BACKGROUND: In the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) treatment trial, similar clinical benefits were observed between starting doses of enalapril and the target dose achieved by postrandomization up-titration. In our current analysis, protecting the randomization, we examined the early effects of starting doses of enalapril. METHODS: There were 2569 patients with mild-to-moderate chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (ejection fraction ≤35%) randomized to receive starting doses (5-10 mg/day) of placebo (n = 1284) or enalapril (n = 1285). At day 14, both study drugs were blindly up-titrated to the target dose (20 mg/day). Overall, 96% (2458/2569) of the patients returned for dose up-titration, which was achieved in 59% (1444/2458), 48% (696/1444) of whom were in the enalapril group. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for outcomes in the enalapril group were estimated. RESULTS: HRs (95% CIs) for all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality at 14 days after randomization were 0.80 (0.32-2.03), 0.63 (0.35-1.12), and 0.65 (0.39-1.06), respectively. Corresponding HRs (95% CIs) at 30 days were 0.82 (0.41-1.67), 0.43 (0.27-0.68), and 0.43 (0.27-0.68), respectively. The magnitude of these early effects of starting doses of enalapril is similar to its previously reported long-term effects at the target dose. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that in stable ambulatory patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the magnitude of the early effect of starting doses of enalapril is similar to that observed during longer-term therapy with the target doses of the drug.

Aims

Hypokalaemia is a risk factor for ventricular arrhythmias and sudden death in ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure (HF). The objective of this study was to examine the association between hypokalaemia and outcomes in hospitalized patients with decompensated HF in whom sudden death is less common.

Methods and results

Of the 5881 hospitalized patients with HF, 1052 had consistent hypokalaemia (both admission and discharge serum potassium <4.0 mmol/L), and 2538 had consistent normokalaemia (both admission and discharge serum potassium 4.0-5.0 mmol/L). Propensity scores for consistent hypokalaemia, estimated for each of 3590 (1052 + 2538) patients, were used to assemble a matched cohort of 971 pairs of patients with consistent hypokalaemia vs. consistent normokalaemia, balanced on 54 baseline characteristics (mean age, 75 years; 60% women; 28% African American). We repeated the above process to assemble 2327 pairs of patients with discharge potassium <4.0 vs. 4.0-5.0 mmol/L and 449 pairs of patients with discharge serum potassium <3.5 vs. 4.0-5.0 mmol/L. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) associated with hypokalaemia were estimated in matched cohorts. 30 day all-cause mortality occurred in 5% and 4% of patients with consistent normokalaemia vs. consistent hypokalaemia, respectively (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52-1.18; P = 0.241). HRs (95% CI) for 30 day mortality associated with discharge serum potassium <4.0 and <3.5 mmol/L were 0.90 (0.70-1.16; P = 0.419) and 1.69 (0.94-3.04; P = 0.078), respectively. Hypokalaemia (<4.0 or <3.5 mmol/L) had no association with long-term mortality or other outcomes.

Conclusions

In hospitalized older patients with HF, compared with normokalaemia (serum potassium 4.0-5.0 mmol/L), hypokalaemia (<4.0 or <3.5 mmol/L) had no significant associations with outcomes.

Introduction

Hospital length of stay (LoS) and hospital readmissions are metrics of healthcare performance. We examined the association between these two metrics in older patients hospitalized with decompensated heart failure (HF).

Material and methods

Eight thousand and forty-nine patients hospitalized for HF in 106 U.S. hospitals had a median LoS of 5 days; among them, 3777 had a LoS > 5 days. Using propensity scores for LoS > 5 days, we assembled 2723 pairs of patients with LoS 1-5 vs. > 5 days. The matched cohort of 5446 patients was balanced on 40 baseline characteristics. We repeated the above process in 7045 patients after excluding those with LoS > 10 days, thus assembling a second matched cohort of 2399 pairs of patients with LoS 1-5 vs. 6-10 days. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for outcomes associated with longer LoS were estimated in matched cohorts.

