Abstract 17157: Clinical Impact of Digoxin Discontinuation at Hospital Discharge in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Circulation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 138 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fahad Lodhi ◽  
Awais Malik ◽  
Syed Z Qamer ◽  
Cherinne Arundel ◽  
Helen Sheriff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Hospital Discharge ◽  
Propensity Scores ◽  
Clinical Impact ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
African America ◽  
Discharge From Hospital

Introduction: Digoxin use is associated with a lower risk of hospital admission and readmission in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Moreover, PROVED and RADIANCE trials have shown that digoxin discontinuation is associated with lower ejection fraction (EF), higher heart rate, and worse heart failure (HF) symptoms in chronic HFrEF patients. Despite these results, digoxin use has declined over recent years. In this study, we examined the clinical impact of digoxin discontinuation at hospital discharge in elderly patients with HFrEF. Hypothesis: Digoxin discontinuation at hospital discharge will increase mortality and heart failure readmission in HFrEF patients. Methods: Of 10,625 patients hospitalized with HFrEF (EF≤40%) in Medicare-linked OPTIMIZE-HF registry, 3,225 were receiving digoxin prior to admission but it was discontinued in 655 of these patients at the time of discharge. Propensity scores for digoxin discontinuation, estimated for each of the 3,225 patients, were used to match 616 pairs of patients (digoxin continued vs. discontinued) balanced on 60 baseline characteristics including age (mean 76 years), EF (mean 26%), gender (31% females) and race (15% African America) among others. Results: Among 1,232 matched patients, digoxin discontinuation was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality at 30-days (12% vs. 8%; HR 1.45; 95% CI 1.01-2.07; p=0.044) and 6-months (HR 1.32; p=0.009) but not at 1-year (HR 1.18; p=0.07). Digoxin discontinuation was also associated with increased combined heart failure readmission/all-cause mortality at 4-years of follow up (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.03-1.30; p=0.017). Conclusions: In patients with HFrEF receiving digoxin prior to admission, digoxin discontinuation at discharge from hospital is associated with increased short-term all-cause mortality and long-term heart failure readmission/all-cause mortality.

Prognostic value of global longitudinal layer specific strain for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Johnsen ◽  
M Sengeloev ◽  
P Joergensen ◽  
N Bruun ◽  
D Modin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Volume Index ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Echocardiographic Parameters

Abstract Background Novel echocardiographic software allows for layer-specific evaluation of myocardial deformation by 2-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography. Endocardial, epicardial- and whole wall global longitudinal strain (GLS) may be superior to conventional echocardiographic parameters in predicting all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of endocardial-, epicardial- and whole wall GLS in patients with HFrEF in relation to all-cause mortality. Methods We included and analyzed transthoracic echocardiographic examinations from 1,015 patients with HFrEF. The echocardiographic images were analyzed, and conventional and novel echocardiographic parameters were obtained. A p value in a 2-sided test <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Cox proportional hazards regression models were constructed, and both univariable and multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated. Results During a median follow-up time of 40 months, 171 patients (16.8%) died. A lower endocardial (HR 1.17; 95% CI (1.11–1.23), per 1% decrease, p<0.001), epicardial (HR 1.20; 95% CI (1.13–1.27), per 1% decrease, p<0.001), and whole wall (HR 1.20; 95% CI (1.14–1.27), per 1% decrease, p<0.001) GLS were all associated with higher risk of death (Figure 1). Both endocardial (HR 1.12; 95% CI (1.01–1.23), p=0.027), epicardial (HR 1.13; 95% CI (1.01–1.26), p=0.040) and whole wall (HR 1.13; 95% CI (1.01–1.27), p=0.030) GLS remained independent predictors of mortality in the multivariable models after adjusting for significant clinical parameters (age, sex, total cholesterol, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, ischemic cardiomyopathy, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and diabetes) and conventional echocardiographic parameters (left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, LV mass index, left atrial volume index, deceleration time, E/e', E-velocity, E/A ratio and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion). No other echocardiographic parameters remained an independent predictors after adjusting. Furthermore, endocardial, epicardial and whole wall GLS had the highest C-statistics of all the echocardiographic parameters. Conclusion Endocardial, epicardial and whole wall GLS are independent predictors of all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF. Furthermore, endocardial, epicardial and whole wall GLS were superior prognosticators of all-cause mortality compared with all other echocardiographic parameters. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): Herlev and Gentofte Hospital

