A nationwide, population-based study on specialized care for acute heart failure throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the delivery of care for patients with heart failure (HF), leading to fewer HF hospitalizations and increased mortality. However, nationwide data on quality of care and long-term outcomes across the pandemic are scarce. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used data from the National Heart Failure Audit (NHFA) linked to national records for hospitalization and deaths. We compared pre-COVID (2018-2019), COVID (2020), and late/post-COVID (2021-2022) periods. Data for 227 250 patients admitted to hospital with HF were analysed and grouped according to the admission year and the presence of HF with (HFrEF) or without reduced ejection fraction (non-HFrEF). The median age at admission was 81 years (interquartile range 72-88), 55% were men (n = 125 975), 87% were of white ethnicity (n = 102 805), and 51% had HFrEF (n = 116 990). In-hospital management and specialized cardiology care were maintained throughout the pandemic with an increasing percentage of patients discharged on disease-modifying medications over time (p < 0.001). Long-term outcomes improved over time (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.95, p < 0.001), mainly driven by a reduction in cardiovascular death. Receiving specialized cardiology care was associated with better long-term outcomes both for those who had HFrEF (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.77-0.82, p < 0.001) and for those who had non-HFrEF (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.85-0.90, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the disruption of healthcare systems, the clinical characteristics of patients admitted with HF were similar and the overall standard of care was maintained throughout the pandemic. Long-term survival of patients hospitalized with HF continued to improve after COVID-19, especially for HFrEF.

Measuring congestion with a non-invasive monitoring device in heart failure and haemodialysis: CONGEST-HF.

AIMS: We examined the effectiveness of a novel cardiopulmonary management wearable sensor (worn for less than 5 mins) at measuring congestion and correlated the device findings with established clinical measures of congestion. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled three cohorts of patients: (1) patients with heart failure (HF) receiving intravenous diuretics in hospital; (2) patients established on haemodialysis, and (3) HF patients undergoing right heart catheterization (RHC). The primary outcomes in the respective cohorts were a Spearman correlation between (1) change in weight and change in thoracic impedance (TI) (from enrolment, 24 h after admission to discharge) in patients hospitalized for HF; (2) lung ultrasound B-lines and volume removed during dialysis with device measured TI, and (3) pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) and sub-acoustic diastolic, third heart sound (S3) in the patients undergoing RHC. A total of 66 patients were enrolled. In HF patients (n = 25), change in weight was correlated with both change in device TI (Spearman correlation [rsp] = -0.64, p = 0.002) and change in device S3 (rsp = -0.53, p = 0.014). In the haemodialysis cohort (n = 21), B-lines and TI were strongly correlated before (rsp = -0.71, p < 0.001) and after (rsp = -0.77, p < 0.001) dialysis. Volume of fluid removed by dialysis was correlated with change in device TI (rsp = 0.49, p = 0.024). In the RHC cohort (n = 20), PCWP measured at one time point and device S3 were not significantly correlated (rsp = 0.230, p = 0.204). There were no device-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: A non-invasive device was able to detect changes in congestion in patients with HF receiving decongestion therapy and patients having fluid removed at haemodialysis. The cardiopulmonary management device, which measures multiple parameters, is a potentially useful tool to monitor patients with HF to prevent hospitalizations.

British societies guideline on the management of emergencies in implantable left ventricular assist device recipients in transplant centres.

An implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is indicated as a bridge to transplantation or recovery in the United Kingdom (UK). The mechanism of action of the LVAD results in a unique state of haemodynamic stability with diminished arterial pulsatility. The clinical assessment of an LVAD recipient can be challenging because non-invasive blood pressure, pulse and oxygen saturation measurements may be hard to obtain. As a result of this unusual situation and complex interplay between the device and the native circulation, resuscitation of LVAD recipients requires bespoke guidelines. Through collaboration with key UK stakeholders, we assessed the current evidence base and developed guidelines for the recognition of clinical deterioration, inadequate circulation and time-critical interventions. Such guidelines, intended for use in transplant centres, are designed to be deployed by those providing immediate care of LVAD patients under conditions of precipitous clinical deterioration. In summary, the Joint British Societies and Transplant Centres LVAD Working Group present the UK guideline on management of emergencies in implantable LVAD recipients for use in advanced heart failure centres. These recommendations have been made with a UK resuscitation focus but are widely applicable to professionals regularly managing patients with implantable LVADs.

Review of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on chronic heart failure.

