Changes in the Inferior Vena Cava Are More Sensitive Than Venous Pressure During Fluid Removal: A Proof-of-Concept Study.

BACKGROUND: Congestion is central to the pathophysiology of heart failure (HF); thus, tracking congestion is crucial for the management of patients with HF. In this study we aimed to compare changes in inferior vena cava diameter (IVCD) with venous pressure following manipulation of volume status during ultrafiltration in patients with cardiac dysfunction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with stable hemodialysis and with systolic or diastolic dysfunction were studied. Central venous pressure (CVP) and peripheral venous pressure (PVP) were measured before and after hemodialysis. IVCD and PVP were measured simultaneously just before dialysis, 3 times during dialysis and immediately after dialysis. Changes in IVCD and PVP were compared at each timepoint with ultrafiltration volumes. We analyzed 30 hemodialysis sessions from 20 patients. PVP was validated as a surrogate for CVP. Mean ultrafiltration volume was 2102 ± 667 mL. IVCD discriminated better ultrafiltration volumes ≤ 500 mL or ≤ 750 mL than PVP (AUC 0.80 vs 0.62, and 0.80 vs 0.56, respectively; both P< 0.01). IVCD appeared to track better ultrafiltration volume (P< 0.01) and hemoconcentration (P< 0.05) than PVP. Changes in IVCD were of greater magnitude than those of PVP (average change from predialysis: -58 ± 30% vs -28 ± 21%; P< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing ultrafiltration, changes in IVCD tracked changes in volume status better than venous pressure.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on heart failure management: Global experience of the OPTIMIZE Heart Failure Care network.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, reductions in heart failure (HF) hospitalizations have been widely reported, and there is an urgent need to understand how HF care has been reorganized in countries with different infection levels, vaccination rates and healthcare services. The OPTIMIZE Heart Failure Care program has a global network of investigators in 42 countries, with first-hand experience of the impact of the pandemic on HF management in different care settings. The national coordinators were surveyed to assess: 1) the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic for continuity of HF care, from both a hospital and patient perspective; 2) the organizational changes enacted to ensure continued HF care; and 3) lessons learned for the future of HF care. Contributions were obtained from 37 national coordinators in 29 countries. We summarize their input, highlighting the issues raised and using the example of three very different settings (Italy, Brazil, and Taiwan) to illustrate the similarities and differences across the OPTIMIZE program.

Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) represents a major public health issue and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan (formerly LCZ696) compared with an ACE inhibitor (ACEI) (enalapril) in the treatment of HF-REF from the perspective of healthcare providers in the UK, Denmark and Colombia. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed based on data from a multinational, Phase III randomised controlled trial. A decision-analytic model was developed based on a series of regression models, which extrapolated health-related quality of life, hospitalisation rates and survival over a lifetime horizon. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In the UK, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for sacubitril/valsartan (using cardiovascular mortality) was £17 100 (€20 400) versus enalapril. In Denmark, the ICER for sacubitril/valsartan was Kr 174 000 (€22 600). In Colombia, the ICER was COP$39.5 million (€11 200) per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that results were most sensitive to the extrapolation of mortality, duration of treatment effect and time horizon, but were robust to other structural changes, with most scenarios associated with ICERs below the willingness-to-pay threshold for all three country settings. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that sacubitril/valsartan was cost-effective at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds was 68%-94% in the UK, 84% in Denmark and 95% in Colombia. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that, in all three countries, sacubitril/valsartan is likely to be cost-effective compared with an ACEI (the current standard of care) in patients with HF-REF.