P2630Incidence and prognostic impact of new-onset left bundle branch block in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S L Kristensen ◽  
R Roerth ◽  
P S Jhund ◽  
S Beggs ◽  
L Kober ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Bundle Branch Block ◽  
Bundle Branch Block ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Qrs Duration ◽  
New Onset

Abstract Background Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves survival in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, little is known about the incidence of LBBB in HFrEF and the risk factors for developing this. We addressed these questions in the PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE trials. Methods We identified 7703 patients with a non-paced rhythm on their baseline ECG, a QRS<130 ms, and at least one follow-up ECG (done at annual visits and end of study). Patients were stratified by baseline QRS duration (≤100 ms - reference; 101–115 ms and 116–129 ms) and followed until development of QRS duration ≥130 ms with a LBBB configuration or latest available ECG. The crude LBBB incidence rate per 100 person-years (py) was identified in the three QRS duration subgroups. Additionally, we examined risk of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, in patients with incident LBBB vs. no incident LBBB. Results Overall, 313 of 7703 patients (4%) developed LBBB during a mean follow-up of 2.7 years, yielding an incidence rate of 1.5 per 100 py. The rate ranged from 0.9 in those with QRS ≤100 ms to 4.0 per 100 py in patients with QRS 116–129 ms. Other predictors of incident LBBB included male sex, age, lower LVEF, HF duration and absence of AF. The risk of the primary composite endpoint was higher among those who developed incident LBBB vs no incident LBBB; event rates 13.5 vs 10.0 per 100 py, yielding an adjusted HR of 1.43 (1.05–1.96). For all-cause mortality the corresponding rates were 12.6 vs 7.3 per 100 py; HR 1.55 (1.16–2.07) (Table 1). Table 1. Risk of outcomes according to incident LBBB during follow-up No. events Crude rate per 100py Adjusted* HR (95% CI) HF hospitalization or CV death   No incident LBBB 2145 10.0 (9.6–10.4) 1.00 (ref.)   Incident LBBB 43 13.5 (10.0–18.2) 1.43 (1.05–1.96) All-cause mortality   No incident LBBB 1662 7.3 (6.9–7.6) 1.00 (ref.)   Incident LBBB 48 12.6 (9.5–16.7) 1.55 (1.16–2.07) Conclusion Among patients with HFrEF, the annual incidence of new-onset LBBB (and a potential indication for CRT), was around 1.5%, ranging from 1% in those with QRS duration below 100 ms to 4% in those with QRS 116–129 ms. Incident LBBB was associated with a much higher risk of adverse outcomes, highlighting the importance of repeat ECG monitoring in patients with HFrEF. Acknowledgement/Funding Novartis

scholarly journals SO057BETA-BLOCKERS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH REDUCED MORTALITY IN PATIENTS WITH HEART FAILURE WITH REDUCED EJECTION FRACTION AND ADVANCED CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE: COHORT STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Edouard L Fu ◽  
Alicia Uijl ◽  
Friedo W Dekker ◽  
Lars H Lund ◽  
Gianluigi Savarese ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Beta Blocker ◽  
Beta Blockers ◽  
Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Background and Aims Beta-blockers reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) were underrepresented in landmark trials. We evaluated if beta-blockers are associated with improved survival in patients with HFrEF and advanced CKD. Method We identified 3906 persons with an ejection fraction &lt;40% and advanced CKD (eGFR &lt;30 mL/min/1.73m2) enrolled in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry during 2001-2016. The associations between beta-blocker use, 5-year all-cause mortality, and the composite of time to cardiovascular (CV) mortality/first HF hospitalization were assessed by multivariable Cox regression. Analyses were adjusted for 36 variables, including demographics, laboratory measures, comorbidities, medication use, medical procedures, and socioeconomic status. To assess consistency, the same analyses were performed in a positive control cohort of 12,673 patients with moderate CKD (eGFR &lt;60-30 mL/min/1.73m2). Results The majority (89%) of individuals with HFrEF and advanced CKD received treatment with beta-blockers. Median (IQR) age was 81 (74-86) years, 36% were women and median eGFR was 26 (20-28) mL/min/173m2. During 5 years of follow-up, 2086 (53.4%) individuals had a subsequent HF hospitalization, and 2954 (75.6%) individuals died, of which 2089 (70.1%) due to cardiovascular causes. Beta-blocker use was associated with a significant reduction in 5-year all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.96)] and CV mortality/HF hospitalization (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.98). The magnitude of the associations between beta-blocker use and outcomes was similar to that observed for HFrEF patients with mild/moderate CKD, with adjusted HRs for all-cause mortality and CV mortality/HF hospitalization of 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.91) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.96), respectively. Conclusion Despite lack of trial evidence, the use of beta-blockers in patients with HFrEF and advanced CKD was high in routine Swedish care, and was independently associated with reduced mortality to the same degree as HFrEF with moderate CKD.

