Presentation on theme: "HFSA 2010 Comprehensive Heart Failure Practice Guideline"— Presentation transcript:
1HFSA 2010 Comprehensive Heart Failure Practice Guideline Key Recommendations
2“Should be considered” HFSA 2010 Comprehensive Heart Failure Practice Guideline Strength of Recommendation“Is recommended”“Should be considered”“May be considered”“Is not recommended”Part of routine careExceptions should be minimizedMajority of patients should receive interventionSome discretion allowedIndividualization of therapy is indicatedTherapy should not be used
3A B C Randomized controlled trials Cohort and case control studies HFSA 2010 Comprehensive Heart Failure Practice Guideline Strength of EvidenceABCRandomized controlled trialsMay be assigned on results of 1 trialCohort and case control studiesIncludes sub group analyses, meta- analyses, observational studies, registriesExpert opinionIncludes observational, epidemiological findings; in-practice safety reporting
4HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (3.1) Heart Failure Prevention A careful and thorough clinical assessment, with appropriate investigation for known or potential risk factors, is recommended in an effort to prevent development of LV remodeling, cardiac dysfunction, and HF.Strength of Evidence = ARisk factors include: hypertension, hyperlipidemia, atherosclerosis, diabetes, valvular disease, obesity, physical inactivity, excessive alcohol intake, smokingReference for hypertension:Levy D et al. The progression from hypertension to congestive heart failure. JAMA 1996;275:Adapted from:
5HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (3.2) HF Risk Factor Treatment Goals HypertensionGenerally < 130/80DiabetesSee ADA guidelines1HyperlipidemiaSee NCEP guidelines2Inactivity20-30 min. aerobic 3-5 x wk.ObesityWeight reduction < 30 BMIAlcoholMen ≤ 2 drinks/day, women ≤ 1SmokingCessationDietary SodiumMaximum 2-3 g/day1Diabetes Care 2006; 29: S4-S422JAMA 2001; 285:The June 2006 AHA guide regarding exercise, “Making healthy food and lifestyle choices: Our guide for American adults,” recommends 30 minutes or more of aerobic exercise every day. The recommendations and a free brochure are available at or AHA-USA1.Adapted from:
6Treating Hypertension to Prevent HF Aggressive blood pressure control:Aggressive BP control in patients with prior MI:Decreasesrisk ofnew HFby ~ 50%56% in DM2Decreasesrisk ofnew HFby ~ 80%Data come primarily from SHEP study. Data regarding type 2 diabetes come from UKPDS study.Lancet 1991;338: (STOP-HypertensionJAMA 1997;278:212-6 (SHEP)UKPDS Group. UKPDS 38. BMJ 1998;317:
7HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (3. 3-3 HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline ( ) Prevention—ACEI and Beta BlockersACE inhibitors are recommended for prevention of HF in patients at high risk for this syndrome, including those with:Coronary artery diseasePeripheral vascular diseaseStrokeDiabetes and another major risk factor Strength of Evidence = AACE inhibitors and beta blockers are recommended for all patients with prior MI Strength of Evidence = A
8Management of Patients with Known Atherosclerotic Disease But No HF PlaceboHOPETreatment with ACE inhibitors decreases the risk of CV death, MI, stroke, or cardiac arrest.NEJM 2000;342: (HOPE) Lancet 2003;362:782-8 (EUROPA)Ramipril22% rel. risk red. p < .001In the HOPE study, relative risk of the composite outcome of MI, stroke, or death from CV causes in the ramipril group as compared with the placebo group was 0.78 at five years.In EUROPA the relative risk reduction of CV death, MI, or cardiac arrest was 20%.EUROPAPlaceboPerindopril20% rel. risk red. p = .0003
9Treatment of Post-MI Patients with Asymptomatic LV Dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 40%) SAVE StudyAll-cause mortality ↓19%CV mortality ↓21%HF development ↓37%Recurrent MI ↓25%MortalityRatePlaceboCaptopril19% rel. risk reductionp = 0.019YearsPfeffer et al. NEJM 1992;327:669-77
10The Additional Value of Beta Blockers Post-MI: CAPRICORN Studied impact of beta blocker (carvedilol) on post-MI patients with LVEF ≤ 40% already receiving contemporary treatments, including revascularization, anticoagulants, ASA, and ACEI:All-cause mortality reduced (HR = 0.077; p = 0.03)Cardiovascular mortality reduced (HR = 0.75; p = .024)Recurrent non-fatal MIs reduced (HR =.59; p = .014)There was no difference between the carvedilol and placebo groups in the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or hospital admission for cardiovascular problems (HR = .92 ; CI = ).Dargie HJ. Lancet 2001;357:
11HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (4. 8, 4 HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (4.8, 4.10) Heart Failure Patient EvaluationRecommended evaluation for patients with a diagnosis of HF:Assess clinical severity and functional limitation by history, physical examination, and determination of functional class*Assess cardiac structure and functionDetermine the etiology of HFEvaluate for coronary disease and myocardial ischemiaEvaluate the risk of life threatening arrhythmiaIdentify any exacerbating factors for HFIdentify co-morbidities which influence therapyIdentify barriers to adherence and compliance Strength of Evidence = C*Metrics to consider include the 6-minute walk test and NYHA functional classOther assessment metrics not addressed in this portion of the guideline include metabolic stress testing and BNP testing. BNP testing is discussed extensively in the section on acute decompensated HF.Adapted from:
12HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (4.19) Evaluation—Follow Up Assessments Recommended Components of Follow-Up VisitsSigns and symptoms evaluated during initial visitFunctional capacity and activity levelChanges in body weightPatient understanding of and compliance with dietary sodium restriction and medical regimenHistory of arrhythmia, syncope, pre-syncope, palpitation, or ICD dischargeAdherence and response to therapeutic interventionsExacerbating factors for HF, including worsening ischemic heart disease, hypertension, and new or worsening valvular disease Strength of Evidence = B
13HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7. 1, 7 HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7.1, 7.7) Pharmacologic Therapy: ACE InhibitorsACE inhibitors are recommended for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with an LVEF ≤ 40% Strength of Evidence = AACE inhibitors should be titrated to doses used in clinical trials (as tolerated during uptitration of other medications, such as beta blockers) Strength of Evidence = CACE inhibitors are recommended as routine therapy for asymptomatic patients with an LVEF ≤ 40%.Post MI Strength of Evidence = BNon Post-MI Strength of Evidence = CAdapted from:
14ACE Inhibitors in Heart Failure: From Asymptomatic LVD to Severe HF SOLVD Prevention (Asymptomatic LVD)20% death or HF hosp.29% death or new HFCONSENSUS (Severe Heart Failure)40% mortality at 6 mos.31% mortality at 1 year27% mortality at end of studyNo difference in incidence of sudden cardiac deathSOLVD Treatment(Chronic Heart Failure)SOLVD Prevention also showed a 37% reduction in the development of new HF and a 44% reduction in multiple hospitalizations for HF.The patients in SOLVD Treatment had an LVEF < 35%. Largest reduction in deaths were among those attributed to progressive HF. There was also a 26% reduction among those who died or were hospitalized due to worsening HF.Reduced mortality in CONSENSUS due to impact on progression of disease severity, rather than on sudden cardiac death..16%mortalitySOLVD Investigators. N Engl J Med 1992;327:685-91SOLVD Investigators. N Engl J Med 1991;325:CONSENSUS Study Trial Group. N Engl J Med 1987;316:
15ACE Inhibitors Used in Clinical Trials Generic NameTrade NameInitial Daily DoseTarget DoseMean Dose in Clinical TrialsCaptoprilCapoten6.25 mg tid50 mg tid122.7 mg/dayEnalaprilVasotec2.5 mg bid10 mg bid16.6 mg/dayFosinoprilMonopril5-10 mg qd80 mg qdN/ALisinoprilZestril, Prinivil2.5-5 mg qd20 mg qd4.5 mg/day, mg/day*QuinaprilAccupril5 mg bidRamiprilAltacemg qd10 mg qdTrandolaprilMavik1 mg qd4 mg qdNOTE THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF RECOMMENDATIONS SHOULD BE CONSULTED.*No mortality difference between high and low dose groups, but 12% lower risk of death or hospitalization in high dose group vs. low dose group.
16HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7 HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7.2) Pharmacologic Therapy: Substitutes for ACEIIt is recommended that other therapy be substituted for ACE inhibitors in the following circumstances:In patients who cannot tolerate ACE inhibitors due to cough, ARBs are recommended Strength of Evidence = AThe combination of hydralazine and an oral nitrate may be considered in such patients not tolerating ARBs Strength of Evidence = CPatients intolerant to ACE inhibitors from hyperkalemia or renal insufficiency are likely to experience the same side effects with ARBs. In these cases, the combination of hydralazine and an oral nitrate should be considered Strength of Evidence = C
17HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7. 6, 7 HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7.6, 7.7) Pharmacologic Therapy: Beta BlockersBeta blockers shown to be effective in clinical trials are recommended for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with an LVEF ≤ 40%.Strength of Evidence = ABeta blockers are recommended as routine therapy for asymptomatic patients with an LVEF ≤ 40%.Post MI Strength of Evidence = BNon Post-MI Strength of Evidence = CBeta blockers shown to be effective in clinical trials include carvedilol, bisoprolol, and metoprolol succinate. See slide 17.
