Medical treatment of octogenarians with chronic heart failure: data from CHECK-HF

Background: Elderly heart failure (HF) patients are underrepresented in clinical trials, though are a large proportion of patients in real-world practice. We investigated practice-based, secondary care HF management in a large group of chronic HF patients aged ≥ 80 years (octogenarians). Methods: We analyzed electronic health records of 3490 octogenarians with chronic HF at 34 Dutch outpatient clinics in the period between 2013 and 2016 , 49% women. Study patients were divided into HFpEF [LVEF ≥ 50%; n = 911 (26.1%)], HFrEF [LVEF < 40%; n = 2009 (57.6%)] and HF with mid-range EF [HFmrEF: LVEF 40–49%; n = 570 (16.3%)]. Results: Most HFrEF patients aged ≥ 80 years received a beta blocker and a renin–angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor (angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker), i.e. 78.3% and 72.8% respectively, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) was prescribed in 52.0% of patients. All three of these guideline-recommended medications (triple therapy) were given in only 29.9% of octogenarians with HFrEF, and at least 50% of target doses of triple therapy, beta blockers, RAS inhibitor and MRA, were prescribed in 43.8%, 62.2% and 53.5% of the total group of HFrEF patients. Contraindications or intolerance for beta blockers was present in 3.5% of the patients, for RAS inhibitors and MRAs in, 7.2% and 6.1% Conclusions: The majority of octogenarians with HFrEF received one or more guideline-recommended HF medications. However, triple therapy or target doses of the medications were prescribed in a minority. Comorbidities and reported contraindications and tolerances did not fully explain underuse of recommended HF therapies. Graphic abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.]

Impact of sex-specific target dose in chronic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction

Aims A recent study suggested that women with heart failure and heart failure reduced ejection fraction might hypothetically need lower doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers ( = renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors) and beta-blockers than men to achieve the best outcome. We assessed the current medical treatment of heart failure reduced ejection fraction in men and women in a large contemporary cohort and address the hypothetical impact of changing treatment levels in women. Methods This analysis is part of a large contemporary quality of heart failure care project which includes 5320 (64%) men and 3003 (36%) women with heart failure reduced ejection fraction. Detailed information on heart failure therapy prescription and dosage were collected. Results Women less often received renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors (79% vs 83%, p 100% of the new hypothetical target dose would be 24% for beta-blockers and 52% for renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors, which can be considered as relatively overdosed. Conclusion In this large contemporary heart failure registry, there were significant but relatively small differences in drug dose between men and women with heart failure reduced ejection fraction. Implementation of the hypothetical sex-specific target dosing schedule would lead to considerably more women adequately treated. In contrast, we identified a group of women who might have been relatively overdosed with increased risk of side-effects and intolerance

Clinical profile and contemporary management of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: results from the CHECK-HF registry

Background: Clinical management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) centres on treating comorbidities and is likely to vary between countries. Thus, to provide insight into the current management of HFpEF, studies from multiple countries are required. We evaluated the clinical profiles and current management of patients with HFpEF in the Netherlands. Methods: We included 2153 patients with HFpEF (defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%) from the CHECK-HF registry, which included patients from 2013 to 2016. Results: Median age was 77 (IQR 15) years, 55% were women and the most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (51%), renal insufficiency (45%) and atrial fibrillation (AF, 38%). Patients between 65 and 80 years and those over 80 years had on average more comorbidities (up to 64% and 74%, respectively, with two or more comorbidities) than patients younger than 65 years (38% with two or more comorbidities, p-value < 0.001). Although no specific drugs are available for HFpEF, treating comorbidities is advised. Beta-blockers were most frequently prescribed (78%), followed by loop diuretics (74%), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (67%) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs, 39%). Strongest predictors for loop-diuretic use were older age, higher New York Heart Association class and AF. Conclusion: The medical HFpEF profile is determined by the underlying comorbidities, sex and age. Comorbidities are highly prevalent in HFpEF patients, especially in elderly HFpEF patients. Despite the lack of evidence, many HFpEF patients receive regular beta-blockers, RAS inhibitors and MRAs, often for the treatment of comorbidities

