Impact of Spironolactone on Longitudinal Changes in Health-Related Quality of Life in the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist Trial

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction patients have equally impaired health-related quality of life (HRQL) compared with those with HF with reduced ejection fraction, but limited studies have evaluated the impact of therapies on changes in HRQL. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients ≥50 years of age, with symptomatic HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%, were enrolled in Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) and randomized to spironolactone or placebo. Patients completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), which was the primary HRQL instrument, and EQ5D visual analog scale at baseline, 4 months, 12 months, and annually thereafter. McMaster Overall Treatment Evaluation was assessed at 4 and 12 months to assess global change scores. Change scores (+SD) were calculated to determine between-group differences, and multivariable repeated-measures models were created to identify other factors associated with change scores. Paired KCCQ data were available for 91.7% of 3445 TOPCAT patients. By 4 months, the mean change in KCCQ was 7.7±16 and mean change in EQ5D visual analog scale was 4.7±16. Adjusted mean changes in KCCQ for the spironolactone group were significantly better than those for the placebo group at 4-month (1.54 better; P=0.002), 12-month (1.35 better; P=0.02), and 36-month (1.86 better; P=0.02) visits. No between-group differences in EQ5D visual analog scale change scores or McMaster Overall Treatment Evaluation were noted. Older age, obesity, current smoking, New York Heart Association class III/IV, and comorbid illnesses were associated with declines in KCCQ scores. Use of spironolactone was an independent predictor of improved KCCQ scores. CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic HF with preserved ejection fraction patients, use of spironolactone was associated with an improvement in HF-specific HRQL. Several modifiable risk factors were associated with HRQL deterioration. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00094302

2021 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations : summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; First Aid Task Forces; and the COVID-19 Working Group

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research