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.

Prognostic Interplay Between COVID-19 and Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 may negatively impact the prognosis of patients with chronic HFrEF and vice versa. METHODS: This study included 2 parallel analyses of patients in the United States who were in the TriNetX health database and who underwent polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2 as an inpatient or outpatient between January and September of 2020. Analysis A included patients with positive tests for COVID-19 and compared patients with histories of worsening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (hospitalization due to heart failure (HF) or IV diuretic use during the prior 12 months), HFrEF without worsening, and no prior HF. Analysis B included patients with histories of HFrEF and compared patients with positive vs negative COVID-19 tests. Outcomes included mortality and worsening HF. In both analyses, prespecified subgroup analyses were stratified by inpatient vs outpatient settings of the COVID-19 tests. RESULTS: In Analysis A, of 99,052 patients with positive COVID-19 tests, 514 (0.5%) and 524 (0.5%) patients had histories of worsening HFrEF and HFrEF without worsening, respectively. After adjustment, compared to patients without HF, worsening HFrEF (risk ratio [RR] 1.42, 95% CI 1.10-1.83; P< 0.001) and HFrEF without worsening (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.96-1.84; P= 0.06) were associated with higher 30-day mortality rates. Excess risk of mortality tended to be pronounced in patients initially diagnosed with COVID-19 as outpatients (P for interaction, 0.12 and 0.006, respectively). In Analysis B, of 14,838 patients with HFrEF tested for COVID-19, 1038 (7.0%) had positive tests. After adjustment, testing positive was associated with excess 30-day mortality risk (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.38-2.02; P< 0.001) and worsening HF (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.17-1.51; P< 0.001). Mortality risk was nominally more pronounced among patients presenting as outpatients (P for interaction 0.07). CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of patients tested for COVID-19, among patients testing positive, a history of HFrEF with or without worsening was associated with excess mortality rates, particularly among patients diagnosed with COVID-19 as outpatients. Among patients with established HFrEF, compared with testing negative, testing positive for COVID-19 was independently associated with higher risk of death and worsening HF.

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.

The Landscape of Cardiovascular Clinical Trials in the United States Initiated Before and During COVID-19

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has taken an unprecedented toll on the American healthcare system and economy. While numerous COVID-19 clinical trials have been initiated in hopes of curtailing its impact, most pre-existing clinical trials have been forced to suspend or limit activity, which itself can have significant consequences. Missed or postponed trial-related assessments may hinder data quality, and heterogeneity in data collection both across the country and over time introduces bias. In addition, COVID-19 may lower specific event rates due to patients avoiding the healthcare system that could result in underpowered outcome analyses, or conversely, some endpoints (mortality) may be inflated.

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).