapy should probably be continued in patients with coronary artery disease developing heart failure, although the weak evidence and small benefit may not justify the use of this treatment in very elderly patients with a short life expectancy and in which polypharmacy is a problem

Palliative care needs in patients hospitalized with heart failure (PCHF) study: rationale and design

Abstract Aims The primary aim of this study is to provide data to inform the design of a randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) of a palliative care (PC) intervention in heart failure (HF). We will identify an appropriate study population with a high prevalence of PC needs defined using quantifiable measures. We will also identify which components a specific and targeted PC intervention in HF should include and attempt to define the most relevant trial outcomes. Methods An unselected, prospective, near-consecutive, cohort of patients admitted to hospital with acute decompensated HF will be enrolled over a 2-year period. All potential participants will be screened using B-type natriuretic peptide and echocardiography, and all those enrolled will be extensively characterized in terms of their HF status, comorbidity, and PC needs. Quantitative assessment of PC needs will include evaluation of general and disease-specific quality of life, mood, symptom burden, caregiver burden, and end of life care. Inpatient assessments will be performed and after discharge outpatient assessments will be carried out every 4 months for up to 2.5 years. Participants will be followed up for a minimum of 1 year for hospital admissions, and place and cause of death. Methods for identifying patients with HF with PC needs will be evaluated, and estimates of healthcare utilisation performed. Conclusion By assessing the prevalence of these needs, describing how these needs change over time, and evaluating how best PC needs can be identified, we will provide the foundation for designing an RCT of a PC intervention in HF

Referral for specialist follow-up and its association with post-discharge mortality among patients with systolic heart failure (from the National Heart Failure Audit for England and Wales)

For patients admitted with worsening heart failure, early follow-up after discharge is recommended. Whether outcomes can be improved when follow-up is done by cardiologists is uncertain. We aimed to determine the association between cardiology follow-up and risk of death for patients with heart failure discharged from hospital. Using data from the National Heart Failure Audit (England & Wales), we investigated the effect of referral to cardiology follow-up on 30-day and one-year mortality in 68 772 patients with heart failure and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFREF) discharged from 185 hospitals between 2007 to 2013. The primary analyses used instrumental variable analysis complemented by hierarchical logistic and propensity matched models. At the hospital level, rates of referral to cardiologists varied from 6% to 96%. The median odds ratio (OR) for referral to cardiologist was 2.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1, 2.5), suggesting that, on average, the odds of a patient being referred for cardiologist follow-up after discharge differed approximately 2.3 times from one randomly selected hospital to another one. Based on the proportion of patients (per region) referred for cardiology follow-up, referral for cardiology follow-up was associated with lower 30-day (OR 0.70; CI 0.55, 0.89) and one-year mortality (OR 0.81; CI 0.68, 0.95) compared with no plans for cardiology follow-up (i.e., standard follow-up done by family doctors). Results from hierarchical logistic models and propensity matched models were consistent (30-day mortality OR 0.66; CI 0.61, 0.72 and 0.66; CI 0.58, 0.76 for hierarchical and propensity matched models, respectively). For patients with HFREF admitted to hospital with worsening symptoms, referral to cardiology services for follow-up after discharge is strongly associated with reduced mortality, both early and late

Systolic blood pressure reduction during the first 24 h in acute heart failure admission: friend or foe?

Aims: Changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) during an admission for acute heart failure (AHF), especially those leading to hypotension, have been suggested to increase the risk for adverse outcomes. Methods and results: We analysed associations of SBP decrease during the first 24 h from randomization with serum creatinine changes at the last time-point available (72 h), using linear regression, and with 30- and 180-day outcomes, using Cox regression, in 1257 patients in the VERITAS study. After multivariable adjustment for baseline SBP, greater SBP decrease at 24 h from randomization was associated with greater creatinine increase at 72 h and greater risk for 30-day all-cause death, worsening heart failure (HF) or HF readmission. The hazard ratio (HR) for each 1 mmHg decrease in SBP at 24 h for 30-day death, worsening HF or HF rehospitalization was 1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–1.02; P = 0.021]. Similarly, the HR for each 1 mmHg decrease in SBP at 24 h for 180-day all-cause mortality was 1.01 (95% CI 1.00–1.03; P = 0.038). The associations between SBP decrease and outcomes did not differ by tezosentan treatment group, although tezosentan treatment was associated with a greater SBP decrease at 24 h. Conclusions: In the current post hoc analysis, SBP decrease during the first 24 h was associated with increased renal impairment and adverse outcomes at 30 and 180 days. Caution, with special attention to blood pressure monitoring, should be exercised when vasodilating agents are given to AHF patients

Efficacy of pulmonary artery pressure monitoring in patients with chronic heart failure:a meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials

Aims Adjustment of treatment based on remote monitoring of pulmonary artery (PA) pressure may reduce the risk of hospital admission for heart failure (HF). We have conducted a meta-analysis of large randomized trials investigating this question. Methods A systematic literature search was performed for randomized clinical trials with PA pressure monitoring devices in patients and results with HF. The primary outcome of interest was the total number of HF hospitalizations. Other outcomes assessed were urgent visits leading to treatment with intravenous diuretics, all-cause mortality, and composites. Treatment effects are expressed as hazard ratios, and pooled effect estimates were obtained applying random effects meta-analyses. Three eligible randomized clinical trials were identified that included 1898 outpatients in New York Heart Association functional classes II–IV, either hospitalized for HF in the prior 12 months or with elevated plasma NT-proBNP concentrations. The mean followup was 14.7 months, 67.8% of the patients were men, and 65.8% had an ejection fraction ≤40%. Compared to patients in the control group, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for total HF hospitalizations in those randomized to PA pressure monitoring was 0.70 (0.58–0.86) (P = .0005). The corresponding hazard ratio for the composite of total HF hospitalizations, urgent visits and all-cause mortality was 0.75 (0.61–0.91; P = .0037) and for all-cause mortality 0.92 (0.73–1.16). Subgroup analyses, including ejection fraction phenotype, revealed no evidence of heterogeneity in the treatment effect. Conclusion The use of remote PA pressure monitoring to guide treatment of patients with HF reduces episodes of worsening HF and subsequent hospitalizations.</p

Predictors and associations with outcomes of length of hospital stay in patients with acute heart failure: results from VERITAS

Background: The length of hospital stay (LOS) is important in patients admitted for acute heart failure (AHF) because it prolongs an unpleasant experience for the patients and adds substantially to health care costs. Methods and Results: We examined the association between LOS and baseline characteristics, 10-day post-discharge HF readmission, and 90-day post-discharge mortality in 1347 patients with AHF enrolled in the VERITAS program. Longer LOS was associated with greater HF severity and disease burden at baseline; however, most of the variability of LOS could not be explained by these factors. LOS was associated with a higher HF risk of both HF readmission (odds ratio for 1-day increase: 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.16; P = .019) and 90-day mortality (hazard ratio for 1-day increase: 1.05; 95% CI 1.02–1.07; P &lt; .001), although these associations are partially explained by concurrent end-organ damage and worsening heart failure during the first days of admission. Conclusions: In patients who have been admitted for AHF, longer length of hospital stay is associated with a higher rate of short-term mortality. Clinical Trial Registration: VERITAS-1 and -2: Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers NCT00525707 and NCT00524433

Predictors of Development of Diabetes in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure in the Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) Program

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of incident diabetes during follow-up of nondiabetic patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) in the Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) program.<p></p> RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 1,620 nondiabetic patients had full baseline datasets. We compared baseline demographic, medication, and laboratory data for patients who did or did not develop diabetes and conducted logistic regression and receiver operator characteristic curve analyses.<p></p> RESULTS: Over a median period of 2.8 years, 126 of the 1,620 patients (7.8%) developed diabetes. In multiple logistic regression analysis, the following baseline characteristics were independently associated with incident diabetes in decreasing order of significance by stepwise selection: higher A1C (odds ratio [OR] 1.78 per 1 SD increase; P &#60; 0.0001), higher BMI (OR 1.64 per 1 SD increase; P &#60; 0.0001), lipid-lowering therapy (OR 2.05; P = 0.0005), lower serum creatinine concentration (OR 0.68 per 1 SD increase; P = 0.0018), diuretic therapy (OR 4.81; P = 0.003), digoxin therapy (OR 1.65; P = 0.022), higher serum alanine aminotransferase concentration (OR 1.15 per 1 SD increase; P = 0.027), and lower age (OR 0.81 per 1 SD increase; P = 0.048). Using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, A1C and BMI yielded areas under the curve of 0.723 and 0.712, respectively, increasing to 0.788 when combined. Addition of other variables independently associated with diabetes risk minimally improved prediction of diabetes.<p></p> CONCLUSIONS: In nondiabetic patients with CHF in CHARM, A1C and BMI were the strongest predictors of the development of diabetes. Other minor predictors in part reflected CHF severity or drug-associated diabetes risk. Identifying patients with CHF at risk of diabetes through simple criteria appears possible and could enable targeted preventative measures

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

Importance  The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a reduction in cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and hospitalizations compared with enalapril. Sacubitril/valsartan has been approved for use in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction in the United States and cost has been suggested as 1 factor that will influence the use of this agent. Objective  To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants  Data from US adults (mean [SD] age, 63.8 [11.5] years) with HF with reduced ejection fraction and characteristics similar to those in the PARADIGM-HF trial were used as inputs for a 2-state Markov model simulated HF. Risks of all-cause mortality and hospitalization from HF or other reasons were estimated with a 30-year time horizon. Quality of life was based on trial EQ-5D scores. Hospital costs combined Medicare and private insurance reimbursement rates; medication costs included the wholesale acquisition cost for sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril. A discount rate of 3% was used. Sensitivity analyses were performed on key inputs including: hospital costs, mortality benefit, hazard ratio for hospitalization reduction, drug costs, and quality-of-life estimates. Main Outcomes and Measures  Hospitalizations, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental costs per QALY gained. Results  The 2-state Markov model of US adult patients (mean age, 63.8 years) calculated that there would be 220 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 patients with HF treated with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril over 30 years. The incremental costs and QALYs gained with sacubitril/valsartan treatment were estimated at $35 512 and 0.78, respectively, compared with enalapril, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of$45 017 per QALY for the base-case. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated ICERs ranging from $35 357 to$75 301 per QALY. Conclusions and Relevance  For eligible patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the Markov model calculated that sacubitril/valsartan would increase life expectancy at an ICER consistent with other high-value accepted cardiovascular interventions. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated sacubitril/valsartan would remain cost-effective vs enalapril