Characterization of health care utilization in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies: An analysis of the managed ventricular pacing trial.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are effective in terminating lethal arrhythmias, but little is known about the degree of health care utilization (HCU) after ICD therapies. OBJECTIVE: Using data from the managed ventricular pacing trial, we sought to identify the incidence and types of HCU in ICD patients after receiving ICD therapy (shocks or antitachycardia pacing [ATP]). METHODS: We analyzed HCU events (ventricular tachyarrhythmia [VTA]-related, heart failure-related, ICD implant procedure-related, ICD system-related, or other) and their association with ICD therapies (shocked ventricular tachycardia episode, ATP-terminated ventricular tachycardia episode, and inappropriately shocked episode). RESULTS: A total of 1879 HCUs occurred in 695 of 1030 subjects (80% primary prevention) and were classified as follows: 133 (7%) VTA-related, 373 (20%) heart failure-related, 97 (5%) implant procedure-related, 115 (6%) system-related, and 1160 (62%) other. Of 2113 treated VTA episodes, 1680 (80%) received ATP only and 433 (20%) received shocks. Stratifying VTA-related HCUs on the basis of the type of ICD therapy delivered, there were 25 HCUs per 100 shocked VTA episodes compared with 1 HCU per 100 ATP-terminated episodes. Inappropriate ICD shocks occurred in 8.7% of the subjects and were associated with 115 HCUs. The majority of HCUs (52%) began in the emergency department, and 66% of all HCUs resulted in hospitalization. CONCLUSION: For VTA-related HCUs, shocks are associated with a 25-fold increase in HCUs compared to VTAs treated by ATP only. Application of evidence-based strategies and automated device-based algorithms to reduce ICD shocks (higher rate cutoffs, use of ATP, and arrhythmia detection) may help reduce HCUs

Heart Rate or Beta-Blocker Dose? Association With Outcomes in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients With Systolic Dysfunction Results From the HF-ACTION Trial

AbstractObjectivesThis study aimed to compare whether reduced heart rate (HR) or higher beta-blocker (BB) dose affected outcomes to a greater extent in the HF-ACTION (Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training) trial population.BackgroundRecent data have shown that HR is an important modifiable factor in reducing mortality in heart failure (HF) patients. It has also been shown that titration of doses of BBs improves outcomes of morbidity and mortality in chronic HF patients with reduced ejection fraction. We aimed to compare whether reduced HR or higher BB dose affected outcomes to a greater extent in the HF-ACTION trial population.MethodsHF-ACTION was a randomized, multicenter trial enrolling 2,331 ambulatory HF patients with systolic dysfunction (New York Heart Association functional class II to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35) randomized to exercise training versus usual care, with median follow-up of 2.5 years. BB dose at baseline was standardized by use of carvedilol equivalents. BB dose and HR were analyzed by discrete groups (higher/lower dose; higher/lower HR). The relationship of BB dose, HR, and the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization and other cardiovascular secondary endpoints were determined before and after adjustment for variables found to be significantly associated with outcome in the HF-ACTION cohort.ResultsThere was a significant inverse relationship between either BB dose (higher was better) or HR (lower was better) and all-cause death or hospitalization in unadjusted analysis; however, only BB dose was significant for improved mortality outcomes. After adjustment for other predictors of outcome, only BB dose remained significant for improving all-cause death or hospitalization. BB dose, but not HR, was associated with improved outcomes of other cardiovascular endpoints in unadjusted analysis but did not remain significant when adjusted for other predictors of outcome in this cohort.ConclusionsThere were more associated improvements in outcomes with higher BB dose than with reduced HR in this well-treated HF cohort with systolic dysfunction, which suggests that titration of BB doses may confer a greater benefit than reduction of HR in such patients. (Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training [HF-ACTION]; NCT00047437

Stratifying patients at the risk of heart failure hospitalization using existing device diagnostic thresholds

