Wan, Siu‐Hin

Introduction: Among those hospitalized with heart failure, diabetes (DM) is a common comorbid condition and the population characteristics and natural history of those with preserved EF (HFpEF) versus those with reduced EF (HFrEF) remain undefined. Hypothesis: To determine the epidemiologic profile and natural history among those hospitalized with acute heart failure (AHF) with DM and compare outcomes of those with reduced versus preserved EF. Methods: A retrospective chart analysis of adults hospitalized with primary ICD diagnosis of AHF from Olmsted County hospitalized from 2005 - 2008, with follow up until 2013. Demographic, clinical and lab data were collected. Results: Of 912 subjects hospitalized with AHF, 381 (42%) had DM. Among subjects with AHF and DM, those with HFrEF were similar in age to those with HFpEF (76.3±11.7 years vs 78.3±11.2 years, p=0.12), but were more likely to be male (58% vs 37%, p<0.001). Those with DM and HFrEF compared to HFpEF had less hypertension (95% vs 99%, p=0.046), but more coronary artery disease (89% vs 75%, p<0.001), prior myocardial infarction (65% vs 33%, p<0.001), and higher BNP values (1155±906 pg/mL vs 676±568 pg/mL, p<0.001). E/e’ ratio was similar in those with DM and HFrEF versus HFpEF (22.6±10.4 vs 21.7±10.9, p=0.49), suggesting both groups had increased filling pressures. There was no difference in mortality between the HFrEF and HFpEF groups up to 5 years in either the DM group (p=0.46) or the non-DM group (p=0.11). However, those hospitalized with AHF and DM demonstrated a higher rate in those with HFrEF versus HFpEF groups in all cause rehospitalization (p=0.019) and heart failure rehospitalization (p=0.008). This was different from the non-DM group, where there was no difference between HFrEF and HFpEF in all cause hospitalization (p=0.31) or heart failure rehospitalization (p=0.19). Conclusions: In patients hospitalized for AHF with DM, those with HFrEF had increased all cause and heart failure hospitalization as compared to HFpEF. In contrast, subjects without DM had no differences in rehospitalization between the HFrEF and HFpEF groups. Further studies are warranted to define pathophysiological mechanism for this observation.

M-atrial natriuretic peptide (MANP) is a novel ANP (atrial natriuretic peptide) analog engineered to be an innovative particulate GC-A (guanylyl cyclase A) receptor activator. The rationale for its design was to develop a best-in-class GC-A activator with enhanced cGMP activating, natriuretic, aldosterone-suppressing, and blood pressure–lowering actions, compared with endogenous ANP, for the treatment of hypertension. Here, we report the first-in-human study on the safety, tolerability, neurohumoral, renal, and blood pressure–lowering properties of MANP in hypertension subjects. This was an open-label sequential single ascending dose design in which all subjects stopped all antihypertensive agents for 14 days before receiving a single subcutaneous injection of MANP. MANP was safe, well tolerated, activated cGMP, induced natriuresis, reduced aldosterone, and decreased blood pressure at or below the maximal tolerated dose. Thus, MANP has a favorable safety profile and produced expected pharmacological effects in human hypertension. Our results support further investigations of MANP as a potential future blood pressure–lowering, natriuretic and aldosterone-suppressing drug for hypertension especially resistant hypertension.

Background The cardiac intensive care unit ( CICU ) population is no longer composed of only patients with acute coronary syndromes, and includes those with acute heart failure and multiple comorbidities. We hypothesized that the GWTG ‐ HF (Get With The Guidelines–Heart Failure) risk score that predicts inpatient mortality in hospitalized patients with heart failure would predict mortality in CICU patients. Methods and Results We retrospectively analyzed CICU patients at a tertiary care hospital from 2007 to 2015. The GWTG ‐ HF risk score was calculated at CICU admission. As a secondary analysis, the EFFECT (Enhanced Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment) , OPTIMIZE‐HF (Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure), and ADHERE (Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry) risk scores were calculated. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value were determined for inpatient and 1‐year mortality. The GWTG ‐ HF risk score was calculated in 9532 (95%) patients, with a median value of 40 (interquartile range, 35–47). Inpatient mortality occurred in 824 (8.6%) patients, and 2075 (21.8%) patients died by 1 year. Patients who died in hospital had a significantly higher mean GWTG ‐ HF score (47.7 versus 40.2; P <0.001). Inpatient and 1‐year mortality increased in each GWTG ‐ HF risk score quartile ( P <0.0001). Discrimination of the GWTG ‐ HF , EFFECT, OPTIMIZE‐HF, and ADHERE risk scores was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for hospital mortality, and were similar for all risk scores (0.72–0.74; P >0.05). The Hosmer–Lemeshow statistic suggested poor calibration for hospital mortality by the GWTG ‐ HF risk score ( P <0.001). Conclusions The GWTG ‐ HF risk score and other heart failure prediction tools demonstrate good discrimination for inpatient and 1‐year mortality in a heterogeneous cohort of CICU patients. Our study emphasizes that prognostic variables overlap in cardiac patients, regardless of the admission diagnosis.