Results

In the primary matched cohort (n = 5446), LoS > 5 days was associated with a higher risk of all-cause readmission at 30 days (HR = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.04-1.31; p = 0.010), but not during longer follow-up. A longer LoS was also associated with a higher risk of mortality during 8.8 years of follow-up (HR = 1.13; 95% CI: 1.06-1.21; p < 0.001). LoS had no association with HF readmission. Similar associations were observed among the matched sensitivity cohort (n = 4798) that excluded patients with LoS > 10 days.

Conclusions

In propensity score-matched balanced cohorts of patients with HF, a longer LoS was independently associated with poor outcomes, which persisted when LoS > 10 days were excluded.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs-ARBs) improve outcomes in heart failure (HF). Less is known about this association in nursing home (NH) residents. METHODS: Of the 8024 hospitalized HF patients, 542 were NH residents, of whom 250 received ACEIs-ARBs. We assembled a propensity score-matched cohort of 157 pairs of NH residents receiving and not receiving ACEIs-ARBs balanced on 29 baseline characteristics (mean age, 83 years, 74% women, 17% African American), in which we estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for outcomes associated with ACEI-ARB use. We then checked for interaction in a matched cohort of 5130 patients (378 were NH residents) assembled from the 8024 patients. RESULTS: Among 314 matched NH residents, HRs (95% CIs) for 30-day all-cause readmission, HF readmission, and all-cause mortality were 0.78 (0.47-1.28), 0.68 (0.29-1.60), and 1.26 (0.70-2.27), respectively. Respective HRs (95% CIs) at 1 year were 0.76 (0.56-1.02), 0.68 (0.42-1.09), and 1.04 (0.78-1.38). Among 5130 matched patients, ACEI-ARB use was associated with a significantly lower risk of all outcomes at both times, with no significant interactions, except for 1-year mortality, which was only significant in the non-NH subgroup (P for interaction, 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that the use of ACEIs or ARBs is associated with improved outcomes in patients with HF in the NH setting. However, we also found no evidence that this association is different in NH residents with HF versus non-NH patients with HF. Future larger studies are needed to demonstrate effectiveness of these drugs in the NH setting.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines recommend that systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and hypertension be maintained below 130 mm Hg. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine associations of SBP <130 mm Hg with outcomes in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: Of the 25,345 patients in the Medicare-linked OPTIMIZE-HF registry, 10,535 had an ejection fraction (EF) ≤40%. Of these, 5,615 had stable SBP (≤20 mm Hg admission to discharge variation), and 3,805 (68%) had a discharge SBP <130 mm Hg. Propensity scores for SBP <130 mm Hg, estimated for each of the 5,615 patients, were used to assemble a matched cohort of 1,189 pairs of patients with SBP <130 versus ≥130 mm Hg, balanced on 58 baseline characteristics (mean age 76 years; mean EF 28%, 45% women, 13% African American). This process was repeated in 3,946 patients, after excluding 1,669 patients (30% of 5,615) with a discharge SBP <110 mm Hg and assembled a second matched balanced cohort of 1,099 pairs of patients with SBP 110 to 129 mm Hg versus ≥130 mm Hg. RESULTS: Thirty-day all-cause mortality occurred in 7% and 4% of matched patients with SBP <130 mm Hg versus ≥130 mm Hg, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24 to 2.48; p = 0.001). HRs (95% CIs) for all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, and HF readmission at 1 year, associated with SBP <130 mm Hg, were 1.32 (1.15 to 1.53; p < 0.001), 1.11 (1.01 to 1.23; p = 0.030), and 1.24 (1.09 to 1.42; p = 0.001), respectively. HRs (95% CIs) for 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality associated with SBP 110 to 129 mm Hg (vs. ≥130 mm Hg) were 1.50 (1.03 to 2.19; p = 0.035), and 1.19 (1.02 to 1.39; p = 0.029), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized older patients with HFrEF, SBP <130 mm Hg is associated with poor outcomes. This association persisted when the analyses were repeated after excluding patients with SBP <110 mm Hg. There is an urgent need for randomized controlled trials to evaluate optimal SBP reduction goals in patients with HFrEF.

