Eligibility for dapagliflozin in unselected patients hospitalised with decompensated heart failure.

Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who received the sodium-glucose co-transport 2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin, in the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) study have a significant reduction in worsening heart failure (HF) and cardiovascular death. It is uncertain what proportion of patients admitted to a large regional cardiac centre with decompensated heart failure would be eligible for dapagliflozin post-discharge based on their characteristics at discharge. The DAPA-HF study criteria were retrospectively applied to a cohort of 521 consecutive patients referred to the inpatient HF service in a tertiary cardiac centre in South West Wales between April 2017 and April 2018. Inclusion criteria: left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40%, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV symptoms and an elevated N-terminal pro-B-type naturietic peptide (NT-proBNP). Exclusion criteria: systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 95 mmHg, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 or type 1 diabetes mellitus. We did not have complete NTproBNP data for the cohort, as it was not routinely measured at the time in our institute. There were 478 patients, mean age 78 ± 13 years, 57% male and 91% NYHA class II-IV symptoms, were included in the analysis. Of these, 247 patients had HFrEF, 219 (46%) patients met the inclusion criteria, 231 (48%) were excluded as LVEF was > 40%, and 48 (10%) were excluded with NYHA class I symptoms. Of the 219 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 13 (5.9%) had a SBP < 95 mmHg, 48 (22%) had eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2, leaving 136 (28.5% of total and 55% of those with HFrEF) who met DAPA-HF study criteria. In our study, 28.5% of all heart failure admissions and 55% of patients with HFrEF would be eligible for dapagliflozin post-discharge according to the DAPA-HF study entry criteria.

Prescribing patterns to optimize heart rate: analysis of 1,000 consecutive outpatient appointments to a single heart failure clinic over a 6-month period.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize patients attending a community heart failure (HF) clinic and identified those who were eligible for optimization of beta-blockers (BB) or ivabradine. BACKGROUND: Among patients with HF due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction in sinus rhythm, those with higher resting heart rate have a worse prognosis. Reducing sinus rate to 50 to 60 beats/min might improve outcomes. METHODS: A total of 1,000 consecutively scheduled HF clinic follow-up appointments over a 6-month period were reviewed. Demographic, clinical, and echocardiographic data were collected for patients who attended (824 unique patients; 555 men). Mean age was 74 ± 11 years, median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels were 1,002 ng/l (interquartile range: 367 to 2,151 ng/l), and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 44 ± 11%. A total of 202 (25%), 252 (31%), and 370 (45%) patients had LVEFs of ≤35%, 36% to 49%, and ≥50%, respectively. Of patients with LVEF ≤35%, 142 (70%) were in sinus rhythm. RESULTS: At 70 clinic visits, 58 patients with LVEFs of ≤35% were in sinus rhythm and had heart rates ≥70 beats/min. Of these, 13 patients had their BB dose increased, 20 were potentially eligible for, but did not have, BB uptitration, 15 were already taking target doses of BBs, and 10 patients were reported to be intolerant of higher doses. Thus, 25 patients were potentially eligible for ivabradine according to European Society of Cardiology guidelines; this number dropped to 14 when the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines were applied. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with LVEFs of ≤35%, most are treated with BBs and have a heart rate at rest of <70 beats/min; 12% of these patients might be eligible for ivabradine.

Case selection for cardiac resynchronization in atrial fibrillation.

Remarkably little evidence exists that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective in patients who have atrial fibrillation (AF) but who otherwise seem suitable for this treatment. The landmark trials of CRT generally excluded patients with AF because atrioventricular (AV) resynchronization was considered a possibly important mechanism by which CRT might deliver its benefits. The only landmark trial that included many patients with AF confirmed marked benefit among patients in sinus rhythm but no benefit among those with AF. Evidence is lacking that biventricular rather than AV resynchronization is an important mechanism for delivering the benefits of CRT.