Impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with heart failure (ExTraMATCH II) on mortality and hospitalisation:an individual-patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the DOI in this recordAIMS: To undertake an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to assess the impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) in patients with heart failure (HF) on mortality and hospitalisation, and differential effects of ExCR according to patient characteristics: age, sex, ethnicity, New York Heart Association functional class, ischaemic aetiology, ejection fraction, and exercise capacity. METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomised trials of exercise training for at least 3 weeks compared with no exercise control with 6-month follow-up or longer, providing IPD time to event on mortality or hospitalisation (all-cause or HF-specific). IPD were combined into a single dataset. We used Cox proportional hazards models to investigate the effect of ExCR and the interactions between ExCR and participant characteristics. We used both two-stage random effects and one-stage fixed effect models. IPD were obtained from 18 trials including 3912 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Compared to control, there was no statistically significant difference in pooled time to event estimates in favour of ExCR although confidence intervals (CIs) were wide [all-cause mortality: hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.67-1.04; HF-specific mortality: HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.49-1.46; all-cause hospitalisation: HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76-1.06; and HF-specific hospitalisation: HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72-1.35]. No strong evidence was found of differential intervention effects across patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation did not have a significant effect on the risk of mortality and hospitalisation in HF with reduced ejection fraction. However, uncertainty around effect estimates precludes drawing definitive conclusions.This work is supported by UK National Institute for Health Research funding (HTA 15/80/30)

Prevalence of Symptomatic Heart Failure with Reduced and with Normal Ejection Fraction in an Elderly General Population-The CARLA Study

Background/Objectives: Chronic heart failure (CHF) is one of the most important public health concerns in the industrialized world having increasing incidence and prevalence. Although there are several studies describing the prevalence of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF) and heart failure with normal ejection fraction (HFNEF) in selected populations, there are few data regarding the prevalence and the determinants of symptomatic heart failure in the general population. Methods: Cross-sectional data of a population-based German sample (1,779 subjects aged 45-83 years) were analyzed to determine the prevalence and determinants of chronic SHF and HFNEF defined according to the European Society of Cardiology using symptoms, echocardiography and serum NT-proBNP. Prevalence was age-standardized to the German population as of December 31st, 2005. Results: The overall age-standardized prevalence of symptomatic CHF was 7.7% (95%CI 6.0-9.8) for men and 9.0% (95%CI 7.0-11.5) for women. The prevalence of CHF strongly increased with age from 3.0% among 45-54- year-old subjects to 22.0% among 75-83- year-old subjects. Symptomatic HFREF could be shown in 48% (n = 78), symptomatic HFNEF in 52% (n = 85) of subjects with CHF. The age-standardized prevalence of HFREF was 3.8 % (95%CI 2.4-5.8) for women and 4.6 % (95%CI 3.6-6.3) for men. The age-standardized prevalence of HFNEF for women and men was 5.1 % (95%CI 3.8-7.0) and 3.0 % (95%CI 2.1-4.5), respectively. Persons with CHF were more likely to have hypertension (PR = 3.4; 95%CI 1.6-7.3) or to have had a previous myocardial infarction (PR = 2.5, 95%CI 1.8-3.5). Conclusion: The prevalence of symptomatic CHF appears high in this population compared with other studies. While more women were affected by HFNEF than men, more male subjects suffered from HFREF. The high prevalence of symptomatic CHF seems likely to be mainly due to the high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in this population

Changes in heart failure medications in patients hospitalised and discharged

BACKGROUND: To date, evidence-based recommendations help doctors to manage patients with heart failure (HF). However, the implementation of these recommendations in primary care is still problematic as beneficial drugs are infrequently prescribed. The aim of the study was to determine whether admission to hospital increases usage of beneficial HF medication and if this usage is maintained directly after discharge. METHODS: The study was conducted from November 2002 until January 2004. In 77 patients hospitalised with heart failure (HF), the medication prescribed by the referring general practitioner (GP) and drug treatment directed by the hospital physicians was documented. Information regarding the post-discharge (14 d) therapy by the GP was evaluated via a telephone interview. Ejection fraction values, comorbidity and specifics regarding diagnostic or therapeutic intervention were collected by chart review. RESULTS: When compared to the referring GPs, hospital physicians prescribed more ACE-inhibitors (58.4% vs. 76.6%; p = 0.001) and beta-blockers of proven efficacy in HF (metoprolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol; 58.4% vs. 81.8%). Aldosterone antagonists were also administered more frequently in the hospital setting compared to general practice (14.3% vs. 37.7%). The New York Heart Association classification for heart failure did not influence whether aldosterone antagonists were administered either in primary or secondary care. Fourteen days after discharge, there was no significant discontinuity in discharge medication. CONCLUSION: Patients suffering from HF were more likely to receive beneficial medication in hospital than prior to admission. The treatment regime then remained stable two weeks after discharge. We suggest that findings on drug continuation in different cardiovascular patients might be considered validated for patients with HF