Left ventricular remodelling and prognosis after discharge in new-onset acute heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Aims: This study aimed to investigate the left ventricular (LV) remodelling and long-term prognosis of patients with new-onset acute heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction who were pharmacologically managed and survived until hospital discharge. We compared patients with ischaemic and non-ischaemic aetiology. Methods and results: This cohort study consisted of 111 patients admitted with new-onset acute HF in the period 2008–2016 [62% non-ischaemic aetiology, 48% supported by inotropes, vasopressors, or short-term mechanical circulatory devices, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at discharge 28% (interquartile range 22–34)]. LV dimensions, LVEF, and mitral valve regurgitation were used as markers for LV remodelling during up to 3 years of follow-up. Both patients with non-ischaemic and ischaemic HF had significant improvement in LVEF (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively) with significant higher improvement in those with non-ischaemic HF (17% vs. 6%, P < 0.001). Patients with non-ischaemic HF had reduction in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic diameters (6 and 10 mm, both P < 0.001), but this was not found in those with ischaemic HF [+3 mm (P = 0.09) and +2 mm (P = 0.07), respectively]. During a median follow-up of 4.6 years, 98 patients (88%) did not reach the composite endpoint of LV assist device implantation, heart transplantation, or all-cause mortality, with no difference between with ischaemic and non-ischaemic HF [hazard ratio 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.19–2.45)]. Conclusions: Patients with new-onset acute HF with reduced ejection fraction discharged on optimal medical treatment have a good prognosis. We observed a considerable LV remodelling with improvement in LV function and dimensions, starting already at 6 months in patients with non-ischaemic HF but not in their ischaemic counterparts

Atrial fibrillation in chronic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction:The CHECK-HF registry

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in chronic heart failure (HF) patients and influences the choice and effects of drug and device therapy. In this large real-world HF registry, we studied whether the presence of AF affects the prescription of guideline-recommended HF therapy. Methods: We analyzed 8253 patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) from 34 Dutch outpatient clinics included in the period between 2013 and 2016 treated according to the 2012 ESC guidelines. Results: 2109 (25.6%) of these patients were in AF (mean age 76.8 ± 9.2 years, 65.0% were men) and 6.144 (74.4%) had no AF (mean age 70.7 ± 12.2 years, 63.6% were men). Patients with AF more often received beta-blockers (81.7% vs. 79.7%, p = 0.04), MRAs (57.1% vs. 51.7%, p < 0.01), diuretics (89.7% vs. 80.6%, p < 0.01) and digoxin (40.1% vs. 9.3%, p < 0.01) compared to patients without AF, whereas they less often receive renin-angiotensin-system (RAS)-inhibitors (76.1% vs. 83.1%, p < 0.01). The number of patients who received beta-blockers, RAS-inhibitor and MRA at ≥50% of the recommended target dose was comparable between those with and without AF (16.6% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.07). Conclusion: In this large cohort of chronic HFrEF patients, the prevalence of AF was high and we observed significant differences in prescription of both guideline-recommended HF between patients with and without AF

A randomised comparison of the effect of haemodynamic monitoring with CardioMEMS in addition to standard care on quality of life and hospitalisations in patients with chronic heart failure: Design and rationale of the MONITOR HF multicentre randomised clinical trial

Background: Assessing haemodynamic congestion based on filling pressures instead of clinical congestion can be a way to further improve quality of life (QoL) and clinical outcome by intervening before symptoms or weight gain occur in heart failure (HF) patients. The clinical efficacy of remote monitoring of pulmonary artery (PA) pressures (CardioMEMS; Abbott Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA) has been demonstrated in the USA. Currently, the PA sensor is not reimbursed in the European Union as its benefit when applied in addition to standard HF care is unknown in Western European countries, including the Netherlands. Aims: To demonstrate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of haemodynamic PA monitoring in addition to contemporary standard HF care in a high-quality Western European health care system. Methods: The current study is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised clinical trial in 340 patients with chronic HF (New York Heart Association functional class III) randomised to HF care including remote monitoring with the CardioMEMS PA sensor or standard HF care alone. Eligible patients have at least one hospitalisation for HF in 12 months before enrolment and will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Minimum follow-up will be 1 year. The primary endpoint is the change in QoL as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Secondary endpoints are the number of HF hospital admissions and changes in health status assessed by EQ-5D-5L questionnaire including health care utilisation and formal cost-effectiveness analysis. Conclusion: The MONITOR HF trial will evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of haemodynamic monitoring by CardioMEMS in addition to standard HF care in patients with chronic HF. Clinical Trial Registration number NTR7672