Diuretic Changes, Health Care Resource Utilization, and Clinical Outcomes for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: From the Change the Management of Patients With Heart Failure Registry

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Shahzeb Khan ◽  
Stephen J. Greene ◽  
Anne S. Hellkamp ◽  
Adam D. DeVore ◽  
Xian Shen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Resource Utilization ◽  
Rate Ratio ◽  
Total Daily Dose ◽  
Dose Increase ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Background: Diuretics are a mainstay therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure. However, in contemporary US outpatient practice, the degree to which diuretic dosing changes over time and the associations with clinical outcomes and health care resource utilization are unknown. Methods: Among 3426 US outpatients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure registry with complete medication data and who were prescribed a loop diuretic, diuretic dose increase was defined as: (1) change to a total daily dose higher than their previous total daily dose, (2) addition of metolazone to the regimen, (3) change from furosemide to either bumetanide or torsemide, and the change persists for at least 7 days. Adjusted hazard ratios or rate ratios along with 95% CIs were reported for clinical outcomes among patients with an increase in oral diuretic dose versus no increase in diuretic dose. Results: Overall, 796 (23%) had a diuretic dose increase (18 episodes per 100 patient-years). The proportion of patients with dyspnea at rest (38% versus 26%), dyspnea at exertion (79% versus 67%), orthopnea (32% versus 21%), edema (60% versus 43%), and weight gain (40% versus 23%) were significantly (all P <0.001) higher in the diuretic increase group. Baseline angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.65–0.87]) use were associated with lower likelihood of diuretic increase over time. Patients with a diuretic dose increase had a significantly higher number of heart failure hospitalizations (rate ratio, 2.53 [95% CI, 2.10–3.05]), emergency department visits (rate ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.56–2.17]), and home health visits (rate ratio, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.39–2.54]), but not all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.89–1.36]). Similarly, greater furosemide dose equivalent increases were associated with greater resource utilization but not with mortality, compared with smaller increases. Conclusions: In this contemporary US registry, 1 in 4 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction had outpatient escalation of diuretic therapy over longitudinal follow-up, and these patients were more likely to have sign/symptoms of congestion. Outpatient diuretic dose escalation of any magnitude was associated with heart failure hospitalizations and resource utilization, but not all-cause mortality.

scholarly journals Evaluating Sacubitril/Valsartan Dose Dependence on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

