In-Hospital Virtual Peer-to-Peer Consultation to Increase Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Heart Failure: A Pilot Randomized Trial.

Background: Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improves clinical outcomes and quality of life. Optimizing GDMT in the hospital is associated with greater long-term use in HFrEF. This study aimed to describe the efficacy of a multidisciplinary virtual HF intervention on GDMT optimization among patients with HFrEF admitted for any cause. Methods: In this pilot randomized, controlled study, consecutive patients with HFrEF admitted to non-cardiology medicine services for any cause were identified at a large academic tertiary care hospital between May to September 2021. Major exclusions were end-stage renal disease, hemodynamic instability, concurrent COVID-19 infection, and current enrollment in hospice care. Patients were randomized to a clinician-level virtual peer-to-peer consult intervention providing GDMT recommendations and information on medication costs vs. usual care. Primary endpoints included 1) proportion of patients with new GDMT initiation or use, and 2) changes to HF optimal medical therapy (OMT) scores which included target dosing (range 0-9). Results: Of 242 patients identified, 91 (38%) were eligible and randomized to intervention (N=52) or usual care (N=39). Baseline characteristics were similar between intervention and usual care (mean age 63 vs. 67 years, 23% vs. 26% female, 46% vs. 49% Black, mean EF 33% vs. 31%). GDMT use on admission was also similar. There were greater proportions of patients with GDMT initiation or continuation with the intervention compared with usual care. After adjusting for OMT score on admission, changes to OMT score at discharge were higher for the intervention group compared with usual care (+0.44 vs. -0.31, absolute difference +0.75, adjusted estimate 0.86 ± 0.42; p=0.041). Conclusions: Among eligible patients with HFrEF hospitalized for any cause on non-cardiology services, a multidisciplinary pilot virtual HF consultation increased new GDMT initiation and dose optimization at discharge.

A multicenter program for electronic health record screening for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Lessons from the DELIVER-EHR initiative.

Efficiency in clinical trial recruitment and enrollment remains a major challenge in many areas of clinical medicine. In particular, despite the prevalence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), identifying patients with HFpEF for clinical trials has proven to be especially challenging. In this manuscript, we review strategies for contemporary clinical trial recruitment and present insights from the results of the DELIVER Electronic Health Record (EHR) Screening Initiative. The DELIVER trial was designed to evaluate the effects of dapagliflozin on clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF. Within this trial, the multicenter DELIVER EHR Screening Initiative utilized EHR-based techniques in order to improve recruitment at selected sites in the United States. For this initiative, we developed and deployed a computable phenotype from the trial's eligibility criteria along with additional EHR tools at interested sites. Sites were then surveyed at the end of the program regarding lessons learned. Six sites were recruited, trained, and supported to utilize the EHR methodology and computable phenotype. Sites found the initiative to be helpful in identifying eligible patients and cited the individualized expert technical support as a critical factor in utilizing the program effectively. We found that the major challenge of implementation was the process of converting traditional inclusion/exclusion criteria into a computable phenotype within an established and ongoing trial. Other significant challenges noted by sites were the following: impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, engagement/support by local institutions, and limited availability of internal EHR experts/resources to execute programming. The study represents a proof-of-concept in the ability to utilize EHR-based tools in clinical trial recruitment for patients with HFpEF and provides important lessons for future initiatives. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03619213.

Transplanting thoracic COVID-19 positive donors: An institutional protocol and report of the first 14 cases.

We present our institution's protocol for evaluating and transplanting thoracic organs from COVID-19 positive donors and report the outcomes to date. Hearts from donors testing positive for COVID-19 on any test were eligible for transplantation at our institution provided the donor exhibited no evidence of hypercoagulability or COVID-19 induced hyperinflammatory state during terminal hospitalization. Lungs were eligible if the donor first tested PCR positive on nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) for COVID-19 > 20 days prior to procurement and had a negative lower respiratory tract specimen. We performed 14 thoracic transplants in 13 recipients using organs from COVID-19 positive donors. None of the recipients or healthcare members acquired COVID-19. No recipients suffered unexpected acute rejection. Patient survival is 92% to date, with graft survival 93%. The use of hearts from COVID-19 positive donors may be safe and effective. Transplantation of lungs is unresolved but may be cautiously pursued under the restricted circumstances.

Heart failure quality of care and in-hospital outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry.

AIMS: To assess heart failure (HF) in-hospital quality of care and outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients hospitalized for HF with ejection fraction (EF) <40% in the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines©-HF (GWTG-HF) registry during the COVID-19 pandemic (3/1/2020-4/1/2021) and pre-pandemic (2/1/2019-2/29/2020) periods were included. Adherence to HF process of care measures, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay (LOS) were compared in pre-pandemic vs. pandemic periods and in patients with vs. without COVID-19. Overall, 42 004 pre-pandemic and 37 027 pandemic period patients (median age 68, 33% women, 58% White) were included without observed differences across clinical characteristics, comorbidities, vital signs, or EF. Utilization of guideline-directed medical therapy at discharge was comparable across both periods, with rates of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement or prescription lower during the pandemic (vs. pre-pandemic period). In-hospital mortality (3.0% vs. 2.5%, p <0.0001) and LOS (mean 5.7 vs. 5.4 days, p <0.0004) were higher during the pandemic vs. pre-pandemic. The highest in-hospital mortality during the pandemic was observed among patients hospitalized in the Northeast region (3.4%). Among patients concurrently diagnosed with COVID-19 (n = 549; 1.5%), adherence to ICD placement or prescription, prescription of aldosterone antagonist or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor at discharge were lower, and in-hospital mortality (8.2% vs. 3.0%, p <0.0001) and LOS (mean 7.7 vs. 5.7 days, p <0.0001) were higher than those without COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Among GWTG-HF participating hospitals, patients hospitalized for HF with reduced EF during the pandemic received similar care quality but experienced higher in-hospital mortality than the pre-pandemic period.

