Prognostic Role of Cardiac Power Index in Ambulatory Patients with Advanced Heart Failure

BACKGROUND: Cardiac pump function is often quantified by left ventricular ejection fraction by various imaging modalities. As the heart is commonly conceptualized as a hydraulic pump, cardiac power describes the hydraulic function of the heart. We aim to describe the prognostic value of resting cardiac power index (CPI) in ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We calculated CPI in 495 sequential ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure who underwent invasive haemodynamic assessment with longitudinal follow-up of adverse outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiac transplantation, or ventricular assist device placement). The median CPI was 0.44 W/m(2) (interquartile range 0.37, 0.52). Over a median of 3.3 years, there were 117 deaths, 104 transplants, and 20 ventricular assist device placements in our cohort. Diminished CPI (\u3c0.44 W/m(2) ) was associated with increased adverse outcomes [hazard ratio (HR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-3.1, P \u3c 0.0001). The prognostic value of CPI remained significant after adjustment for age, gender, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, cardiac index, pulmonary vascular resistance, left ventricular ejection fraction, and creatinine [HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.03-2.3, P = 0.04). Furthermore, CPI can risk stratify independently of peak oxygen consumption (HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4-3.4, P = 0.0003). CONCLUSION: Resting cardiac power index provides independent and incremental prediction in adverse outcomes beyond traditional haemodynamic and cardio-renal risk factors

Prognostic Role of Pulmonary Arterial Capacitance in Advanced Heart Failure

Background—Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction frequently occurs and independently prognosticates in left-sided heart failure. It is not clear which RV afterload measure has the greatest impact on RV function and prognosis. We examined the determinants, prognostic role, and response to treatment of pulmonary arterial capacitance (PAC, ratio of stroke volume over pulmonary pulse pressure), in relation to pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) in heart failure. Methods and Results—We reviewed 724 consecutive patients with heart failure who underwent right heart catheterization between 2000 and 2005. Changes in PAC were explored in an independent cohort of 75 subjects treated for acute decompensated heart failure. PAC showed a strong inverse relation with PVR (r=−0.64) and wedge pressure (r=−0.73), and provides stronger prediction of significant RV failure than PVR (area under the curve ROC 0.74 versus 0.67, respectively, P=0.003). During a mean follow-up of 3.2±2.2 years, both lower PAC (P\u3c0.0001) and higher PVR (P\u3c0.0001) portend more adverse clinical events (all-cause mortality and cardiac transplantation). In multivariate analysis, PAC (but not PVR) remains an independent predictor (Hazard ratio=0.92 [95% CI: 0.84–1.0, P=0.037]). Treatment of heart failure resulted in a decrease in PVR (270±165 to 211±88 dynes·s–1·cm–5, P=0.002), a larger increase in PAC (1.65±0.64 to 2.61±1.42 mL/mm Hg, P\u3c0.0001), leading to an increase in pulmonary arterial time constant (PVR×PAC) (0.29±0.12 to 0.37±0.15 second, P\u3c0.0001). Conclusions—PAC bundles the effects of PVR and left-sided filling pressures on RV afterload, explaining its strong relation with RV dysfunction, poor long-term prognosis, and response to therapy

Impact of a Novel Adaptive Optimization Algorithm on 30-Day Readmissions Evidence From the Adaptive CRT Trial

AbstractObjectivesThis study investigated the impact of the Medtronic AdaptivCRT (aCRT) (Medtronic, Mounds View, Minnesota) algorithm on 30-day readmissions after heart failure (HF) and all-cause index hospitalizations.BackgroundThe U.S. Hospital Readmission Reduction Program, which includes a focus on HF, reduces Medicare inpatient payments when readmissions within 30 days of discharge exceed a moving threshold based on national averages and hospital-specific risk adjustments. Internationally, readmissions within 30 days of any discharge may attract reduced or no payment. Recently, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices equipped with the aCRT algorithm allowing automated ambulatory device programming were introduced. The Adaptive CRT trial demonstrated the algorithm’s safety and comparable outcome against a rigorous echocardiography-based optimization protocol.MethodsWe analyzed data from the Adaptive CRT trial, which randomized patients undergoing CRT defibrillation on a 2:1 basis to aCRT (n = 318) or to CRT with echocardiographic optimization (Echo, n = 160) and followed up these patients for a mean of 20.2 months (range: 0.2 to 31.3 months). Logistic regression with generalized estimating equation methodology was used to compare the proportion of patients hospitalized for HF and for all causes who had a readmission within 30 days.ResultsFor HF hospitalizations, the 30-day readmission rate was 19.1% (17 of 89) in the aCRT group and 35.7% (15 of 42) in the Echo group (odds ratio: 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19 to 0.86; p = 0.02). For all-cause hospitalization, the 30-day readmission rate was 14.8% (35 of 237) in the aCRT group compared with 24.8% (39 of 157) in the Echo group (odds ratio: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.94; p = 0.03). The risk of readmission after HF or all-cause index hospitalization with aCRT was also significantly reduced beyond 30 days.ConclusionsUse of the aCRT algorithm is associated with a significant reduction in the probability of a 30-day readmission after both HF and all-cause hospitalizations. (Adaptive Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Study [aCRT]; NCT00980057

Prognostic Role of Serum Chloride Levels in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

BACKGROUND: Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) can be complicated by electrolyte abnormalities, but the major focus has been concentrated on the clinical significance of serum sodium levels

Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients The ROADMAP Study 2-Year Results

OBJECTIVES The authors sought to provide the pre-specified primary endpoint of the ROADMAP (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients) trial at 2 years. BACKGROUND The ROADMAP trial was a prospective nonrandomized observational study of 200 patients (97 with a left ventricular assist device [LVAD], 103 on optimal medical management [OMM]) that showed that survival with improved functional status at 1 year was better with LVADs compared with OMM in a patient population of ambulatory New York Heart Association functional class IIIb/IV patients. METHODS The primary composite endpoint was survival on original therapy with improvement in 6-min walk distance \u3e= 75 m. RESULTS Patients receiving LVAD versus OMM had lower baseline health-related quality of life, reduced Seattle Heart Failure Model 1-year survival (78% vs. 84%; p = 0.012), and were predominantly INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) profile 4 (65% vs. 34%; p \u3c 0.001) versus profiles 5 to 7. More LVAD patients met the primary endpoint at 2 years: 30% LVAD versus 12% OMM (odds ratio: 3.2 [95% confidence interval: 1.3 to 7.7]; p = 0.012). Survival as treated on original therapy at 2 years was greater for LVAD versus OMM (70 +/- 5% vs. 41 +/- 5%; p \u3c 0.001), but there was no difference in intent-to-treat survival (70 +/- 5% vs. 63 +/- 5%; p = 0.307). In the OMM arm, 23 of 103 (22%) received delayed LVADs (18 within 12 months; 5 from 12 to 24 months). LVAD adverse events declined after year 1 for bleeding (primarily gastrointestinal) and arrhythmias. CONCLUSIONS Survival on original therapy with improvement in 6-min walk distance was superior with LVAD compared with OMM at 2 years. Reduction in key adverse events beyond 1 year was observed in the LVAD group. The ROADMAP trial provides risk-benefit information to guide patient- and physician-shared decision making for elective LVAD therapy as a treatment for heart failure. (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients [ROADMAP]; NCT01452802

Risk related to pre–diabetes mellitus and diabetes mellitus in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: insights from prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to determine impact on global mortality and morbidity in heart failure trial

Background—The prevalence of pre–diabetes mellitus and its consequences in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction are not known. We investigated these in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. Methods and Results—We examined clinical outcomes in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction according to history of diabetes mellitus and glycemic status (baseline hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]: <6.0% [<42 mmol/mol], 6.0%–6.4% [42–47 mmol/mol; pre–diabetes mellitus], and ≥6.5% [≥48 mmol/mol; diabetes mellitus]), in Cox regression models adjusted for known predictors of poor outcome. Patients with a history of diabetes mellitus (n=2907 [35%]) had a higher risk of the primary composite outcome of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality compared with those without a history of diabetes mellitus: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.25 to 1.52;P<0.001. HbA1c measurement showed that an additional 1106 (13% of total) patients had undiagnosed diabetes mellitus and 2103 (25%) had pre–diabetes mellitus. The hazard ratio for patients with undiagnosed diabetes mellitus (HbA1c, >6.5%) and known diabetes mellitus compared with those with HbA1c<6.0% was 1.39 (1.17–1.64); P<0.001 and 1.64 (1.43–1.87); P<0.001, respectively. Patients with pre–diabetes mellitus were also at higher risk (hazard ratio, 1.27 [1.10–1.47];P<0.001) compared with those with HbA1c<6.0%. The benefit of LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan) compared with enalapril was consistent across the range of HbA1c in the trial. Conclusions—In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, dysglycemia is common and pre–diabetes mellitus is associated with a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (compared with patients with no diabetes mellitus and HbA1c <6.0%). LCZ696 was beneficial compared with enalapril, irrespective of glycemic status

Percutaneous Mitral Valve Annuloplasty in Patients With Secondary Mitral Regurgitation and Severe Left Ventricular Enlargement.

This study sought to determine the effect of percutaneous mitral valve annuloplasty with the Carillon device versus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) alone in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) and severe left ventricular (LV) enlargement.The clinical impact of the Carillon device in patients with severe LV dilation is not well established.This is a pooled analysis involving 3 prospective trials (TITAN [Transcatheter Implantation of Carillon Mitral Annuloplasty Device], TITAN II, and REDUCE FMR [CARILLON Mitral Contour System for Reducing Functional Mitral Regurgitation] trials) in which patients with functional MR and severe LV enlargement (LV end-diastolic diameter65 mm) were treated with GDMT and the Carillon device versus GDMT alone. Key outcomes of this analysis were changes over 1 year of follow-up in mitral valve and LV echocardiographic parameters, functional outcome, quality of life, mortality, and heart failure hospitalization (HFH).A total of 95 patients (67 in the Carillon group, 28 in the GDMT group) with severe LV enlargement were included. In the Carillon group, all mitral valve and LV morphology parameters were significantly improved at 1 year. Regurgitant volume decreased by 12 ml (p 0.001), MR grade decreased by 0.6 U (p 0.001), LV end-diastolic volume decreased by 25 cmIn patients with functional MR and severe LV enlargement, the Carillon device improved mitral valve function, LV morphology, and functional outcome compared with patients receiving GDMT only. Preoperative LV dimension should not be a limiting factor when evaluating patient eligibility or anticipated response to therapy with the Carillon device