Impacto de la fracción de eyección del ventrículo izquierdo en el consumo de recursos, los costes y el pronóstico en pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca / Differences in clinical outcomes, health care resource utilization and costs in heart failure patients according to left ventricular ejection fraction

Introducción y objetivos: No se conoce bien el impacto de la fracción de eyección del ventrículo izquierdo (FEVI) en el coste y la utilización de recursos sanitarios (URS) en la insuficiencia cardiaca (IC). El objetivo de nuestro trabajo es comparar el consumo de costes, la URS y el pronóstico según grupos de FEVI. Métodos: Estudio observacional retrospectivo que incluyó a todos los pacientes con diagnóstico principal de IC en urgencias o en una hospitalización en un centro terciario español durante 2018. Se excluyó la IC de nuevo diagnóstico. Se compararon los resultados clínicos, los costes y la URS según la FEVI (reducida [IC-FEr], ligeramente reducida [IC-FElr] y conservada [IC-FEc]) a 1 año. Resultados: De 1.287 pacientes con diagnóstico de IC en urgencias, 365 (28,4%) fueron dados de alta (grupo de urgencias [GU]) y 919 (71,4%), hospitalizados (GH). En total, 190 pacientes (14,7%) tenían IC-FEr; 146 (11,4%), IC-FElr y 951 (73,9%), IC-FEc. La media de edad fue 80,1±10,7 años, y el 57,1% eran mujeres. La mediana [intervalo intercuartílico] del coste por paciente-año fue de 1.889 [259-6.269] euros en el GU y 5.008 [2.747-9.589] euros en el GH (p <0,001). Los pacientes con IC-FEr del GU sufrieron más hospitalizaciones. El coste de la IC-FEr por paciente-año fue superior en ambos grupos: en el GU, 4.763 [2.076-17.155] euros con IC-FEr frente a 3.900 [590-8.013] euros con IC-FElr frente a 3.812 [259-5.486] euros con IC-FEc; en el GH, 6.321 [3.335-796] frente a 6.170 [3.189-10.484] frente a 4.636 [2.609-8.977] euros respectivamente; todos, p <0,001). Esta diferencia se debió a que los pacientes con IC-FEr ingresaron con mayor frecuencia en unidades de cuidados críticos y recibieron más pruebas diagnóstico-terapéuticas. Conclusiones: La FEVI influye significativamente en los costes y URS en la IC. Los pacientes con IC-FEr, especialmente los hospitalizados, concentran un mayor coste que aquellos con IC-FEc.(AU)

Introduction and objectives: The impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on health care resource utilization (HCRU) and cost in heart failure (HF) patients is not well known. We aimed to compare outcomes, HCRUs and costs according to LVEF groups. Methods: Retrospective, observational study of all patients with an emergency department (ED) visit or admission to a tertiary hospital in Spain 2018 with a primary HF diagnosis. We excluded patients with newly diagnosed heart failure. One-year clinical outcomes, costs and HCRUs were compared according to LVEF (reduced [HFrEF], mildly reduced [HFmrEF], and preserved [HFpEF]). Results: Among 1287 patients with a primary diagnosis of HF in the ED, 365 (28.4%) were discharged to home (ED group), and 919 (71.4%) were hospitalized (hospital group [HG]). In total, 190 patients (14.7%) had HFrEF, 146 (11.4%) HFmrEF, and 951 (73.9%) HFpEF. The mean age was 80.1±10.7 years; 57.1% were female. The median [interquartile range] of costs per patient/y was €1889 [259-6269] in the ED group and €5008 [2747-9589] in the HG (P <.001). Hospitalization rates were higher in patients with HFrEF in the ED group. The median costs of HFrEF per patient/y were higher in patients in both groups: €4763 [2076-17 155] vs €3900 [590-8013] for HFmrEF vs €3812 [259-5486] for HFpEF in the ED group, and €6321 [3335-796] vs €6170 [3189-10484] vs €4636 [2609-8977], respectively, in the hospital group (all P <.001). This difference was driven by the more frequent admission to intensive care units, and greater use of diagnostic and therapeutic tests among HFrEF patients. Conclusions: In HF, LVEF significantly impacts costs and HCRU. Costs were higher in patients with HFrEF, especially those requiring hospitalization, than in those with HFpEF.(AU)

Case report: Alternative approach for management of refractory volume overload in heart failure: usefulness of venous leg compression.

Background: Management of patients with refractory congestion, is one of the most important challenges in the field of heart failure (HF). Diuretic therapy remains the most widely used therapy to achieve euvolemia. However, some patients experience fluid overload despite the use of high-dose diuretics and new strategies to overcome diuretic resistance are needed. Case Summary: We report an 85 years-old male patient admitted for decompensated HF with persistent tissue fluid overload (peripheral edema) for more than two weeks despite high dose of intravenous furosemide with the combination of other diuretics. At this point, we performed leg venous compression using elastic bandages for three days. After 72 h, edema disappeared, and additional weight loss was achieved (1 kg/day). No side effects were observed and the patient was discharged home euvolemic. Conclusion: Venous leg compression may be an alternative therapy in patients with persistent tissue fluid overload resistant to diuretics.