AbstractBackgroundHeart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) cost the US health care system ∼$20 billion annually. Identifying patients at risk of HFH to enable timely intervention and prevent expensive hospitalization remains a challenge. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization devices with defibrillation capability (CRT-Ds) collect a host of diagnostic parameters that change with HF status and collectively have the potential to signal an increasing risk of HFH. These device-collected diagnostic parameters include activity, day and night heart rate, atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation (AT/AF) burden, mean rate during AT/AF, percent CRT pacing, number of shocks, and intrathoracic impedance. There are thresholds for these parameters that when crossed trigger a notification, referred to as device observation, which gets noted on the device report. We investigated if these existing device observations can stratify patients at varying risk of HFH.MethodsWe analyzed data from 775 patients (age: 69 ± 11 year, 68% male) with CRT-D devices followed for 13 ± 5 months with adjudicated HFHs. HFH rate was computed for increasing number of device observations. Data were analyzed by both excluding and including intrathoracic impedance. HFH risk was assessed at the time of a device interrogation session, and all the data between previous and current follow-up sessions were used to determine the HFH risk for the next 30 days.Results2276 follow-up sessions in 775 patients were evaluated with 42 HFHs in 37 patients. Percentage of evaluations that were followed by an HFH within the next 30 days increased with increasing number of device observations. Patients with 3 or more device observations were at 42× HFH risk compared to patients with no device observation. Even after excluding intrathoracic impedance, the remaining device parameters effectively stratified patients at HFH risk.ConclusionAvailable device observations could provide an effective method to stratify patients at varying risk of heart failure hospitalization

Rehabilitation Therapy in Older Acute Heart Failure Patients (REHAB-HF) trial: Design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a leading cause of hospitalization in older persons in the United States. Reduced physical function and frailty are major determinants of adverse outcomes in older patients with hospitalized ADHF. However, these are not addressed by current heart failure (HF) management strategies and there has been little study of exercise training in older, frail HF patients with recent ADHF. HYPOTHESIS: Targeting physical frailty with a multi-domain structured physical rehabilitation intervention will improve physical function and reduce adverse outcomes among older patients experiencing a HF hospitalization. STUDY DESIGN: REHAB-HF is a multi-center clinical trial in which 360 patients ≥60 years hospitalized with ADHF will be randomized either to a novel 12-week multi-domain physical rehabilitation intervention or to attention control. The goal of the intervention is to improve balance, mobility, strength and endurance utilizing reproducible, targeted exercises administered by a multi-disciplinary team with specific milestones for progression. The primary study aim is to assess the efficacy of the REHAB-HF intervention on physical function measured by total Short Physical Performance Battery score. The secondary outcome is 6-month all-cause rehospitalization. Additional outcome measures include quality of life and costs. CONCLUSIONS: REHAB-HF is the first randomized trial of a physical function intervention in older patients with hospitalized ADHF designed to determine if addressing deficits in balance, mobility, strength and endurance improves physical function and reduces rehospitalizations. It will address key evidence gaps concerning the role of physical rehabilitation in the care of older patients, those with ADHF, frailty, and multiple comorbidities

Statins and Exercise Training Response in Heart Failure Patients: Insights From HF-ACTION.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess for a treatment interaction between statin use and exercise training (ET) response. BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest that statins may attenuate ET response, but limited data exist in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: HF-ACTION (Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training) was a randomized trial of 2,331 patients with chronic HF with ejection fraction ≤35% who were randomized to usual care with or without ET. We evaluated whether there was a treatment interaction between statins and ET response for the change in quality of life and aerobic capacity (peak oxygen consumption and 6-min walk distance) from baseline to 3 months. We also assessed for a treatment interaction among atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin and change in these endpoints with ET. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed for each endpoint, adjusting for baseline covariates. RESULTS: Of 2,331 patients in the HF-ACTION trial, 1,353 (58%) were prescribed statins at baseline. Patients treated with statins were more likely to be older men with ischemic HF etiology but had similar use of renin angiotensin system blockers and beta-blockers. There was no evidence of a treatment interaction between statin use and ET on changes in quality of life or exercise capacity, nor was there evidence of differential association between statin type and ET response for these endpoints (all p values \u3e0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In a large chronic HF cohort, there was no evidence of a treatment interaction between statin use and short-term change in aerobic capacity and quality of life with ET. These findings contrast with recent reports of an attenuation in ET response with statins in a different population, highlighting the need for future prospective studies. (Exercise Training Program to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Individuals With Congestive Heart Failure; NCT00047437)

