Hemodynamic-Guided Heart Failure Management in Patients With Either Prior HF Hospitalization or Elevated Natriuretic Peptides.

BACKGROUND: In patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) and previous heart failure hospitalization (HFH), hemodynamic-guided HF management using a wireless pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) sensor reduces HFH, but it is unclear whether these benefits extend to patients who have not been recently hospitalized but remain at risk because of elevated natriuretic peptides (NPs). OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of hemodynamic-guided HF management in patients with elevated NPs but no recent HFH. METHODS: In the GUIDE-HF (Hemodynamic-Guided Management of Heart Failure) trial, 1,000 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II to IV HF and either previous HFH or elevated NP levels were randomly assigned to hemodynamic-guided HF management or usual care. The authors evaluated the primary study composite of all-cause mortality and total HF events at 12 months according to treatment assignment and enrollment stratum (HFH vs elevated NPs) by using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 999 evaluable patients, 557 were enrolled on the basis of a previous HFH and 442 on the basis of elevated NPs alone. Those patients enrolled by NP criteria were older and more commonly White persons with lower body mass index, lower NYHA class, less diabetes, more atrial fibrillation, and lower baseline PAP. Event rates were lower among those patients in the NP group for both the full follow-up (40.9 per 100 patient-years vs 82.0 per 100 patient-years) and the pre-COVID-19 analysis (43.6 per 100 patient-years vs 88.0 per 100 patient-years). The effects of hemodynamic monitoring were consistent across enrollment strata for the primary endpoint over the full study duration (interaction P = 0.71) and the pre-COVID-19 analysis (interaction P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent effects of hemodynamic-guided HF management across enrollment strata in GUIDE-HF support consideration of hemodynamic monitoring in the expanded group of patients with chronic HF and elevated NPs without recent HFH. (Hemodynamic-Guided Management of Heart Failure [GUIDE-HF]; NCT03387813).

Hemodynamically-Guided Management of Heart Failure Across the Ejection Fraction Spectrum: The GUIDE-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hemodynamically-guided management using an implanted pulmonary artery pressure sensor is indicated to reduce heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-III with a prior HF hospitalization or those with elevated natriuretic peptides. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the effect of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) on treatment outcomes in the GUIDE-HF (Hemodynamic-GUIDEd management of Heart Failure) randomized trial. METHODS: The GUIDE-HF randomized arm included 1,000 NYHA functional class II-IV patients (with HF hospitalization within the prior 12 months or elevated natriuretic peptides adjusted for EF and body mass index) implanted with a pulmonary artery pressure sensor, randomized 1:1 to a hemodynamically-guided management group (treatment) or a control group (control). The primary endpoint was the composite of HF hospitalizations, urgent HF visits, and all-cause mortality at 12 months. The authors assessed outcomes by EF in guideline-defined subgroups ≤40%, 41%-49%, and ≥50%, within the trial specified pre-COVID-19 period cohort. RESULTS: There were 177 primary events (0.553/patient-year) in the treatment group and 224 events (0.682/patient-year) in the control group (HR: 0.81 [95% CI: 0.66-1.00]; P = 0.049); HF hospitalization was lower in the treatment vs control group (HR: 0.72 [95% CI: 0.57-0.92]; P = 0.0072). Within each EF subgroup, primary endpoint and HF hospitalization rates were lower in the treatment group (HR <1.0 across the EF spectrum). Event rate reduction by EF in the treatment groups was correlated with reduction in pulmonary artery pressures and medication changes. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamically-guided HF management decreases HF-related endpoints across the EF spectrum in an expanded patient population of patients with HF. (Hemodynamic-GUIDEd Management of Heart Failure [GUIDE-HF]; NCT03387813).