Effect of Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The use of sacubitril/valsartan is not endorsed by practice guidelines for use in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction because of limited clinical experience in this population. Objective: To compare treatment with sacubitril/valsartan treatment with valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association class IV symptoms. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted; a total of 335 patients with advanced heart failure were included. The trial began on March 2, 2017, and was stopped early on March 23, 2020, owing to COVID-19 risk. Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose, 200 mg twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The area under the curve (AUC) for the ratio of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with baseline measured through 24 weeks of therapy. Results: Of the 335 patients included in the analysis, 245 were men (73%); mean (SD) age was 59.4 (13.5) years. Seventy-two eligible patients (18%) were not able to tolerate sacubitril/valsartan, 100 mg/d, during the short run-in period, and 49 patients (29%) discontinued sacubitril/valsartan during the 24 weeks of the trial. The median NT-proBNP AUC for the valsartan treatment arm (n = 168) was 1.19 (IQR, 0.91-1.64), whereas the AUC for the sacubitril/valsartan treatment arm (n = 167) was 1.08 (IQR, 0.75-1.60). The estimated ratio of change in the NT-proBNP AUC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.84-1.08; P = .45). Compared with valsartan, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not improve the clinical composite of number of days alive, out of hospital, and free from heart failure events. Aside from a statistically significant increase in non-life-threatening hyperkalemia in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (28 [17%] vs 15 [9%]; P = .04), there were no observed safety concerns. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this trial showed that, in patients with chronic advanced heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction, there was no statistically significant difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan with respect to reducing NT-proBNP levels. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02816736.

Contemporary Use of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Insights from the Multicenter RESCUE Registry.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used as a life-saving therapy for patients with cardiovascular collapse, but identifying patients unlikely to benefit remains a challenge. METHODS AND RESULTS: We created the RESCUE registry, a retrospective, observational registry of adult patients treated with VA-ECMO between January 2007 and June 2017 at 3 high-volume centers (Columbia University, Duke University, and Washington University) to describe short-term patient outcomes. In 723 patients treated with VA-ECMO, the most common indications for deployment were postcardiotomy shock (31%), cardiomyopathy (including acute heart failure) (26%), and myocardial infarction (17%). Patients frequently suffered in-hospital complications, including acute renal dysfunction (45%), major bleeding (41%), and infection (33%). Only 40% of patients (n = 290) survived to discharge, with a minority receiving durable cardiac support (left ventricular assist device [n = 48] or heart transplantation [n = 7]). Multivariable regression analysis identified risk factors for mortality on ECMO as older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.42) and female sex (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.02-2.02) and risk factors for mortality after decannulation as higher body mass index (OR 1.17; 95% CI, 1.01-1.35) and major bleeding while on ECMO support (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.23-2.99). CONCLUSIONS: Despite contemporary care at high-volume centers, patients treated with VA-ECMO continue to have significant in-hospital morbidity and mortality. The optimization of outcomes will require refinements in patient selection and improvement of care delivery.

Characteristics and Outcomes of COVID-19 in Patients on Left Ventricular Assist Device Support.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to afflict millions of people worldwide. Patients with end-stage heart failure and left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may be at risk for severe COVID-19 given a high prevalence of complex comorbidities and functional impaired immunity. The objective of this study is to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with end-stage heart failure and durable LVADs. METHODS: The Trans-CoV-VAD registry is a multi-center registry of LVAD and cardiac transplant patients in the United States with confirmed COVID-19. Patient characteristics, exposure history, presentation, laboratory data, course, and clinical outcomes were collected by participating institutions and reviewed by a central data repository. This report represents the participation of the first 9 centers to report LVAD data into the registry. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were included in this cohort. The median age was 56 years (interquartile range, 46-68), 14 (35%) were women, and 21 (52%) were Black. Among the most common presenting symptoms were cough (41%), fever, and fatigue (both 38%). A total of 18% were asymptomatic at diagnosis. Only 43% of the patients reported either subjective or measured fever during the entire course of illness. Over half (60%) required hospitalization, and 8 patients (20%) died, often after lengthy hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: We present the largest case series of LVAD patients with COVID-19 to date. Understanding these characteristics is essential in an effort to improve the outcome of this complex patient population.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Advanced Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Rationale and Design of the LIFE Trial.

The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial reported that sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, significantly reduced mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, fewer than 1% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF study had New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV symptoms. Accordingly, data that informed the use of S/V among patients with advanced HF were limited. The LIFE (LCZ696 in Hospitalized Advanced Heart Failure) study was a 24-week prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, double-dummy, active comparator trial that compared the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of S/V with those of valsartan in patients with advanced HFrEF. The trial planned to randomize 400 patients ≥18 years of age with advanced HF, defined as an EF ≤35%, New York Heart Association functional class IV symptoms, elevated natriuretic peptide concentration (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥250 pg/ml or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] ≥800 pg/ml), and ≥1 objective finding of advanced HF. Following a 3- to 7-day open label run-in period with S/V (24 mg/26 mg twice daily), patients were randomized 1:1 to S/V titrated to 97 mg/103 mg twice daily versus 160 mg of V twice daily. The primary endpoint was the proportional change from baseline in the area under the curve for NT-proBNP levels measured through week 24. Secondary and tertiary endpoints included clinical outcomes and safety and tolerability. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enrollment in the LIFE trial was stopped prematurely to ensure patient safety and data integrity. The primary analysis consists of the first 335 randomized patients whose clinical follow-up examination results were not severely impacted by COVID-19. (Entresto [LCZ696] in Advanced Heart Failure [LIFE STUDY] [HFN-LIFE]; NCT02816736).