Morning pulmonary artery pressure measurements by CardioMEMS are most stable and recommended for pressure trends monitoring.

AIMS: The CardioMEMS HF system is used to measure pulmonary artery (PA) pressures of patients with heart failure (HF). The goal of this study was to determine the impact of time in the daily PA pressure measurements, considering variance and influence of circadian rhythms on cardiovascular pathophysiology. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study included 10 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (LVEF < 40%; New York Heart Association class III). Individual daily PA pressures were obtained by CardioMEMS sensors, per protocol, measured up to six times throughout the day, for a period of 5 days. Differences between variation of morning versus evening PA pressures were compared with Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Mean PA pressures (mPAP) increased from a morning value of 19.1 ± 2 mm Hg (8 am; mean ± standard error of the mean [SEM]) to 21.3 ± 2 mm Hg late in the evening (11 pm; mean ± SEM). Over the course of 5 days, evening mPAP exhibited a significantly higher median coefficient of variation than morning mPAP (14.9 (interquartile range [IQR] 7.6-21.0) and 7.0 (IQR 5.0-12.8) respectively; p = 0.01). The same daily pattern of pressure variability was observed in diastolic (p = 0.01) and systolic (p = 0.04) pressures, with diastolic pressures being more variable than systolic at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: Morning PA pressure measurements yield more stable values for observing PA trends. Patients should thus be advised to consistently perform their daily PA pressure measurements early in the morning. This will improve reliability and interpretation of the CardioMEMS management, indicating true alterations in the patient's health status, rather than time-of-day-dependent variations.

Clinical profile and contemporary management of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: results from the CHECK-HF registry.

BACKGROUND: Clinical management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) centres on treating comorbidities and is likely to vary between countries. Thus, to provide insight into the current management of HFpEF, studies from multiple countries are required. We evaluated the clinical profiles and current management of patients with HFpEF in the Netherlands. METHODS: We included 2153 patients with HFpEF (defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%) from the CHECK-HF registry, which included patients from 2013 to 2016. RESULTS: Median age was 77 (IQR 15) years, 55% were women and the most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (51%), renal insufficiency (45%) and atrial fibrillation (AF, 38%). Patients between 65 and 80 years and those over 80 years had on average more comorbidities (up to 64% and 74%, respectively, with two or more comorbidities) than patients younger than 65 years (38% with two or more comorbidities, p-value < 0.001). Although no specific drugs are available for HFpEF, treating comorbidities is advised. Beta-blockers were most frequently prescribed (78%), followed by loop diuretics (74%), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (67%) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs, 39%). Strongest predictors for loop-diuretic use were older age, higher New York Heart Association class and AF. CONCLUSION: The medical HFpEF profile is determined by the underlying comorbidities, sex and age. Comorbidities are highly prevalent in HFpEF patients, especially in elderly HFpEF patients. Despite the lack of evidence, many HFpEF patients receive regular beta-blockers, RAS inhibitors and MRAs, often for the treatment of comorbidities.

Differences in guideline-recommended heart failure medication between Dutch heart failure clinics: an analysis of the CHECK-HF registry.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is associated with poor prognosis, high morbidity and mortality. The prognosis can be optimised by guideline adherence, which also can be used as a benchmark of quality of care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in use of HF medication between Dutch HF clinics. METHODS: The current analysis was part of a cross-sectional registry of 10,910 chronic HF patients at 34 Dutch outpatient clinics in the period of 2013 until 2016 (CHECK-HF), and focused on the differences in prescription rates between the participating clinics in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). RESULTS: A total of 8,360 HFrEF patients were included with a mean age of 72.3 ± 11.8 years (ranging between 69.1 ± 11.9 and 76.6 ± 10.0 between the clinics), 63.9% were men (ranging between 54.3 and 78.1%), 27.3% were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV (ranging between 8.8 and 62.1%) and the average estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 59.6 ± 24.6 ml/min (ranging between 45.7 ± 23.5 and 97.1 ± 16.5). The prescription rates ranged from 58.9-97.4% for beta blockers (p < 0.01), 61.9-97.1% for renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (p < 0.01), 29.9-86.8% for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) (p < 0.01), 0.0-31.3% for ivabradine (p < 0.01) and 64.9-100.0% for diuretics (p < 0.01). Also, the percentage of patients who received the target dose differed significantly, 5.9-29.1% for beta blockers (p < 0.01), 18.4-56.1% for RAS inhibitors (p < 0.01) and 13.2-60.6% for MRAs (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The prescription rates and prescribed dosages of guideline-recommended medication differed significantly between HF outpatient clinics in the Netherlands, not fully explained by differences in patient profiles.

Remote monitoring of chronic heart failure patients: invasive versus non-invasive tools for optimising patient management.

Exacerbations of chronic heart failure (HF) with the necessity for hospitalisation impact hospital resources significantly. Despite all of the achievements in medical management and non-pharmacological therapy that improve the outcome in HF, new strategies are needed to prevent HF-related hospitalisations by keeping stable HF patients out of the hospital and focusing resources on unstable HF patients. Remote monitoring of these patients could provide the physicians with an additional tool to intervene adequately and promptly. Results of telemonitoring to date are inconsistent, especially those of telemonitoring with traditional non-haemodynamic parameters. Recently, the CardioMEMS device (Abbott Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA), an implantable haemodynamic remote monitoring sensor, has shown promising results in preventing HF-related hospitalisations in chronic HF patients hospitalised in the previous year and in New York Heart Association functional class III in the United States. This review provides an overview of the available evidence on remote monitoring in chronic HF patients and future perspectives for the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these strategies.

A randomised comparison of the effect of haemodynamic monitoring with CardioMEMS in addition to standard care on quality of life and hospitalisations in patients with chronic heart failure : Design and rationale of the MONITOR HF multicentre randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Assessing haemodynamic congestion based on filling pressures instead of clinical congestion can be a way to further improve quality of life (QoL) and clinical outcome by intervening before symptoms or weight gain occur in heart failure (HF) patients. The clinical efficacy of remote monitoring of pulmonary artery (PA) pressures (CardioMEMS; Abbott Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA) has been demonstrated in the USA. Currently, the PA sensor is not reimbursed in the European Union as its benefit when applied in addition to standard HF care is unknown in Western European countries, including the Netherlands. AIMS: To demonstrate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of haemodynamic PA monitoring in addition to contemporary standard HF care in a high-quality Western European health care system. METHODS: The current study is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised clinical trial in 340 patients with chronic HF (New York Heart Association functional class III) randomised to HF care including remote monitoring with the CardioMEMS PA sensor or standard HF care alone. Eligible patients have at least one hospitalisation for HF in 12 months before enrolment and will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Minimum follow-up will be 1 year. The primary endpoint is the change in QoL as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Secondary endpoints are the number of HF hospital admissions and changes in health status assessed by EQ-5D-5L questionnaire including health care utilisation and formal cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSION: The MONITOR HF trial will evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of haemodynamic monitoring by CardioMEMS in addition to standard HF care in patients with chronic HF. Clinical Trial Registration number NTR7672.