The GUIDE-HF trial of pulmonary artery pressure monitoring in heart failure: impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, important changes in heart failure (HF) event rates have been widely reported, but few data address potential causes for these changes; several possibilities were examined in the GUIDE-HF study. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 15 March 2018 to 20 December 2019, patients were randomized to haemodynamic-guided management (treatment) vs. control for 12 months, with a primary endpoint of all-cause mortality plus HF events. Pre-COVID-19, the primary endpoint rate was 0.553 vs. 0.682 events/patient-year in the treatment vs. control group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, P = 0.049]. Treatment difference was no longer evident during COVID-19 (HR 1.11, P = 0.526), with a 21% decrease in the control group (0.536 events/patient-year) and no change in the treatment group (0.597 events/patient-year). Data reflecting provider-, disease-, and patient-dependent factors that might change the primary endpoint rate during COVID-19 were examined. Subject contact frequency was similar in the treatment vs. control group before and during COVID-19. During COVID-19, the monthly rate of medication changes fell 19.2% in the treatment vs. 10.7% in the control group to levels not different between groups (P = 0.362). COVID-19 was infrequent and not different between groups. Pulmonary artery pressure area under the curve decreased -98 mmHg-days in the treatment group vs. -100 mmHg-days in the controls (P = 0.867). Patient compliance with the study protocol was maintained during COVID-19 in both groups. CONCLUSION: During COVID-19, the primary event rate decreased in the controls and remained low in the treatment group, resulting in an effacement of group differences that were present pre-COVID-19. These outcomes did not result from changes in provider- or disease-dependent factors; pulmonary artery pressure decreased despite fewer medication changes, suggesting that patient-dependent factors played an important role in these outcomes. Clinical Trials.gov: NCT03387813.

Cardiac psychology training in a rural health care setting: East Carolina Heart Institute.

The full partnership of clinical health psychology and cardiology optimizes patient-centered care to address the mental and behavioral needs of patients living with heart disease. This scenario is realized as the East Carolina Heart Institute (ECHI) at East Carolina University (ECU) in Greenville, North Caroline with co-location and co-training of psychologists and cardiologists. ECHI provides services to patients across the full disease continuum of cardiovascular disease (CVD), given the higher rates of heart disease in this rural area. The purpose of this article is to describe the cardiovascular behavioral medicine training model for clinical health psychology doctoral students and its adaptation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era. Through illustrative case examples, we describe the training model before the COVID-19 pandemic, during the transition to telehealth following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and then the entirely telehealth-based service model. We highlight notable strengths and challenges to delivering telehealth care to cardiac patients in a rural setting, while also discussing the health disparities that uniquely occur within this patient population in Eastern North Carolina. This innovative partnership fosters a responsive environment for training and clinical care, where the complex needs of patients with CVD are treated to increase their overall quality of life and well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Haemodynamic-guided management of heart failure (GUIDE-HF): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that haemodynamic-guided management using an implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor reduces heart failure hospitalisations in patients with moderately symptomatic (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class III) chronic heart failure and a hospitalisation in the past year, irrespective of ejection fraction. It is unclear if these benefits extend to patients with mild (NYHA functional class II) or severe (NYHA functional class IV) symptoms of heart failure or to patients with elevated natriuretic peptides without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. This trial was designed to evaluate whether haemodynamic-guided management using remote pulmonary artery pressure monitoring could reduce heart failure events and mortality in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of symptom severity (NYHA funational class II-IV), including those with elevated natriuretic peptides but without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. METHODS: The randomised arm of the haemodynamic-GUIDEed management of Heart Failure (GUIDE-HF) trial was a multicentre, single-blind study at 118 centres in the USA and Canada. Following successful implantation of a pulmonary artery pressure monitor, patients with all ejection fractions, NYHA functional class II-IV chronic heart failure, and either a recent heart failure hospitalisation or elevated natriuretic peptides (based on a-priori thresholds) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either haemodynamic-guided heart failure management based on pulmonary artery pressure or a usual care control group. Patients were masked to their study group assignment. Investigators were aware of treatment assignment but did not have access to pulmonary artery pressure data for control patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and total heart failure events (heart failure hospitalisations and urgent heart failure hospital visits) at 12 months assessed in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients. A pre-COVID-19 impact analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03387813. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2018, and Dec 20, 2019, 1022 patients were enrolled, with 1000 patients implanted successfully, and follow-up was completed on Jan 8, 2021. There were 253 primary endpoint events (0·563 per patient-year) among 497 patients in the haemodynamic-guided management group (treatment group) and 289 (0·640 per patient-year) in 503 patients in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·74-1·05; p=0·16). A prespecified COVID-19 sensitivity analysis using a time-dependent variable to compare events before COVID-19 and during the pandemic suggested a treatment interaction (pinteraction=0·11) due to a change in the primary endpoint event rate during the pandemic phase of the trial, warranting a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis. In the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis, there were 177 primary events (0·553 per patient-year) in the intervention group and 224 events (0·682 per patient-year) in the control group (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·66-1·00; p=0·049). This difference in primary events almost disappeared during COVID-19, with a 21% decrease in the control group (0·536 per patient-year) relative to pre-COVID-19, virtually no change in the treatment group (0·597 per patient-year), and no difference between groups (HR 1·11, 95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·53). The cumulative incidence of heart failure events was not reduced by haemodynamic-guided management (0·85, 0·70-1·03; p=0·096) in the overall study analysis but was significantly decreased in the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis (0·76, 0·61-0·95; p=0·014). 1014 (99%) of 1022 patients had freedom from device or system-related complications. INTERPRETATION: Haemodynamic-guided management of heart failure did not result in a lower composite endpoint rate of mortality and total heart failure events compared with the control group in the overall study analysis. However, a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis indicated a possible benefit of haemodynamic-guided management on the primary outcome in the pre-COVID-19 period, primarily driven by a lower heart failure hospitalisation rate compared with the control group. FUNDING: Abbott.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental health in the two largest economies in the world: a comparison between the United States and China.