Guidelines are more accessible than ever and represent an important tool in clinical practice. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has developed recommendations for heart failure diagnosis and management based not only on morbidity and mortality trial outcome data but also in-depth economic analysis, with a focus on generalisability to UK National Health Service clinical practice. There is broad consistency in structure and content between NICE guidelines and those produced by major cardiovascular organisations such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology. However, important differences do exist-largely attributable to publication timing-a factor that is enhanced by the rapid pace of heart failure research. This article reviews the most recent iteration of NICE chronic heart failure guidelines and compares them with major guidelines on an international scale. Variations in recommendations will be explored including implications for NICE guideline updates in the future.

2023 Focused Update of the 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Co-ordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Co-ordinator) (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Jozef Bartunek (Belgium), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Sergio Buccheri (Sweden), Elisabetta Cerbai (Italy), Erwan Donal (France), Frank Edelmann (Germany), Gloria Färber (Germany), Bettina Heidecker (Germany), Borja Ibanez (Spain), Stefan James (Sweden), Lars Køber (Denmark), Konstantinos C. Koskinas (Switzerland), Josep Masip (Spain), John William McEvoy (Ireland), Robert Mentz (United States of America), Borislava Mihaylova (United Kingdom), Jacob Eifer Møller (Denmark), Wilfried Mullens (Belgium), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Jens Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Agnes A. Pasquet (Belgium), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Bianca Rocca (Italy), Xavier Rossello (Spain), Leyla Elif Sade (United States of America/Türkiye), Hannah Schaubroeck (Belgium), Elena Tessitore (Switzerland), Mariya Tokmakova (Bulgaria), Peter van der Meer (Netherlands), Isabelle C. Van Gelder (Netherlands), Mattias Van Heetvelde (Belgium), Christiaan Vrints (Belgium), Matthias Wilhelm (Switzerland), Adam Witkowski (Poland), and Katja Zeppenfeld (Netherlands) All experts involved in the development of this Focused Update have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and simultaneously published in a supplementary document to the Focused Update. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines See the European Heart Journal online for supplementary documents that include evidence tables.

A novel, small-volume subcutaneous furosemide formulation delivered by an abdominal patch infusor device in patients with heart failure: results of two phase I studies.

AIMS: Subcutaneous (SC) furosemide has potential advantages over intravenous (IV) furosemide by enabling self-administration or administration by a lay caregiver, such as facilitating early discharge, preventing hospitalizations, and in palliative care. A high-concentration, pH-neutral furosemide formulation has been developed for SC administration via a small patch infusor pump. We aimed to compare the bioavailability, pharmacokinetic (PK), and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of a new SC furosemide formulation with conventional IV furosemide and describe the first use of a bespoke mini-pump to administer this formulation. METHODS AND RESULTS: A novel pH-neutral formulation of SC furosemide containing 80 mg furosemide in ∼2.7 mL (infused over 5 h) was investigated. The first study was a PK/PD study of SC furosemide compared with 80 mg IV furosemide administered as a bolus in ambulatory patients with heart failure (HF). The primary outcome was absolute bioavailability of SC compared with IV furosemide. The second study investigated the same SC furosemide preparation delivered by a patch infusor in patients hospitalized with HF. Primary outcome measures were treatment-emergent adverse events, infusion site pain, device performance, and PK measurements.The absolute bioavailability of SC furosemide in comparison to IV furosemide was 112%, resulting in equivalent diuresis and natriuresis. When SC furosemide was administered via the patch pump, there were no treatment-emergent adverse events and 95% of participants reported no/minor discomfort at the infusion site. CONCLUSION: The novel preparation of SC furosemide had similar bioavailability to IV furosemide. Administration via a patch pump was feasible and well tolerated.

Efficacy of implantable haemodynamic monitoring in heart failure across ranges of ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of implantable haemodynamic monitoring (IHM)-guided care. METHODS: PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE were searched for RCTs of IHM in patients with heart failure (HF). Outcomes were examined in total (first and recurrent) event analyses. RESULTS: Five trials comparing IHM-guided care with standard care alone were identified and included 2710 patients across ejection fraction (EF) ranges. Data were available for 628 patients (23.2%) with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (EF ≥50%) and 2023 patients (74.6%) with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (EF <50%). Chronicle, CardioMEMS and HeartPOD IHMs were used. In all patients, regardless of EF, IHM-guided care reduced total HF hospitalisations (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82) and total worsening HF events (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.84). In patients with HFrEF, IHM-guided care reduced total worsening HF events (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86). The effect of IHM-guided care on total worsening HF events in patients with HFpEF was uncertain (fixed-effect model: HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; random-effects model: HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.14). IHM-guided care did not reduce mortality (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.20). IHM-guided care reduced all-cause mortality and total worsening HF events (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF across all EFs, IHM-guided care reduced total HF hospitalisations and worsening HF events. This benefit was consistent in patients with HFrEF but not consistent in HFpEF. Further trials with pre-specified analyses of patients with an EF of ≥50% are required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021253905.