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a progressive clinical syndrome commonly associated with left ventricle dilatation and characterized by reduced cardiac output, secondary pulmonary and systemic venous congestion, and inadequate peripheral oxygen delivery. It is common yet complex and requires synthesis of evidence-based guidelines along with strong clinical acumen. The following is a review of an illustrative case that highlights the important clinical considerations in diagnosis, assessment, and management of HFrEF commonly encountered in practice. Explanations provided highlight of the relevant pathophysiology of HFrEF as well as detailed explanations of interpretation of examinations and both noninvasive and invasive assessment in heart failure. The example provided would hopefully serve as a potential point of reference for trainees as well as healthcare practitioners for patients with HFrEF.

Background— The ROSE AHF trial (Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation in Acute Heart Failure) found that when compared with placebo, neither low-dose dopamine (2 µg/kg per minute) nor low-dose nesiritide (0.005 μg/kg per minute without bolus) enhanced decongestion or preserved renal function in AHF patients with renal dysfunction. However, there may be differential responses to vasoactive agents in AHF patients with reduced versus preserved ejection fraction (EF). This post hoc analysis examined potential interaction between treatment effect and EF (EF ≤40% versus >40%) on the ROSE AHF end points. Methods and Results— ROSE AHF enrolled AHF patients (n=360; any EF) with renal dysfunction. The coprimary end points were cumulative urine volume and the change in serum cystatin-C in 72 hours. The effect of dopamine (interaction P =0.001) and nesiritide (interaction P =0.039) on urine volume varied by EF group. In heart failure with reduced EF, urine volume was higher with active treatment versus placebo, whereas in heart failure with preserved EF, urine volume was lower with active treatment. The effect of dopamine and nesiritide on weight change, sodium excretion, and incidence of AHF treatment failure also varied by EF group (interaction P <0.05 for all). There was no interaction between vasoactive treatment’s effect and EF on change in cystatin-C. Compared with placebo, dopamine was associated with improved clinical outcomes in heart failure with reduced EF and worse clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved EF. With nesiritide, there were no differences in clinical outcomes when compared with placebo in both heart failure with reduced EF and heart failure with preserved EF. Conclusions— In this post hoc analysis of ROSE AHF, the response to vasoactive therapies differed in patients with heart failure with reduced EF and heart failure with preserved EF. Investigations of AHF therapies should assess the potential for differential responses in AHF with preserved versus reduced EF. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01132846.

ObjectivesTo determine the frequency and predictors of pericardial effusion following epicardial sheath removal.BackgroundPericardial effusion can occur following cardiac surgical or interventional procedures including percutaneous epicardial access (EpiAcc), which is increasingly used as part of electrophysiology ablation procedures.MethodsA retrospective analysis of the Mayo Clinic comprehensive electronic medical record was performed from all patients who underwent planned EpiAcc as part of an electrophysiology ablation procedure between January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2013.ResultsOf 144 patients (mean age 51.3 ± 15.5 years, 68% male) who underwent planned EpiAcc as part of an electrophysiology ablation (95.8% pericardial access success rate), seven (4.9%) developed a postoperative pericardial effusion requiring repeat EpiAcc. Inferior access was utilized in 74 (51.4%) patients. Patients with pericardial effusion tended to be younger (41.1 years vs 51.8 years, P = 0.08) and were more likely to have undergone inferior approach access (85.7% vs 49.6%, P = 0.06) than those who did not develop postoperative pericardial effusion. Seventy‐one percent of patients with postoperative pericardial effusion versus 32.1% of patients without postoperative pericardial effusion had a preprocedure ejection fraction ≥55% (P = 0.03). There were no procedural‐related deaths, and no difference in mortality between groups.ConclusionsPostoperative pericardial effusion requiring repeat access/drainage was relatively infrequent, occurring in 4.9% of patients shortly after epicardial procedures. While the majority occur early and therefore require close observation, some patients may present in a delayed manner.