Purpose

Hospitalized patients with cancer are considered to be at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite strong recommendations in numerous clinical practice guidelines, retrospective studies have shown that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is underutilized in hospitalized patients with cancer.

Patients and methods

We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study of hospitalized patients with cancer at five academic hospitals to determine prescription rates of thromboprophylaxis and factors influencing its use during hospitalization.

Results

A total of 775 patients with cancer were enrolled across five academic medical centers. Two hundred forty-seven patients (31.9%) had relative contraindications to pharmacologic prophylaxis. Accounting for contraindications to anticoagulation, the overall rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis was 74.2% (95% CI, 70.4% to 78.0%; 392 of 528 patients). Among the patients with cancer without contraindications for anticoagulation, individuals hospitalized with nonhematologic malignancies were significantly more likely to receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis than those with hematologic malignancies (odds ratio [OR], 2.34; 95% CI, 1.43 to 3.82; P=.007). Patients with cancer admitted for cancer therapy were significantly less likely to receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis than those admitted for other reasons (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.61; P<.001). Sixty-three percent of patients with cancer classified as low risk, as determined by the Padua Scoring System, received anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. Among the 136 patients who did not receive anticoagulation, 58.8% were considered to be high risk by the Padua Scoring System.

Conclusion

We conclude that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is frequently administered to hospitalized patients with cancer but that nearly one third of patients are considered to have relative contraindications for prophylactic anticoagulation. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer is commonly prescribed without regard to the presence or absence of concomitant risk factors for VTE.

Background

New hypertension and heart failure guidelines recommend that systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and hypertension be lowered to <130 mm Hg.

Methods

Of the 6778 hospitalized patients with HFpEF and a history of hypertension in the Medicare-linked OPTIMIZE-HF registry, 3111 had a discharge SBP <130 mm Hg. Using propensity scores for SBP <130 mm Hg, we assembled a matched cohort of 1979 pairs with SBP <130 versus ≥130 mm Hg, balanced on 66 baseline characteristics (mean age, 79 years; 69% women; 12% African American). We then assembled a second matched cohort of 1326 pairs with SBP <120 versus ≥130 mm Hg. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for outcomes associated with SBP <130 and <120 mm Hg were separately estimated in the matched cohorts using SBP ≥130 mm Hg as the reference.

Results

HRs (95% CIs) for 30-day, 12-month, and 6-year all-cause mortality associated with SBP <130 mm Hg were 1.20 (0.91-1.59; P = 0.200), 1.11 (0.99-1.26; P = 0.080), and 1.05 (0.98-1.14; P = 0.186), respectively. Respective HRs (95% CIs) associated with SBP <120 mm Hg were 1.68 (1.21-2.34; P = 0.002), 1.28 (1.11-1.48; P = 0.001), and 1.11 (1.02-1.22; P = 0.022). There was no association with readmission.

Conclusions

Among older patients with HFpEF and hypertension, compared with SBP ≥130 mm Hg, the new target SBP <130 mm Hg had no association with outcomes but SBP <120 mm Hg was associated with a higher risk of death but not of readmission. Future prospective studies need to evaluate optimal SBP treatment goals in these patients.

Background

The efficacy of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists or aldosterone antagonists in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is well known. Less is known about their effectiveness in real-world older patients with HFrEF.

Methods

Of the 8206 patients with heart failure and ejection fraction ≤35% without prior spironolactone use in the Medicare-linked OPTIMIZE-HF registry, 6986 were eligible for spironolactone therapy based on serum creatinine criteria (men ≤2.5 mg/dL, women ≤2.0 mg/dL) and 865 received a discharge prescription for spironolactone. Using propensity scores for spironolactone use, we assembled a matched cohort of 1724 (862 pairs) patients receiving and not receiving spironolactone, balanced on 58 baseline characteristics (Creatinine Cohort: mean age, 75 years, 42% women, 17% African American). We repeated the above process to assemble a secondary matched cohort of 1638 (819 pairs) patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m² (eGFR Cohort: mean age, 75 years, 42% women, 17% African American).