Reducing the electrogram review burden imposed by insertable cardiac monitors.

BACKGROUND: Insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) are essential for ambulatory arrhythmia diagnosis. However, definitive diagnoses still require time-consuming, manual adjudication of electrograms (EGMs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical impact of selecting only key EGMs for review. METHODS: Retrospective analyses of randomly selected Abbott Confirm Rx™ devices with ≥90 days of remote transmission history were performed, with each EGM adjudicated as true or false positive (TP, FP). For each device, up to 3 "key EGMs" per arrhythmia type per day were prioritized for review based on ventricular rate and episode duration. The reduction in EGMs and TP days (patient-days with at least one TP EGM), and any diagnostic delay (from the first TP), were calculated versus reviewing all EGMs. RESULTS: In 1000 ICMs over a median duration of 8.1 months, at least one atrial fibrillation (AF), tachycardia, bradycardia, or pause EGM was transmitted by 424, 343, 190, and 325 devices, respectively, with a total of 95 716 EGMs. Approximately 90% of episodes were contributed by 25% of patients. Key EGM selection reduced EGM review burden by 43%, 66%, 77%, and 50% (55% overall), while reducing TP days by 0.8%, 2.1%, 0.2%, and 0.0%, respectively. Despite reviewing fewer EGMs, 99% of devices with a TP EGM were ultimately diagnosed on the same day versus reviewing all EGMs. CONCLUSION: Key EGM selection reduced the EGM review substantially with no delay-to-diagnosis in 99% of patients exhibiting true arrhythmias. Implementing these rules in the Abbott patient care network may accelerate clinical workflow without compromising diagnostic timelines.

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online.

Real-world evidence in a national health service: results of the UK CardioMEMS HF System Post-Market Study.

AIMS: The CardioMEMS HF System Post-Market Study (COAST) was designed to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and feasibility of haemodynamic-guided heart failure (HF) management using a small sensor implanted in the pulmonary artery of New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III HF patients in the UK, Europe, and Australia. METHODS AND RESULTS: COAST is a prospective, international, multicentre, open-label clinical study (NCT02954341). The primary clinical endpoint compares annualized HF hospitalization rates after 1 year of haemodynamic-guided management vs. the year prior to sensor implantation in patients with NYHA Class III symptoms and a previous HF hospitalization. The primary safety endpoints assess freedom from device/system-related complications and pressure sensor failure after 2 years. Results from the first 100 patients implanted at 14 out of the 15 participating centres in the UK are reported here. At baseline, all patients were in NYHA Class III, 70% were male, mean age was 69 ± 12 years, and 39% had an aetiology of ischaemic cardiomyopathy. The annualized HF hospitalization rate after 12 months was 82% lower [95% confidence interval 72-88%] than the previous 12 months (0.27 vs. 1.52 events/patient-year, respectively, P < 0.0001). Freedom from device/system-related complications and pressure sensor failure at 2 years was 100% and 99%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Remote haemodynamic-guided HF management, using frequent assessment of pulmonary artery pressures, was successfully implemented at 14 specialist centres in the UK. Haemodynamic-guided HF management was safe and significantly reduced hospitalization in a group of high-risk patients. These results support implementation of this innovative remote management strategy to improve outcome for patients with symptomatic HF. Clinical registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02954341.

Multiparameter diagnostic sensor measurements in heart failure patients presenting with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

AIMS: Implantable device-based sensor measurements including heart sounds, markers of ventilation, and thoracic impedance have been shown to predict heart failure (HF) hospitalizations. We sought to assess how these parameters changed prior to COVID-19 (Cov-19) and how these compared with those presenting with decompensated HF or pneumonia. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective analysis explores patterns of changes in daily measurements by implantable sensors in 10 patients with Cov-19 and compares these findings with those observed prior to HF (n = 88) and pneumonia (n = 12) hospitalizations from the MultiSENSE, PREEMPT-HF, and MANAGE-HF trials. The earliest sensor changes prior to Cov-19 were observed in respiratory rate (6 days) and temperature (5 days). There was a three-fold to four-fold greater increase in respiratory rate, rapid shallow breathing index, and night heart rate compared with those presenting with HF or pneumonia. Furthermore, activity levels fell more in those presenting with Cov-19, a change that was often sustained for some time. In contrast, there were no significant changes in 1st or 3rd heart sound (S1 and S3 ) amplitude in those presenting with Cov-19 or pneumonia compared with the known changes that occur in HF decompensation. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-sensor device diagnostics may provide early detection of Cov-19, distinguishable from worsening HF by an extreme and fast rise in respiratory rate along with no changes in S3.