2020 ◽  
pp. 106002802098352
Author(s):  
Kazuhiko Kido ◽  
Christopher Bianco ◽  
Marco Caccamo ◽  
Wei Fang ◽  
George Sokos
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Dose Dependence ◽  
Effective Sample Size ◽  
Multicenter Cohort Study ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Hospitalization Rates ◽  
Propensity Matching ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Background Limited evidence is available regarding low (24/26 mg) and middle (49/51 mg) doses of sacubitril/valsartan. Objectives The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan dose on heart failure (HF) hospitalization and mortality in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods A retrospective multicenter cohort study compared 3 doses of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF. The coprimary outcomes were all-cause mortality and rehospitalization for HF. Propensity matching analysis was performed. Results Of 721 eligible patients, propensity matching created a cohort with an effective sample size of 652 (24/26-mg group [n = 326], 49/51-mg group [n = 147], 97/103-mg group [n = 179]). The HF hospitalization rates were 29.14% in the 24/26-mg group, 19.51% in the 49/51-mg group, and 16.10% in the 97/103-mg group (24/26 vs 49/51 mg: HR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.04-2.34; 24/26 vs 97/103 mg: HR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.18-2.73; 49/51 vs 97/103 mg: HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.70-1.89). All-cause mortality rates were 29.63% in the 24/26-mg group, 17.58% in the 49/51-mg group, and 9.27% in the 97/103-mg group (24/26 vs 49/51 mg: HR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.07-2.59; 24/26 vs 97/103 mg: HR = 2.56, 95% CI = 1.54-4.24; 49/51 vs 97/103 mg: HR = 1.54, 95% CI = 0.84-2.82). Conclusion and Relevance Sacubitril/valsartan 97/103- or 49/51-mg dose is associated with a lower mortality or hospitalization rate for HF in patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan compared with the 24/26-mg dose group.

scholarly journals Cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillator in patients with heart failure

EP Europace ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedikt Schrage ◽  
Lars H Lund ◽  
Michael Melin ◽  
Lina Benson ◽  
Alicia Uijl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy ◽  
Outpatient Clinic ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Cardiac Resynchronization ◽  
Resynchronization Therapy ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Aims Randomized data on the efficacy/safety of cardiac resynchronization therapy with vs. without defibrillator (CRT-D,-P) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are scarce. We aimed to evaluate survival associated with use of CRT-D vs. CRT-P in a contemporary cohort with HFrEF. Methods and results Patients from Swedish HF Registry treated with CRT-D/CRT-P and fulfilling criteria for primary prevention defibrillator use were included. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of CRT-D non-use. All-cause mortality was compared in CRT-D vs. CRT-P by Cox regression in a 1 : 1 propensity-score-matched cohort. Of 1988 patients with CRT, 1108 (56%) had CRT-D and 880 (44%) CRT-P. Older age, higher ejection fraction (EF), female sex, and the lack of referral to HF nurse-led outpatient clinic were major determinants of CRT-D non-use. After matching, 645 CRT-D patients were compared with 645 with CRT-P. The CRT-D use was associated with lower 1- and 3-year all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR):0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI):0.58–0.98; HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68–0.99, respectively]. Results were consistent in all pre-specified subgroups except for CRT-D use being associated with lower 3-year mortality in patients with an EF &lt; 30% but not in those with an EF ≥ 30% (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.59–0.89 and HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.83–1.85, respectively; P-interaction = 0.02). Conclusion In a contemporary HFrEF cohort, CRT-D was associated with lower mortality compared with CRT-P. The CRT-D use was less likely in older patients, females, and in patients not referred to HF nurse-led outpatient clinic. Our findings support the use of CRT-D vs. CRT-P in HFrEF, in particular with severely reduced EF.

scholarly journals Carvedilol versus metoprolol succinate in the treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and patients with acute myocardial infarction

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-39
Author(s):  
E.Ya. Nikolenko ◽  
◽  
K.V. Vovk ◽  
O.L. Pavlova ◽  
O.O. Salun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Metoprolol Succinate ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Choosing the best drug for the treatment of cardiac patients remains one of the most important aspects of medical practice. The purpose of this review is to select the optimal beta-blocker for the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure and patients with acute myocardial infarction by comparing the efficacy of carvedilol and metoprolol succinate, as both drugs significantly reduce mortality rates and reduce hospitalization. The results of meta-analyzes, randomized trials comparing the efficacy of carvedilol and metoprolol succinate in the treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and patients with acute myocardial infarction were analyzed. Conflicting data received. According to the study “Effect of carvedilol vs metoprolol succinate on mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction”, a meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Cardiology in 2013, carvedilol is significantly more effective than metoprolol succinate in treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and patients with acute myocardial infarction, while meta-analyzes of 2015 and 2017 showed no preference for carvedilol over metoprolol succinate. Based on the results, concluded that the data obtained is not sufficient to argue that carvedilol is more effective than metoprolol succinate for this category of patients in terms of reducing the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and reducing hospitalization. This problem requires further extensive research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document