18Effect of Beta Blockade on Outcome in Patients With HF and Post-MI LVD StudyDrugHF SeverityTarget Dose (mg)OutcomeUS Carvedilol1carvedilolmild/ moderateBID↓48% disease progression (p= .007)CIBIS-II2bisoprololmoderate/ severe10 QD↓34% mortality (p <.0001)MERIT-HF3metoprolol succinate200 QD↓34% mortality (p = .0062)COPERNICUS4severe25 BID↓35% mortality (p = .0014)CAPRICORN5post-MI LVD↓23% mortality (p =.031)1Colucci WS et al. Circulation 1196;94: CIBIS II Investigators. Lancet 1999;353:9-13.3MERIT-HF Study Group. Lancet 1999;353: Packer M et al. N Engl J Med 2001;344The CAPRICORN Investigators. Lancet 2001;357:
19RECENT DECOMPENSATION HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7.8) Pharmacologic Therapy: Beta BlockersRECENT DECOMPENSATIONBeta blocker therapy is recommended for patients with a recent decompensation of HF after optimization of volume status and successful discontinuation of IV diuretics and vasoactive agents.Whenever possible, beta blocker therapy should be initiated in the hospital at a low dose prior to discharge of stable patients Strength of Evidence = BAdapted from:
20HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7 HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7.11) Pharmacologic Therapy: Beta BlockersSYMPTOMATIC EXACERBATIONContinuation of beta blocker therapy is recommended in most patients experiencing a symptomatic exacerbation of HF during chronic maintenance treatment, unless they develop cardiogenic shock, refractory volume overload, or symptomatic bradycardia Strength of Evidence = CTemporary dose reduction may be consideredAvoid abrupt discontinuationReinstate or gradually increase prior to dischargeTitrate dose to previously tolerated dose as soon as possibleAdapted from:
21% of Patients With Event Weeks After Randomization COPERNICUS: Death, Hospitalization, or Study Drug Withdrawal in High Risk Patients30HR = 0.67 (CI = )20Placebo% of Patients With Event10CarvedilolDifferences in favor of carvedilol appear as early as 4-21 days.2468Weeks After RandomizationKrum H et al. JAMA 2003;289:754-6Krum et al. JAMA 2003;289
22Carvedilol Predischarge Initiation Postdischarge Initiation* IMPACT-HF Primary End Point: Patients Receiving Beta Blocker at 60 DaysImprovement18%Initiation of a beta blocker prior to hospital discharge is safe and well tolerated in the majority of patients and dramatically improves utilization of this evidence-based therapy following discharge.Carvedilol Predischarge Initiation(n=185)Physician DiscretionPostdischarge Initiation*(n=178)Gattis WA et al. JACC 2004;43:
23HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7 HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7.9) Pharmacologic Therapy: Beta BlockersCONCOMITANT DISEASEBeta blocker therapy is recommended in the great majority of patients with HF and reduced LVEF—even if there is concomitant diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease or peripheral vascular disease.Use with caution in patients with:Diabetes with recurrent hypoglycemiaAsthma or resting limb ischemia.Use with considerable caution in patients with marked bradycardia (<55 bpm) or marked hypotension (SBP < 80 mmHg).Not recommended in patients with asthma with active bronchospasm Strength of Evidence = C
24Diabetes and the Use of Beta Blockers for HF: Relative Risk for Mortality and Hospitalization for Heart FailureCOPERNICUS (carvedilol)1With diabetesWithout diabetesMERIT-HF (ER metoprolol succinate)20.51.01.52.0This slide shows relative risks for the combined end point of mortality and hospitalization owing to heart failure in patients with and without diabetes in the COPERNICUS1 and MERIT-HF2 trials.1. Mohacsi P, Fowler MB, Krum H, et al. Should physicians avoid the use of beta-blockers in patients with heart failure who have diabetes? Results of the COPERNICUS Study. Circulation. 2001;104(17):abstr 3551.2. Hjalmarson A, Goldstein S, Fagerberg B, et al. Effects of controlled-release metoprolol on total mortality, hospitalizations, and well-being in patients with heart failure: the Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF). JAMA. 2000;283(10):Mohacsi. Circulation. 2001;104(17):abstr 3551.Hjalmarson. JAMA. 2000;283(10):1295.
25HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (11. 8, 15 HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (11.8, 15.2) Pharmacologic Therapy: Beta BlockersPRESERVED LVEFBeta blocker treatment is recommended in patients with HF and preserved LVEF who have:Prior MI Strength of Evidence = AHypertension Strength of Evidence = BAtrial fib. requiring control of ventricular rate Strength of Evidence = BTHE ELDERLYBeta-blocker and ACE inhibitor therapy is recommended as standard therapy in all elderly patients with HF due to LV systolic dysfunction Strength of Evidence = BIn the absence of contraindications, these therapies are also recommended in the very elderly (age > 80 years).There are no studies looking specifically at the impact of beta blockers on patients with HF and preserved LVEF or on the elderly with HF. However, the use of beta blockers in patients with HF and the concomitant conditions listed in this recommendation is well established, and the elderly are represented in most HF trials.Strength of Evidence = C
26HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline Pharmacologic Therapy: Beta Blocker Overview* General considerationsInitiate at low dosesUp-titrate gradually, generally no sooner than at 2 week intervalsUse target doses shown to be effective in clinical trialsAim to achieve target dose in 8-12 weeksMaintain at maximum tolerated doseIf symptoms worsen or other side effects appearAdjust dose of diuretic or concomitant vasoactive med.Continue titration to target after symptoms return to baselineIf up-titration continues to be difficultProlong titration intervalReduce target doseConsider referral to a HF specialistNOTE THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF RECOMMENDATIONS SHOULD BE CONSULTED.*Consult language of specific recommendationsAdapted from:
27Beta Blockers Used in Clinical Trials Generic NameTrade NameInitial Daily DoseTarget DoseMean Dose in Clinical TrialsBisoprololZebeta1.25 mg qd10 mg qd8.6 mg/dayCarvedilolCoreg3.125 mg bid25 mg bid37 mg/dayCoreg CR80 mg qdMetoprolol succinate CR/XLToprol XLmg qd200 mg qd159 mg/dayNOTE THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF RECOMMENDATIONS SHOULD BE CONSULTED.
28HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7 HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7.3) Pharmacologic Therapy: Angiotensin Receptor BlockersARBs are recommended for routine administration to symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with an LVEF ≤ 40% who are intolerant to ACE inhibitors for reasons other than hyperkalemia or renal insufficiency.Strength of Evidence = A
29ARBS in Patients Not Taking ACE Inhibitors: Val-HeFT & CHARM-Alternative PlaceboSurvival %ValsartanCV Death or HF Hosp %PlaceboCandesartanThe Val-HeFT paper cited here is a sub-group analysis of study participants not on an ACE inhibitor (N=366); they were not defined as ACE-intolerant. This table shows a reduction in all-cause mortality from 27.1% in the placebo group to 17.3% in the group treated with valsartan.CHARM-Alternative enrolled 2028 patients not receiving ACEI due to previous intolerance. Primary outcome was composite of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for HF. At median follow up of 33.7 months, 33% of the patients in the candesartan group and 40% of the patients in the placebo group had CV death or HF hospitalizationp = 0.017HR 0.77, p =MonthsMonthsMaggioni AP et al. JACC 2002;40:1422-4Granger CB et al. Lancet 2003;362:772-6
30Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Used in Clinical Trials Generic NameTrade NameInitial Daily DoseTarget DoseMean Dose in Clinical TrialsCandesartanAtacand4-8 mg qd32 mg qd24 mg/dayLosartanCozaarmg qd150 mg qd129 mg/dayValsartanDiovan40 mg bid160 mg bid254 mg/dayNOTE THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF RECOMMENDATIONS SHOULD BE CONSULTED.
31HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7. 14-7 HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline ( ) Pharmacologic Therapy: Aldosterone AntagonistsAn aldosterone antagonist is recommended for patients on standard therapy, including diuretics, who have:NYHA class IV HF (or class III, previously class IV) HF from reduced LVEF (≤ 35%)One should be considered in patients post-MI with clinical HF or diabetes and an LVEF < 40% who are on standard therapy, including an ACE inhibitor (or ARB) and a beta blocker.Renal function issues on next slide.Strength of Evidence = AAdapted from:
32Aldosterone Antagonists in HF EPHESUS (Post-MI)RALES (Advanced HF)EplerenoneProbability of SurvivalSpironolactonePlaceboPlaceboRR = 0.70P < 0.001RR = 0.85P < 0.008MonthsPitt B. N Engl J Med 1999;341:709-17Pitt B. N Engl J Med 2003;348:
33HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7. 16-7 HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline ( ) Aldosterone Antagonists and Renal FunctionAldosterone antagonists are not recommended when:Creatinine > 2.5mg/dL (or clearance < 30 mL/min)Serum potassium> 5.0 mmol/LTherapy includes other potassium-sparing diureticsStrength of Evidence = AIt is recommended that potassium be measured at baseline, then 1 week, 1 month, and every 3 months Strength of Evidence = ASupplemental potassium is not recommended unless potassium is < 4.0 mmol/L Strength of Evidence = AStarting doses: Spironolactone 12.5 mg PO QD (or 6.25 mg in high risk patient); Epleronone 25 mg QDTarget doses: Advance spironolactone at 4 weeks to 25mg PO QD;Advance epleronone at 4 weeks to 50 mg QDAvoid higher dosesAdapted from:
34HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7 HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7.19) Pharmacologic Therapy: Hydralazine and Oral NitratesA combination of hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate is recommended as part of standard therapy, in addition to beta-blockers and ACE-inhibitors, for African Americans with HF and reduced LVEF:NYHA III or IV HF Strength of Evidence = ANYHA II HF Strength of Evidence = BThis represents one of the key differences between the HFSA guideline and the AHA/ACC guideline, since this is a stronger recommendation for HDZN/ISDN.
35A-HeFT Outcomes End point ISDN-HDZN (n=518) Placebo (n=532) p Primary end point composite score-0.1-0.50.01All-cause mortality (%)6.210.20.021st HF hospitalization (%)16.424.40.001Change in quality-of-life score at 6 months**-5.5-2.7A-HeFT: African American Heart Failure TrialComposite endpoint includes last three items on table:All-cause mortalityFirst HF hospitalizationChange in QOL score at 6 months (lower score indicates better QOL)Study enrolled 1050 self-reported African American patients will NYHA III-IV HF.Data monitoring board stopped study after 10 months of follow up due to mortality increase in placebo group.Significant outcomes showed a 43% decrease in mortality and a 39% drop in HF hospitalizations among those in the group receiving isisorbide dinitrate/hydralazine.A-HeFT used a novel primary end point consisting of weighted values for all-cause death, first hospitalization for HF, and change in quality of life according to the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire. Possible scores ranged from +6 to -2.Taylor AL et al. N Engl J Med 2004; 351;
36A-HeFT All-Cause Mortality 43% Decrease in MortalitySurvival %Fixed Dose ISDN/HDZNPlaceboP = 0.01Days Since Baseline VisitTaylor AL et al. N Engl J Med 2004;351:
37HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7.23) Pharmacologic Therapy: Diuretics Diuretic therapy is recommended to restore and maintain normal volume status in patients with clinical evidence of fluid overload, generally manifested by:Congestive symptomsSigns of elevated filling pressures Strength of Evidence = ALoop diuretics rather than thiazide-type diuretics are typically necessary to restore normal volume status in patients with HF Strength of Evidence = BCongestive symptoms include orthopnea, edema, and shortness of breath.Signs of elevating filling pressures include jugular venous distention, peripheral edema, pulsatile hepatomegaly, and, less commonly, rales.
38HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (7.24) Pharmacologic Therapy: Diuretics Restoration of normal volume status may require multiple adjustments.Once a diuretic effect is achieved with short-acting loop diuretics, increase frequency to 2-3 times a day if necessary, rather than increasing a single dose. Strength of Evidence = BOral torsemide may be considered in patients exhibiting poor absorption of oral medication or erratic diuretic effect Strength of Evidence = CIV administration of diuretics may be necessary Strength of Evidence = ADiuretic refractoriness may represent patient nonadherence, a direct effect of diuretic use on the kidney, or progression of underlying dysfunction.Adapted from:
39Loop Diuretics Agent Initial Daily Dose Max Total Daily Dose Elimination: Renal – Met.Duration of ActionFurosemide20-40mg qd or bid600 mg65%R-35%M4-6 hrsBumetanidemg qd or bid10 mg62%R/38%M6-8 hrsTorsemide10-20 mg qd200 mg20%R-80%M12-16 hrsEthacrynic acid25-50 mg qd or bid67%R-33%M6 hrsAlthough these are doses generally recommended for use in the treatment of HF, not necessarily indicated in the package inserts. Thus some recommendations might be off label.
40Potassium-Sparing Diuretics AgentInitial Daily DoseMax Total Daily DoseEliminationDuration of ActionSpironolactonemg qd50 mgMetabolic48-72 hrsEplerenone25-50 mg qd100 mgRenal, MetabolicUnknownAmiloride5 mg qd20 mgRenal24 hrsTriamterene50-75 mg bid200 mg7-9 hrsNone are specifically indicated for heart failure. Epleronone is indicated for post-MI LV dysfunction. It is a diuretic, but is used in HF primarily for neurohormonal inhibition.
41HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (9. 1, 9 HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (9.1, 9.4) Device Therapy: Prophylactic ICD PlacementProphylactic ICD placement should be considered in patients with an LVEF ≤35% and mild to moderate HF symptoms:Ischemic etiology Strength of Evidence = ANon-ischemic etiology Strength of Evidence = BIn patients who are undergoing implantation of a biventricular pacing device, use of a device that provides defibrillation should be considered Strength of Evidence = BDecisions should be made in light of functional status and prognosis based on severity of underlying HF and comorbid conditions, ideally after 3-6 mos. of optimal medical therapy Strength of Evidence = CBefore placement, LV function should be re-assessed, ideally after 3-6 months of optimal medical therapy.Adapted from:
42MADIT II: Prophylactic ICD in Ischemic LVD (LVEF 30%) 65 (.69)170 (.78)329 (.90)490Conventional9110 (.78)274 (.84)503 (.91)742DefibrillatorNumber at Risk18.104.22.168.0Probability of SurvivalTherapyYear.64Moss AJ et al. N Engl J Med 2002;346:877-83Moss AJ, et al. N Engl J Med. 2002;346;
43ICD Therapy in the SCD-HeFT Trial: Mortality by Intention-to-Treat HR97.5% ClP ValueAmiodarone vs Placebo1.06.53ICD vs Placebo.77.007.4.322%Mortality.217%.1AmiodaroneICD TherapyPlacebo6121824303642485460Months of Follow-UpBardy GH et al. N Engl J Med 2005;352:225-37
44A widened QRS interval (≥120 ms) HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (9.7) Device Therapy: Biventricular PacingBiventricular pacing therapy is recommended for patients with all of the following:Sinus rhythmA widened QRS interval (≥120 ms)Severe LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF < 35%)Persistent, moderate-to-severe HF (NYHA III) despite optimal medical therapy Strength of Evidence = AThis represents another difference between the HFSA guideline and the AHA/ACC’s in that this is not as strong a recommendation.
45CRT Improves Quality of Life and NYHA Functional Class (%)*P<.05Abraham WT et al. Circulation 2003;108:
46CRT in Patients with Advanced HF and a Prolonged QRS Interval: COMPANION Primary End Point: All-Cause MortalityDeath or Hospitalization Due to HFPatients in the study group had advanced HF and a QRS interval of at least 120. There were three treatment arms:(1) optimal pharmacologic therapy (OPT)(2) OPT plus CRT(3) OPT-CRT plus an ICDRisk of all-cause mortality reduced by 19%in group with CRT and ICD (p =.014)Risk of death or hospitalization from HFreduced by 34% in ICD group and by 40% inICD-CRT group (p < .001)Bristow MR et al. N Engl J Med 2004;350:
47Effect of CRT Without an ICD on All-Cause Mortality: CARE-HF 571192321365404Medical Therapy889213351376409CRTNumber at risk5001,0001,500255075100% Event-Free SurvivalMedical TherapyDaysHR = 0.64 (95% CI = )p = .0019Cleland JG et al. N Engl J Med 2005;352:
48HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (11. 1-11 HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline ( ) HF with Preserved LVEF—DiagnosisCareful attention to differential diagnosis is recommended in patients with HF and preserved LVEF.Treatments may differ based on cardiac disorder.Evaluation for ischemic disease and inducible myocardial ischemia should be included.Recommended diagnostic tools:EchocardiographyElectrocardiographyStress imaging (via exercise or pharmacologic means, using myocardial perfusion or echocardiographic imaging)Cardiac catheterizationThis is a transition to several special considerations in heart failure:HF with preserved LVEFAcute decompensated HFStrength of Evidence = CAdapted from:
49Figure 11.3. Diagnostic Algorithm for HF with Preserved LVEF No inducible ischemia, fibrotic, collagen-Vascular, RCM, cardinoid, diabetes,Radiation or chemotherapy inducedheart disease, infiltrative disease, co-morbid conditions, reconsider diagnosisof HF
50Improve symptoms, especially congestion and low-output symptoms HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (12.3, Table 12.3) Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF)—Treatment Goals for Hospitalized PatientsImprove symptoms, especially congestion and low-output symptomsOptimize volume statusIdentify etiologyIdentify precipitating factorsOptimize chronic oral therapy; minimize side effectsIdentify who might benefit from revascularizationEducation patients concerning medication and HF self-assessmentConsider enrollment in a disease management programStrength of Evidence = C
51Fluid and sodium restriction Diuretics, especially loop diuretics HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline ( ) Overview of Treatment Options for Patients with Acute Decompensated HFFluid and sodium restrictionDiuretics, especially loop diureticsUltrafiltration/renal replacement therapy (in selected patients only)Parenteral vasodilators * (nitroglycerin, nitroprusside, nesiritide)Inotropes * (milrinone or dobutamine)*See recommendations for stipulations and restrictions.
52HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (12. 25, Table 12 HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (12.25, Table 12.7) Discharge Criteria for Hospitalized ADHF PatientsRecommended prior to discharge for all patients with HF:Exacerbating factors addressedNear optimum fluid status and pharmacologic therapy achievedTransition from IV to oral diuretic completedPatient education completed with clear discharge instructionsFollow-up clinic visit scheduled, usually 7-10 daysShould be considered prior to discharge for patients with advanced HF or a history of recurrent admissions:Oral regimen stable for 24 hoursNo IV inotrope or vasodilator for 24 hoursAmbulation before discharge to assess functional capacityPlans for post-discharge managementReferral for disease management, if availableItems for post discharge planning: scale present in the home, visiting nurse or telemanagement follow up within 3 days of discharge.Strength of Evidence =CAdapted from:
53Predictors of Mortality Based on Analysis of ADHERE Database Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis of ADHERE data shows:Three variables are the strongest predictors of mortality in hospitalized ADHF patients:BUN > 43 mg/dLSystolic blood pressure < 115 mmHgSerum creatinine > 2.75 mg/dLFonarow GC et al. JAMA 2005;293:572-80
54HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (8.1) Heart Failure Patient Education It is recommended that patients with HF and their family members or caregivers receive individualized education and counseling that emphasizes self-care.This education and counseling should be delivered by providers using a team approach.Teaching should include skill building and target behaviors.Strength of Evidence = BThe most intensive education is needed for patients in NYHA class III-IV.Examples of skills and target behaviors:Perform daily weightsDevelop action plan for notifying provider if symptoms changeState reasons for taking medicationsDescribe a plan for a missed doseState blood pressure goal and current blood pressureDemonstrate ability to read food label for sodium per servingAdapted from:
55The Potential Impact of Effective Education on Patient Compliance Nonadherence rate when patients . . .Recall MD adviceDon’t recall adviceMedications8.7%66.7%Diet23.6%55.8%Activity76.4%84.5%Smoking60.0%90.4%Alcohol81.8%Potential improvement with medication compliance alone would have monumental economic and health impact. Shows importance of institutional compliance with “patient education before discharge” HF performance measure.Kravitz et al. Arch Int Med 1993;153:
56Sample Target Behavior: Be Able to Read and Understand Food Labels These are all labels from cups of dried soup. The two labels on the left are from the same brand and show the variability that can occur from one soup to another. The label on the right is from another brand and appears to show a much higher sodium content. But when you look at the servings per container (upper ovals), you see that the soups on the left have 2 per container, meaning you must double sodium content. As a result, the container on the left has the greatest amount of sodium—nearly 800 mg.Labels from cups of soup
57HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (8.7) Heart Failure Disease Management Patients recently hospitalized for HF and other patients at high risk should be considered for referral to a comprehensive HF disease management program that delivers individualized care.Strength of Evidence = AHigh risk patients include those with renal insufficiency, low output state, diabetes, COPD, persistent NYHA class III or IV symptoms, frequent hospitalization for any cause, multiple active co-morbidities, or a history of depression, cognitive impairment, or persistent non-adherence to therapeutic regimens.The evidence that led to the A rating was a collection of single-center randomized controlled trials. Examples include the following:Stewart S, MarleyJE, Horowitz JD. Effects of a multidisciplinary, home-based intervention on unplanned readmissions and survival among patients with congestive heart failure: a randomised controlled study. Lancet 1999;354:Intervention: Home visit be a nurse 7-14 days after dischargeResults: During 6 month follow up there were 129 primary endpoint events (unplanned readmission for HF) in usual-care group, 77 in the treatment group (p = .02). More intervention group that usual-care patients remained event-free ( 38 vs. 51, p = .04).Rich MW, Beckham V, Wittenberg C, Leven CL, Freedland KE, Carney RM. A multidisciplinary intervention to prevent the readmission of elderly patients with congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 1995;333:Intervention: Nurse-directed multidisciplinary intervention on high risk hospitalized patients 70 or older.Results: Risk ratio for readmission at 90 days .56 (p = .02). Quality of life