scholarly journals Classification of physical activity in patients with heart failure categorized as New York Heart Association class I or II

2020 ◽  
Vol 67 (1.2) ◽  
pp. 124-133
Author(s):  
Sayuri Doi ◽  
Ayako Tamura ◽  
Takako Minagawa ◽  
Akemi Osaka ◽  
Masataka Sata
Author(s):  
Shelby D. Reed ◽  
Angelyn O. Fairchild ◽  
F. Reed Johnson ◽  
Juan Marcos Gonzalez ◽  
Robert J. Mentz ◽  
...  

Background: The Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health issued Guidance in 2016 on generating patient preference information to aid evaluation of medical devices. Consistent with this guidance, we aimed to provide quantitative patient preference evidence on benefit-risk tradeoffs relevant to transcatheter mitral valve repair versus medical therapy for patients with heart failure and symptomatic secondary mitral regurgitation. Methods: A discrete-choice experiment survey was designed to quantify patients’ tolerance for 30-day mortality or serious bleeding risks to achieve improvements in physical functioning or reductions in heart failure hospitalizations. Two samples were recruited: an online US panel of individuals reporting a diagnosis of heart failure (n=244) and patients with heart failure treated at Duke University Health System (n=175). Random-effects logit regression was used to model treatment choices as a function of benefit and risk levels. Results: Across both samples, approximately one-quarter (23.5%) consistently chose device profiles offering the higher level of physical functioning despite mortality and bleeding risks as high as 10%. Among respondents who at least once chose a device profile offering a lower level of functioning, improvement in physical functioning equivalent to a change from New York Heart Association class IV to III was ≈6 times more preferred than a change from New York Heart Association class III to II. Estimated discrete-choice experiment utility gains and losses revealed that respondents would accept up to a 9.7 percentage-point (95% CI, 8.2%–13.3%) increase in risk of 30-day mortality with devices that could improve functioning from New York Heart Association class IV to III, or up to 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%–2.7%) for an improvement from New York Heart Association class III to II. Conclusions: Severity of heart failure symptoms influences patients’ willingness to accept risks associated with mitral valve medical devices. These findings can inform shared decision-making discussions with patients who are being evaluated for transcatheter mitral valve repair.


Author(s):  
Klaske R Siegersma ◽  
Floor Groepenhoff ◽  
N Charlotte Onland-Moret ◽  
Igor I Tulevski ◽  
Leonard Hofstra ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Christian Sohns ◽  
Konstantin Zintl ◽  
Yan Zhao ◽  
Lilas Dagher ◽  
Dietrich Andresen ◽  
...  

Background: Recent data demonstrate promising effects on left ventricular dysfunction and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement following ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure. We sought to study the relationship between LVEF, New York Heart Association class on presentation, and the end points of mortality and heart failure admissions in the CASTLE-AF study (Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation With Heart Failure) population. Furthermore, predictors for LVEF improvement were examined. Methods: The CASTLE-AF patients with coexisting heart failure and AF (n=363) were randomized in a multicenter prospective controlled fashion to ablation (n=179) versus pharmacological therapy (n=184). Left ventricular function and New York Heart Association class were assessed at baseline (after randomization) and at each follow-up visit. Results: In the ablation arm, a significantly higher number of patients experienced an improvement in their LVEF to >35% at the end of the study (odds ratio, 2.17; P <0.001). Compared with the pharmacological therapy arm, both ablation patient groups with severe (<20%) or moderate/severe (≥20% and <35%) baseline LVEF had a significantly lower number of composite end points (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; P =0.006), all-cause mortality (HR, 0.54; P =0.019), and cardiovascular hospitalizations (HR, 0.66; P =0.017). In the ablation group, New York Heart Association I/II patients at the time of treatment had the strongest improvement in clinical outcomes (primary end point: HR, 0.43; P <0.001; mortality: HR, 0.30; P =0.001). Conclusions: Compared with pharmacological treatment, AF ablation was associated with a significant improvement in LVEF, independent from the severity of left ventricular dysfunction. AF ablation should be performed at early stages of the patient’s heart failure symptoms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document