The broad impact of the COVID-19 on self-reported daily behaviors and health in Chinese and US samples remains unknown. This study aimed to compare physical and mental health between people from the United States (U.S.) and China, and to correlate mental health parameters with variables relating to physical symptoms, knowledge about COVID-19, and precautionary health behaviors. To minimize risk of exposure, respondents were electronically invited by existing study respondents or by data sourcing software and surveys were completed via online survey platforms. Information was collected on demographics, physical symptoms, contact history, knowledge about COVID-19, psychologic parameters (i.e. IES-R; DASS-21), and health behaviors. The study included a total of 1445 respondents (584 U.S.; 861 China). Overall, Americans reported more physical symptoms, contact history, and perceived likelihood of contracting COVID-19. Americans reported more stress and depressive symptoms, while Chinese reported higher acute-traumatic stress symptoms. Differences were identified regarding face mask use and desires for COVID-19 related health information, with differential mental health implications. Physical symptoms that were possibly COVID-19 related were associated with adverse mental health. Overall, American and Chinese participants reported different mental and physical health parameters, health behaviors, precautionary measures, and knowledge of COVID-19; different risk and protective factors were also identified.

A chain mediation model on COVID-19 symptoms and mental health outcomes in Americans, Asians and Europeans.

The novel Coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020, impacting the lifestyles, economy, physical and mental health of individuals globally. This study aimed to test the model triggered by physical symptoms resembling COVID-19 infection, in which the need for health information and perceived impact of the pandemic mediated the path sequentially, leading to adverse mental health outcomes. A cross-sectional research design with chain mediation model involving 4612 participants from participating 8 countries selected via a respondent-driven sampling strategy was used. Participants completed online questionnaires on physical symptoms, the need for health information, the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) questionnaire and Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21). The results showed that Poland and the Philippines were the two countries with the highest levels of anxiety, depression and stress; conversely, Vietnam had the lowest mean scores in these areas. Chain mediation model showed the need for health information, and the perceived impact of the pandemic were sequential mediators between physical symptoms resembling COVID-19 infection (predictor) and consequent mental health status (outcome). Excessive and contradictory health information might increase the perceived impact of the pandemic. Rapid COVID-19 testing should be implemented to minimize the psychological burden associated with physical symptoms, whilst public mental health interventions could target adverse mental outcomes associated with the pandemic.