Results

In the matched Creatinine Cohort, spironolactone-associated hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for all-cause mortality, heart failure readmission, and combined endpoint of heart failure readmission or all-cause mortality were 0.92 (0.81-1.03), 0.87 (0.77-0.99), and 0.87 (0.79-0.97), respectively. Respective hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) in the matched eGFR Cohort were 0.87 (0.77-0.98), 0.92 (0.80-1.05), and 0.91 (0.82-1.02).

Conclusions

These findings provide evidence of consistent, albeit modest, clinical effectiveness of spironolactone in older patients with HFrEF regardless of renal eligibility criteria used. Additional strategies are needed to improve the effectiveness of aldosterone antagonists in clinical practice.

Background

Heart failure (HF) is a major source of morbidity and mortality. Fluid retention and shortness of breath are its cardinal manifestations for which loop diuretics are used. Although their usefulness is well accepted, less is known about their role in improving clinical outcomes.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between loop diuretics and clinical outcomes in patients with HF.

Methods

Of the 25,345 older patients hospitalized for HF in the Medicare-linked OPTIMIZE-HF (Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure) registry, 9,866 (39%) received no pre-admission diuretics. The study excluded 1,083 patients receiving dialysis and 847 discharged on thiazide diuretics. Of the remaining 7,936 patients, 5,568 (70%) were prescribed loop diuretics at discharge. Using propensity scores for receipt of loop diuretics estimated for each of the 7,936 patients, a matched cohort of 2,191 pairs of patients was assembled balanced on 74 baseline characteristics. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for outcomes were estimated in the matched cohort.

Results

Matched patients (n = 4,382) had a mean age of 78 years, 54% were women, and 11% were African American. The 30-day all-cause mortality occurred in 4.9% (107 of 2,191) and 6.6% (144 of 2,191) of patients in the loop diuretic and no loop diuretic groups, respectively (HR when the use of loop diuretics was compared with nonuse: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.94; p = 0.016). Patients in the loop diuretic group had a significantly lower risk of 30-day HF readmission (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.99; p = 0.037) but not of 30-day all-cause readmission (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.01; p = 0.081). None of the associations was statistically significant during 60 days of follow-up.

Conclusions

Hospitalized older patients not taking diuretics prior to hospitalization for HF decompensation who received a discharge prescription for loop diuretics had significantly better 30-day clinical outcomes than those not discharged on loop diuretics. These findings provide new information about short-term clinical benefits associated with loop diuretic use in HF.

Background

Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is common in older adults and is a risk factor for incident heart failure (HF). We examined the association of systolic-diastolic hypertension (SDH) with incident HF and other outcomes in older adults.

Methods

In the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS), 5776 community-dwelling adults≥65years had data on baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP). We excluded those with DBP<60mmHg (n=821), DBP≥90 and SBP<140mmHg (n=28), normal BP, taking anti-hypertensive drugs (n=1138), normal BP, not taking anti-hypertensive drugs, history of hypertension (n=193), and baseline HF (n=101). Of the remaining 3495, 1838 had ISH (SBP≥140 and DBP<90mmHg) and 240 had SDH (SBP≥140 and DBP≥90mmHg). The main outcome was centrally-adjudicated incident HF over 13years of follow-up.

Results

Participants had a mean (±SD) age of 73 (±6)years, 57% were women, and 16% African American. Incident HF occurred in 25%, 22% and 11% of participants with ISH, SDH and no hypertension, respectively. Compared to no hypertension, multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for incident HF associated with ISH and SDH were 1.86 (1.51-2.30) and 1.73 (1.23-2.42), respectively. Cardiovascular mortality occurred in 22%, 24% and 9% of those with ISH, SDH and no hypertension, respectively with respective multivariable-adjusted HRs (95% CIs) of 1.88 (1.49-2.37) and 2.30 (1.64-3.24).

Conclusion

Among older adults with hypertension, both SDH and ISH have similar associations with incident HF and cardiovascular mortality.