improved at 90 days (p = .0001)Cline CM, Israelsson BY, Willenheimer RB, Broms K, Erhardt LR. Cost effective management programme for heart failure reduces hospitalisation. Heart 1998;80:442-6.Intervention: Education on HF and self-management with follow-up at nurse-directed HF clinic for 1 year after discharge.Results: No difference in survival rate at 1 year. Mean time to readmission 141 days in treatment vs. 106 in control (p < .05). Days in hospital fewer for treatment, but at p = .07 level.Doughty RN, Wright SP, Pearl A, Walsh HJ, Muncaster S, Whalley GA, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of integrated heart failure management: The Auckland Heart Failure Management Study. Eur Heart J 2002;23:Intervention: Clinical review at hospital-based HF clinic early after discharge, education sessions, personal diary, information booklets, and regular follow up at HF clinic and PC practitioner.Results: No significant difference in groups for combined endpoint of death or readmission. Quality of life improved in treatment group at 12 months (p = .015). Readmissions were 56 in the treatment group vs 95 in the control group (p = .015).Stromberg A, Martennson J, Fridlund B, Leven LA, Karlsson JE, Dahlstrom U. Nurse-led heart failure clinics improve survival and self-care behaviour in patients with heart failure: results from a prospective, randomized trial.Intervention: Follow-up at a nurse-led HF clinic.Results: Fewer patients with events (death or admission) in treatment group at 12 months (29 vs 40, p = .03). Fewer deaths after 12 months (7 vs 20, p = Treatment group had higher self-care scores at 3 and 12 months (p = .02 and p = .01).Adapted from:
58HF Disease Management and the Risk of Readmission RatioSample studies below. All are single-site studies or studies done at associated hospitals (see Naylor). Interventions range from a single home visit by a nurse (Stewart) to more complex and long-term strategies using a HF clinic.Cline CM, Israelsson BY, Willenheimer RB, Broms K, Erhardt LR. Cost effective management programme for heart failure reduces hospitalisation. Heart 1998;80:442-6.Intervention: Education on HF and self-management with follow-up at nurse-directed HF clinic for 1 year after discharge.Results: No difference in survival rate at 1 year. Mean time to readmission 141 days in treatment vs. 106 in control (p < .05). Days in hospital fewer for treatment, but at p = .07 level.Rich MW, Beckham V, Wittenberg C, Leven CL, Freedland KE, Carney RM. A multidisciplinary intervention to prevent the readmission of elderly patients with congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 1995;333:Intervention: Nurse-directed multidisciplinary intervention on high risk hospitalized patients 70 or older.Results: Risk ratio for readmission at 90 days .56 (p = .02). Quality of life improved at 90 days (p = .0001)Naylor MD, Brooten DA, Campbell RL, Maislin G, McCauley KM, Schwartz JS. Transitional care of older adults hospitalized with heart failure: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52:675-84Intervention: 3-month advanced practice nurse-directed discharge planning and home follow-up in six hospitals. Mean age of patients 76.Results: Time to first readmission or death longer in study group (p = .026). At 1 year, study group had fewer readmissions (104 vs 162, p = .047). Improvements in QOL were only short-term.Stewart S, MarleyJE, Horowitz JD. Effects of a multidisciplinary, home-based intervention on unplanned readmissions and survival among patients with congestive heart failure: a randomised controlled study. Lancet 1999;354:Intervention: Home visit be a nurse 7-14 days after dischargeResults: During 6 month follow up there were 129 primary endpoint events (unplanned readmission for HF) in usual-care group, 77 in the treatment group (p = .02). More intervention group that usual-care patients remained event-free ( 38 vs. 51, p = .04).Summary RR = 0.76 (95% CI )Summary RR for randomized only = 0.75 (CI = )
59HFSA 2010 Practice Guideline (8.13) End-of-Life Care in Heart Failure End-of-life care should be considered in patients who have advanced, persistent HF with symptoms at rest despite repeated attempts to optimize pharmacologic, device, and other therapies, as evidenced by one or more of the following:HF hospitalization Strength of Evidence = CChronic poor quality of life with inability to accomplish activities of daily living Strength of Evidence = CNeed for continuous IV inotropic therapy support Strength of Evidence = C
60Evidence-Based Treatment Across the Continuum of Systolic LVD and HF Control VolumeImprove Clinical OutcomesDiureticsRenal ReplacementTherapy*Digoxin-BlockerACEIor ARBAldosteroneAntagonist or ARBTreat Residual SymptomsCRT an ICD*HDZN/ISDN*Clinical outcomes include reduced mortality, HF hospitalizations, and progressive LV remodeling.*In selected patients