Relationship of Beta-Blocker Dose With Outcomes in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients With Systolic Dysfunction Results From the HF-ACTION (Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training) Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to examine the association between baseline beta-blocker (BB) dose and outcomes in the HF-ACTION (Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training) trial.BackgroundBeta-blockers reduce morbidity and mortality in chronic heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction, but it is unclear whether titrating to higher BB doses improves outcomes in this setting.MethodsThe HF-ACTION trial was a randomized, multicenter trial enrolling 2,331 ambulatory HF patients with systolic dysfunction (New York Heart Association functional class II to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35) randomized to exercise training versus usual care, with median follow-up of 2.5 years. The BB dose at baseline was standardized with carvedilol equivalents and analyzed as a continuous variable and by discrete dose groups. The relationship between BB dose and the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization and other cardiovascular secondary endpoints was determined before and after adjustment for variables significantly associated with outcomes in the HF-ACTION cohort.ResultsNinety-five percent of patients were receiving a BB. There was a significant inverse relationship between BB dose and all-cause death or hospitalization but not other cardiovascular endpoints after adjustment for other predictors of outcome, with a linear benefit up to the 50-mg daily dose. There was a significant association between BB dose and change in peak VO2 at 3 months. There was no increase in bradycardia with higher doses of BB.ConclusionsThere was a significant inverse relationship between BB dose and the endpoint of all-cause death or all-cause hospitalization in this well-treated HF cohort with systolic dysfunction, supporting recommendations that titrating doses up to 50 mg/day might confer a benefit in such patients. (Exercise Training Program to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Individuals With Congestive Heart Failure; NCT00047437

Effect of Natriuretic Peptide-Guided Therapy on Hospitalization or Cardiovascular Mortality in High-Risk Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The natriuretic peptides are biochemical markers of heart failure (HF) severity and predictors of adverse outcomes. Smaller studies have evaluated adjusting HF therapy based on natriuretic peptide levels ( guided therapy ) with inconsistent results. Objective: To determine whether an amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)-guided treatment strategy improves clinical outcomes vs usual care in high-risk patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Design, Settings, and Participants: The Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure (GUIDE-IT) study was a randomized multicenter clinical trial conducted between January 16, 2013, and September 20, 2016, at 45 clinical sites in the United States and Canada. This study planned to randomize 1100 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%), elevated natriuretic peptide levels within the prior 30 days, and a history of a prior HF event (HF hospitalization or equivalent) to either an NT-proBNP-guided strategy or usual care. Interventions: Patients were randomized to either an NT-proBNP-guided strategy or usual care. Patients randomized to the guided strategy (n = 446) had HF therapy titrated with the goal of achieving a target NT-proBNP of less than 1000 pg/mL. Patients randomized to usual care (n = 448) had HF care in accordance with published guidelines, with emphasis on titration of proven neurohormonal therapies for HF. Serial measurement of NT-proBNP testing was discouraged in the usual care group. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the composite of time-to-first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality. Prespecified secondary end points included all-cause mortality, total hospitalizations for HF, days alive and not hospitalized for cardiovascular reasons, the individual components on the primary end point, and adverse events. Results: The data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the study for futility when 894 (median age, 63 years; 286 [32%] women) of the planned 1100 patients had been enrolled with follow-up for a median of 15 months. The primary end point occurred in 164 patients (37%) in the biomarker-guided group and 164 patients (37%) in the usual care group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.22; P = .88). Cardiovascular mortality was 12% (n = 53) in the biomarker-guided group and 13% (n = 57) in the usual care group (HR, 0.94; 95% CI; 0.65-1.37; P = .75). None of the secondary end points nor the decreases in the NT-proBNP levels achieved differed significantly between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In high-risk patients with HFrEF, a strategy of NT-proBNP-guided therapy was not more effective than a usual care strategy in improving outcomes. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01685840