Risk of hyperkalemia in patients with moderate chronic kidney disease initiating angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers : a randomized study

Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers are renoprotective but both may increase serum potassium concentrations in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The proportion of affected patients, the optimum follow-up period and whether there are differences between drugs in the development of this complication remain to be scertained. Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, phase IV, controlled, crossover study we recruited 30 patients with stage 3 CKD under restrictive eligibility criteria and strict dietary control. With the exception of withdrawals, each patient was treated with olmesartan and enalapril separately for 3 months each, with a 1-week wash-out period between treatments. Patients were clinically assessed on 10 occasions via measurements of serum and urine samples. We used the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics for comparison of categorical data between groups. Comparisons were also made using independent two-sample t-tests and Welch's t-test. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed when necessary. We used either a Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis test if the distribution was not normal or the variance not homogeneous. Results: Enalapril and olmesartan increased serum potassium levels similarly (0.3 mmol/L and 0.24 mmol/L respectively). The percentage of patients presenting hyperkalemia higher than 5 mmol/L did not differ between treatments: 37% for olmesartan and 40% for enalapril. The mean e-GFR ranged 46.3 to 48.59 ml/mint/1.73 m2 in those treated with olmesartan and 46.8 to 48.3 ml/mint/1.73 m2 in those with enalapril and remained unchanged at the end of the study. The decreases in microalbuminuria were also similar (23% in olmesartan and 29% in enalapril patients) in the 4 weeks time point. The percentage of patients presenting hyperkalemia, even after a two month period, did not differ between treatments. There were no appreciable changes in sodium and potassium urinary excretion. Conclusions: Disturbances in potassium balance upon treatment with either olmesartan or enalapril are frequent and without differences between groups. The follow-up of these patients should include control of potassium levels, at least after the first week and the first and second month after initiating treatment

Combination therapy in hypertension: An update

Meticulous control of blood pressure is required in patients with hypertension to produce the maximum reduction in clinical cardiovascular end points, especially in patients with comorbidities like diabetes mellitus where more aggressive blood pressure lowering might be beneficial. Recent clinical trials suggest that the approach of using monotherapy for the control of hypertension is not likely to be successful in most patients. Combination therapy may be theoretically favored by the fact that multiple factors contribute to hypertension, and achieving control of blood pressure with single agent acting through one particular mechanism may not be possible. Regimens can either be fixed dose combinations or drugs added sequentially one after other. Combining the drugs makes them available in a convenient dosing format, lower the dose of individual component, thus, reducing the side effects and improving compliance. Classes of antihypertensive agents which have been commonly used are angiotensin receptor blockers, thiazide diuretics, beta and alpha blockers, calcium antagonists and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Thiazide diuretics and calcium channel blockers are effective, as well as combinations that include renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers, in reducing BP. The majority of currently available fixed-dose combinations are diuretic-based. Combinations may be individualized according to the presence of comorbidities like diabetes mellitus, chronic renal failure, heart failure, thyroid disorders and for special population groups like elderly and pregnant females

Phase 2 Randomised Controlled Trial and Feasibility Study of Future Care Planning in Patients with Advanced Heart Disease

Future Care Planning (FCP) rarely occurs in patients with heart disease until close to death by which time the potential benefits are lost. We assessed the feasibility, acceptability and tested a design of a randomised trial evaluating the impact of FCP in patients and carers. 50 patients hospitalised with acute heart failure or acute coronary syndrome and with predicted 12 month mortality risk of >20% were randomly allocated to FCP or usual care for 12 weeks upon discharge and then crossed-over for the next 12 weeks. Quality of life, symptoms and anxiety/distress were assessed by questionnaire. Hospitalisation and mortality events were documented for 6 months post-discharge. FCP increased implementation and documentation of key decisions linked to end-of-life care. FCP did not increase anxiety/distress (Kessler score -E 16.7 (7.0) vs D 16.8 (7.3), p = 0.94). Quality of life was unchanged (EQ5D: E 0.54(0.29) vs D 0.56(0.24), p = 0.86) while unadjusted hospitalised nights was lower (E 8.6 (15.3) vs D 11.8 (17.1), p = 0.01). Qualitative interviews indicated that FCP was highly valued by patients, carers and family physicians. FCP is feasible in a randomised clinical trial in patients with acute high risk cardiac conditions. A Phase 3 trial is needed urgently