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

Prevention and rehabilitation after heart transplantation: A clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology, Heart Failure Association of the ESC, and the European Cardio Thoracic Transplant Association, a section of ESOT

Little is known either about either physical activity patterns, or other lifestyle-related prevention measures in heart transplantation (HTx) recipients. The history of HTx started more than 50 years ago but there are still no guidelines or position papers highlighting the features of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx. The aims of this scientific statement are (i) to explain the importance of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx, and (ii) to promote the factors (modifiable/non-modifiable) that should be addressed after HTx to improve patients’ physical capacity, quality of life and survival. All HTx team members have their role to play in the care of these patients and multidisciplinary prevention and rehabilitation programmes designed for transplant recipients. HTx recipients are clearly not healthy disease-free subjects yet they also significantly differ from heart failure patients or those who are supported with mechanical circulatory support. Therefore, prevention and rehabilitation after HTx both need to be specifically tailored to this patient population and be multidisciplinary in nature. Prevention and rehabilitation programmes should be initiated early after HTx and continued during the entire post-transplant journey

Prevention and Rehabilitation After Heart Transplantation: A Clinical Consensus Statement of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology, Heart Failure Association of the ESC, and the European Cardio Thoracic Transplant Association, a Section of ESOT

Little is known either about either physical activity patterns, or other lifestyle-related prevention measures in heart transplantation (HTx) recipients. The history of HTx started more than 50 years ago but there are still no guidelines or position papers highlighting the features of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx. The aims of this scientific statement are (i) to explain the importance of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx, and (ii) to promote the factors (modifiable/non-modifiable) that should be addressed after HTx to improve patients’ physical capacity, quality of life and survival. All HTx team members have their role to play in the care of these patients and multidisciplinary prevention and rehabilitation programmes designed for transplant recipients. HTx recipients are clearly not healthy disease-free subjects yet they also significantly differ from heart failure patients or those who are supported with mechanical circulatory support. Therefore, prevention and rehabilitation after HTx both need to be specifically tailored to this patient population and be multidisciplinary in nature. Prevention and rehabilitation programmes should be initiated early after HTx and continued during the entire post-transplant journey. This clinical consensus statement focuses on the importance and the characteristics of prevention and rehabilitation designed for HTx recipients

Age discrimination at work : Republic of Ireland

This study presents the available data on the position of older workers within the Irish labour market and highlights a number of the factors which may contribute to age discrimination against older workers. The study is divided into three main parts. In Part I, the national context for older workers is discussed. This section focuses on an analysis of trends in the age structure of the population and in labour force participation rates among older workers. In addition, recent developments in legislation impacting on older workers are highlighted. Part II presents an analysis of age discriminatory measures within the Irish labour market. This analysis focuses on four main areas: the implications of redundancy practices for early exit from the workforce; the impact on older workers of changes in unemployment rates in the labour force as a whole; training policy for the older unemployed; and the effect of State welfare provision on patterns of retirement. Finally, the implications of these findings for future policy development are discussed in Part III

A survey‐based triage tool to identify patients potentially eligible for referral to an advanced heart failure centre

Abstract Aims Accurate prevalence data for ambulatory advanced heart failure (HF) in European countries remains limited. This study was designed to identify the population of patients potentially eligible for referral for assessment for advanced surgical HF therapies to a National advanced HF and cardiac transplant centre. Methods and results A survey comprising 13 potential clinical markers of advanced HF was developed, modified from the ‘I NEED HELP’ tool from the 2018 position statement of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and distributed to all HF clinic services (secondary and tertiary units) nationwide. Each HF clinic unit was asked to complete the survey on consecutive patients over a 3 month period fulfilling the following three criteria: (i) age 3 months duration. As a comparison, the number of actual referrals to the advanced HF clinic were also audited over a 9 month period. In all, 21 of 26 HF clinic units participated in the survey. Across the period of inclusion, 4950 all‐comer HF patients were seen across all sites. Of these, 375 (7.5%) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were surveyed (74.4% male, median age 57 years [IQR: 11 years]). In total, 246 (66%) of the surveyed patients had ≥1 potential markers for advanced HF, representing just under 5% of the total all‐comer HF population seen across the same time period. Of these, 67 patients (27%) had ≥2, 48 (20%) had 3 and 40 (16%) had ≥4 potential markers. The most frequently noted markers were ≥1 HF hospitalization or unscheduled clinic review (56%), intolerance to renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system inhibitors due to hypotension or renal dysfunction (29%) and intolerance to beta‐blockers due to hypotension (27%). Almost one‐quarter of patients reported NYHA Class III or IV symptoms. During the advanced HF clinic audit, the number of patients actually referred to the advanced HF clinic during the same time period was <5% of this potentially eligible cohort. Conclusions In this index prospective National survey, approximately 5% of an all‐comer routine HF clinic population and two‐thirds of a pre‐selected HF with reduced EF under 65 years cohort were found to have at least one clinical or biochemical marker suggesting advanced or impending advanced HF. Almost one‐quarter of patients in this chronic outpatient ‘snapshot’ population have NYHA III‐IV symptoms. This simple one‐page triage survey—modified from the ‘I NEED HELP’ tool—is useful to identify a population potentially eligible for referral to an advanced HF centre for assessment for advanced surgical therapies, thereby aiding resource and service planning