Frailty Is Common in Heart Transplant Candidates But Is Not Associated With Clinical Events and Is Reversible After Heart Transplantation.

Assessment of frailty before heart transplant (HT) is recommended but is not standard in most HT protocols. Our objective was to evaluate frailty at inclusion in HT list and during follow-up and to assess the influence of baseline frailty on prognosis. A prospective multicenter study in all adults included in the nonurgent HT waiting list. Frailty was defined as Fried's frailty phenotype score ≥3. Mean follow-up was 25.9 ± 1.2 months. Of 99 patients (mean age 54.8 [43.1 to 62.5] years, 70 men [70.7%]), 28 were frail (28.3%). A total of 85 patients received HT after 0.5 ± 0.01 years. Waiting time was shorter in frail patients (0.6 years [0.3 to 0.8] vs 0.2 years [0.1 to 0.4], p = 0.001) because of an increase in priority. Baseline frailty was not associated with overall mortality, (hazard ratio 0.99 [95% confidence interval 0.41 to 2.37, p = 0.98]). A total of 16 transplant recipients died (18.8%). Of the remaining 69 HT recipients, 65 underwent frailty evaluation during follow-up. Patients without baseline frailty (n = 49) did not develop it after HT. Of 16 patients with baseline frailty, only 2 were still frail at the end of follow-up. Frailty is common in HT candidates but is reversible in most cases after HT and is not associated with post-transplant mortality. Our results suggest that frailty should not be considered an exclusion criterion for HT.

Differences in clinical outcomes, health care resource utilization and costs in heart failure patients according to left ventricular ejection fraction.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on health care resource utilization (HCRU) and cost in heart failure (HF) patients is not well known. We aimed to compare outcomes, HCRUs and costs according to LVEF groups. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of all patients with an emergency department (ED) visit or admission to a tertiary hospital in Spain 2018 with a primary HF diagnosis. We excluded patients with newly diagnosed heart failure. One-year clinical outcomes, costs and HCRUs were compared according to LVEF (reduced [HFrEF], mildly reduced [HFmrEF], and preserved [HFpEF]). RESULTS: Among 1287 patients with a primary diagnosis of HF in the ED, 365 (28.4%) were discharged to home (ED group), and 919 (71.4%) were hospitalized (hospital group [HG]). In total, 190 patients (14.7%) had HFrEF, 146 (11.4%) HFmrEF, and 951 (73.9%) HFpEF. The mean age was 80.1±10.7 years; 57.1% were female. The median [interquartile range] of costs per patient/y was €1889 [259-6269] in the ED group and €5008 [2747-9589] in the HG (P <.001). Hospitalization rates were higher in patients with HFrEF in the ED group. The median costs of HFrEF per patient/y were higher in patients in both groups: €4763 [2076-17 155] vs €3900 [590-8013] for HFmrEF vs €3812 [259-5486] for HFpEF in the ED group, and €6321 [3335-796] vs €6170 [3189-10484] vs €4636 [2609-8977], respectively, in the hospital group (all P <.001). This difference was driven by the more frequent admission to intensive care units, and greater use of diagnostic and therapeutic tests among HFrEF patients. CONCLUSIONS: In HF, LVEF significantly impacts costs and HCRU. Costs were higher in patients with HFrEF, especially those requiring hospitalization, than in those with HFpEF.

Rationale and Protocol of the Multimodality Evaluation of Antibody-Mediated Injury in Heart Transplantation (LEONE-HT) Observational Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Heart transplant (HT) survival has barely improved in the last decades, which is unsatisfactory for many HT recipients. The development of anti-human leukocyte antigen (anti-HLA) antibodies in HT patients is associated with a cardiac allograft dysfunction. The mechanisms leading to this damage are unclear. The Multimodality Evaluation Of Antibody-Mediated Injury In Heart Transplantation (LEONE-HT) study aimed to thoroughly describe the damage inflicted on the myocardium by anti-HLA antibodies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The LEONE-HT study is a cohort study with a cross-sectional approach in which HT patients with positive anti-HLA antibodies are compared with coetaneous HT patients with negative anti-HLA antibodies. All patients will undergo a state-of-the-art multimodal assessment, including imaging techniques, coronary anatomy and physiology evaluations and histological and immunological analyses. The individual and combined primary outcomes of structural graft injuries and longitudinal secondary outcomes are to be compared between the exposed and non-exposed groups with univariate and multivariable descriptive analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The LEONE-HT study is carried out in accordance with the principles set out in the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonization guidelines for good clinical practice and following national laws and regulations. The study design, objectives and participant centers have been communicated to clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05184426). The LEONE-HT study counts on the support of patient associations to disseminate the objectives and results of the research. This study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and the Spanish Society of Cardiology.

Clinical Utility of HeartLogic, a Multiparametric Telemonitoring System, in Heart Failure.