Impact of Atrial Fibrillation on In-Hospital Mortality and Thromboembolic Complications after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

The association between atrial fibrillation (AF) and thromboembolic (TE) complications in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients is controversial, and there is paucity of large-scale data evaluating the impact of AF on early outcomes after device implantation. Using the National Inpatient Sample, we identified hospitalizations where patients underwent LVAD implantation from 2010 to 2015. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of AF on in-hospital outcomes. A total of 18,378 patients (41.7% with AF) underwent LVAD implantation. Patients with AF were older (59.9 vs. 54.0 years, p < 0.001), more commonly male (79.9 vs. 74.1%, p < 0.001), and had a greater burden of comorbidities as measured by the Elixhauser comorbidity index (7.2 vs. 6.3, p < 0.001). Patients with AF had less incidence of ischemic stroke (3.1 vs. 4.7%, p = 0.04, OR 0.68), hemorrhagic stroke (1.0 vs. 2.4%, p = 0.006, OR 0.43), and other systemic embolism (1.8 vs. 3.7%, p = 0.01, OR 0.55). There was no significant difference in the incidence of bleeding requiring transfusion between AF and no AF cohorts (29.3 vs. 24.2%, p = 0.09, OR 1.15). LOS was shorter in patients with AF (32.9 vs. 36.7 mean days, p < 0.001). Patients with AF had lower in-hospital mortality (8.9 vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001, OR 0.48). In a large real-world US cohort of patients undergoing LVAD implantation, a diagnosis of AF was common among device recipients. After adjustment for demographics and comorbidities, AF was associated with reduced TE events and in-hospital mortality

Discordance between 'actual' and 'scheduled' check-in times at a heart failure clinic

<div><p>Introduction</p><p>A 2015 Institute Of Medicine statement “Transforming Health Care Scheduling and Access: Getting to Now”, has increased concerns regarding patient wait times. Although waiting times have been widely studied, little attention has been paid to the role of patient arrival times as a component of this phenomenon. To this end, we investigated patterns of patient arrival at scheduled ambulatory heart failure (HF) clinic appointments and studied its predictors. We hypothesized that patients are more likely to arrive later than scheduled, with progressively later arrivals later in the day.</p><p>Methods and results</p><p>Using a business intelligence database we identified 6,194 unique patients that visited the Cleveland Clinic Main Campus HF clinic between January, 2015 and January, 2017. This clinic served both as a tertiary referral center and a community HF clinic. Transplant and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) visits were excluded. Punctuality was defined as the difference between ‘actual’ and ‘scheduled’ check-in times, whereby negative values (i.e., early punctuality) were patients who checked-in early. Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that patients checked-in late only a minority of the time (38% of visits). Additionally, examining punctuality by appointment hour slot we found that patients scheduled after 8AM had progressively earlier check-in times as the day progressed (P < .001 for trend). In both a Random Forest-Regression framework and linear regression models the most important risk-adjusted predictors of early punctuality were: later in the day appointment hour slot, patient having previously been to the hospital, age in the early 70s, and white race.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Patients attending a mixed population ambulatory HF clinic check-in earlier than scheduled times, with progressive discrepant intervals throughout the day. This finding may have significant implications for provider utilization and resource planning in order to maximize clinic efficiency. The impact of elective early arrival on patient’s perceived wait times requires further study.</p></div