Telemonitoring through multiple variables measured on cardiac devices has the potential to improve the follow-up of patients with heart failure. The HeartLogic algorithm (Boston Scientific), implemented in some implantable cardiac defibrillators and cardiac resynchronisation therapy, allows monitoring of the nocturnal heart rate, respiratory movements, thoracic impedance, physical activity and the intensity of heart tones, with the aim of predicting major clinical events. Although HeartLogic has demonstrated high sensitivity for the detection of heart failure decompensations, its effects on hospitalisation and mortality in randomised clinical trials has not yet been corroborated. This review details how the HeartLogic algorithm works, compiles available evidence from clinical studies, and discusses its application in daily clinical practice.

Potential Role of Natriuretic Response to Furosemide Stress Test During Acute Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Poor natriuresis has been associated with a poorer response to diuretic treatment and worse prognosis in acute heart failure. Recommendations on how and when to measure urinary sodium (UNa) are lacking. We aim to evaluate UNa quantification after a furosemide stress test (FST) capacity to predict appropriate decongestion during acute heart failure hospitalization. METHODS: Patients underwent an FST on day-1 of admission, and UNa was measured 2 hours after, dividing patients into low or high UNa based on the sample median value. A semiquantitative composite congestive score (CCS; 0-9) and NT pro-BNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) quantification were assessed before the FST and at day 5 after the FST. RESULTS: Median UNa after FST in the 65 patients included was 113 (97-122) mmol/L. At day 5, a lower proportion of patients with a low UNa reached a 30% decrease in NT-proBNP levels (21 [66%] for low UNa versus 31 [94%] for high UNa; P=0.005) and an appropriate grade of decongestion (CCS<3) (20 [62%] for low UNa versus 32 [97%] for high UNa; P<0.001). A UNa>83 mmol/L 2 hours after FST had a 96% sensitivity to predict an NT-proBNP reduction ≥30% and 95% to predict a CCS<3 at day 5. Low UNa patients presented a lower cumulative diuresis and weight loss and presented more often with prolonged hospitalization, worsening heart failure, and readmission because of acute heart failure or death at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Low natriuresis after an FST identified patients at a higher risk of an inadequate diuretic response and an inappropriate decongestion. FST-guided diuretic treatment might help to improve decongestion, shorten hospitalizations, and to reduce adverse outcomes.

Safety of sacubitril/valsartan initiated during hospitalization: data from a non-selected cohort.

AIMS: Sacubitril/valsartan is safe when initiated during hospitalization in a clinical trial setting. Its safety in real-life population is not stablished. We compared the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization in a non-selected population, in the PIONEER-HF trial, and in non-selected outpatients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Multicentre registry included 527 patients: 100 were started on sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization (19.0%) and 427 as outpatients (81.0%). Compared with those in the pivotal trial, inpatients in our cohort were older (71 ± 12 vs. 61 ± 14 years; P < 0.001); had more frequently Functional Class II (41 [41.0%] vs. 100 [22.7%]; P < 0.001), higher levels of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (4044 [1630-8680] vs. 2013 [1002-4132] pg/mL; P < 0.001), better glomerular filtration rate (63.5 [51.0-80.0] vs. 58.4 [47.5-71.5] mL/min; P = 0.01), and higher systolic blood pressure (121 [110-136] vs. 118 [110-133] mmHg; P = 0.03); and received angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers more frequently (92 [92.0%] vs. 208 [52.7%]; P < 0.001). Compared with non-selected outpatients, inpatients were older (71 ± 12 vs. 68 ± 12 years, P = 0.02), had more frequent Functional Class III-IV (58 [58.0%] vs. 129 [30.3%], P < 0.001), had higher levels of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (4044 [1630-8680] vs. 2182 [1134-4172]; P < 0.001), and were receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers target dose less frequently (55 [55.0%] vs. 335 [78.5%]; P < 0.001). They also started sacubitril/valsartan with a low dose (50 mg/12 h) more frequently (80 [80.0%] vs. 209 [48.8%], P < 0.001). The initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in outpatients was an independent predictor of high-dose use (OR 3.1; 95% confidence interval 1.7-5.6, P < 0.001). The follow-up time in both cohorts, including all patients enrolled, was similar (7.0 ± 0.1 vs. 7.2 ± 2.6 months, P = 0.72). All-cause admissions during follow-up were more frequent in inpatients (30 [30.0%] vs. 68 outpatients [15.9%], P = 0.001), with no relevant differences in all-cause mortality. There was no significant difference in sacubitril/valsartan withdrawal rate (17 inpatients [17.0%] vs. 49 outpatients [11.5%], P = 0.13). The incidence of adverse effects was also similar: hypotension (16 inpatients [16.0%] vs. 71 outpatients [16.7%], P = 0.88), worsening renal function (7 inpatients [7.0%] vs. 29 outpatients [6.8%], P = 0.94), and hyperkalaemia (1 inpatient [1.0%] vs. 21 outpatients [4.9%], P = 0.09). We did not register any case of angioedema. CONCLUSIONS: It is safe to initiate sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization in daily clinical practice. Inpatients have a higher risk profile and receive low starting doses more frequently than outpatients.