Recent advances in care and management of heart failure have improved outcome, largely as a result of the developing evidence basis for medications, implantable devices and the organization of heart ...failure follow‐up. Such developments have also increased the complexity of delivering and coordinating care. This has led to a change to the way in which heart failure services are organized and to the traditional role of the heart failure nurse. Nurses in many countries now provide a range of services that include providing care for patients with acute and with chronic heart failure, working in and across different sectors of care (inpatient, outpatient, community care, the home and remotely), organising care services around the face‐to‐face and the remote collection of patient data, and liaising with a wide variety of health‐care providers and professionals. To support such advances the nurse requires a skill set that goes beyond that of their initial education and training. The range of nurses' roles across Europe is varied. So too is the nature of their educational preparation. This heart failure nurse curriculum aims to provide a framework for use in countries of the European Society of Cardiology. Its modular approach enables the key knowledge, skills, and behaviours for the nurse working in different care settings to be outlined and so facilitate nursing staff to play a fuller role within the heart failure team.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
The Molecular Microscope (MMDx) system classifies heart transplant endomyocardial biopsies as No-rejection (NR), Early-injury, T cell-mediated (TCMR), antibody-mediated (ABMR), mixed, and possible ...rejection (possible TCMR, possible ABMR). Rejection-like gene expression patterns in NR biopsies have not been described. We extended the MMDx methodology, using a larger data set, to define a new "Minor" category characterized by low-level inflammation in non-rejecting biopsies.
Using MMDx criteria from a previous study, molecular rejection was assessed in 1,320 biopsies (645 patients) using microarray expression of rejection-associated transcripts (RATs). Of these biopsies, 819 were NR. A new archetypal analysis model in the 1,320 data set split the NRs into NR-Normal (N = 462) and NR-Minor (N = 359).
Compared to NR-Normal, NR-Minor were more often histologic TCMR1R, with a higher prevalence of donor-specific antibody (DSA). DSA positivity increased in a gradient: NR-Normal 24%; NR-Minor 34%; possible ABMR 42%; ABMR 66%. The top 20 transcripts distinguishing NR-Minor from NR-Normal were all ABMR-related and/or IFNG-inducible, and also exhibited a gradient of increasing expression from NR-Normal through ABMR. In random forest analysis, TCMR and Early-injury were associated with reduced LVEF and increased graft loss, but NR-Minor and ABMR scores were not. Surprisingly, hearts with MMDx ABMR showed comparatively little graft loss.
Many heart transplants currently diagnosed as NR by histologic or molecular assessment have minor increases in ABMR-related and IFNG-inducible transcripts, associated with DSA positivity and mild histologic inflammation. These results suggest that low-level ABMR-related molecular stress may be operating in many more hearts than previously estimated. (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT02670408).
The first-generation Molecular Microscope (MMDx) system for heart transplant endomyocardial biopsies used expression of rejection-associated transcripts (RATs) to diagnose not only T cell–mediated ...rejection (TCMR) and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) but also acute injury. However, the ideal system should detect rejection without being influenced by injury, to permit analysis of the relationship between rejection and parenchymal injury. To achieve this, we developed a new rejection classification in an expanded cohort of 3230 biopsies: 1641 from INTERHEART (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02670408), plus 1589 service biopsies added to improve the power of the machine learning algorithms. The new system used 6 rejection classifiers instead of RATs and generated 7 rejection archetypes: No rejection, 48%; Minor, 24%; TCMR1, 2.3%; TCMR2, 2.7%; TCMR/mixed, 2.7%; early-stage ABMR, 3.9%; and fully developed ABMR, 16%. Using rejection classifiers eliminated cross-reactions with acute injury, permitting separate assessment of rejection and injury. TCMR was associated with severe-recent injury and late atrophy-fibrosis and rarely had normal parenchyma. ABMR was better tolerated, seldom producing severe injury, but in later biopsies was often associated with atrophy-fibrosis, indicating long-term risk. Graft survival and left ventricular ejection fraction were reduced not only in hearts with TCMR but also in hearts with severe-recent injury and atrophy-fibrosis, even without rejection.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NUK, OILJ, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Whereas multiple national, international, and trial registries for heart failure have been created, international standards for clinical assessment and outcome measurement do not currently exist. The ...working group’s objective was to facilitate international comparison in heart failure care, using standardized parameters and meaningful patient-centered outcomes for research and quality of care assessments. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement recruited an international working group of clinical heart failure experts, researchers, and patient representatives to define a standard set of outcomes and risk-adjustment variables. This was designed to document, compare, and ultimately improve patient care outcomes in the heart failure population, with a focus on global feasibility and relevance. The working group employed a Delphi process, patient focus groups, online patient surveys, and multiple systematic publications searches. The process occurred over 10 months, employing 7 international teleconferences. A 17-item set has been established, addressing selected functional, psychosocial, burden of care, and survival outcome domains. These measures were designed to include all patients with heart failure, whether entered at first presentation or subsequent decompensation, excluding cardiogenic shock. Sources include clinician report, administrative data, and validated patient-reported outcome measurement tools: the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; the Patient Health Questionnaire-2; and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. Recommended data included those to support risk adjustment and benchmarking across providers and regions. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement developed a dataset designed to capture, compare, and improve care for heart failure, with feasibility and relevance for patients and clinicians worldwide.
Display omitted
•ICHOM seeks to help standardize and align outcome measurement efforts globally.•Standardization and alignment of this sort does not exist for heart failure.•The heart failure working group developed a standard set of 17 outcomes to be measured.•ICHOM hopes this standardization effort will increase quality and value in heart failure care.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Background.
The INTERHEART study (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT02670408) used genome-wide microarrays to detect rejection in endomyocardial biopsies; however, many heart transplants with no rejection have ...late dysfunction and impaired survival. We used the microarray measurements to develop a molecular classification of parenchymal injury.
Methods.
In 1320 endomyocardial biopsies from 645 patients previously studied for rejection-associated transcripts, we measured the expression of 10 injury-induced transcript sets: 5 induced by recent injury; 2 reflecting macrophage infiltration; 2 normal heart transcript sets; and immunoglobulin transcripts, which correlate with time. We used archetypal clustering to assign injury groups.
Results.
Injury transcript sets correlated with impaired function. Archetypal clustering based on the expression of injury transcript sets assigned each biopsy to 1 of 5 injury groups: 87 Severe-injury, 221 Late-injury, and 3 with lesser degrees of injury, 376 No-injury, 526 Mild-injury, and 110 Moderate-injury. Severe-injury had extensive loss of normal transcripts (dedifferentiation) and increase in macrophage and injury-induced transcripts. Late-injury was characterized by high immunoglobulin transcript expression. In Severe- and Late-injury, function was depressed, and short-term graft failure was increased, even in hearts with no rejection. T cell–mediated rejection almost always had parenchymal injury, and 85% had Severe- or Late-injury. In contrast, early antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) had little injury, but late AMR often had the Late-injury state.
Conclusions.
Characterizing heart transplants for their injury state provides new understanding of dysfunction and outcomes and demonstrates the differential impact of T cell–mediated rejection versus AMR on the parenchyma. Slow deterioration from AMR emerges as a major contributor to late dysfunction.
We explored the changes in gene expression correlating with dysfunction and graft failure in endomyocardial biopsies.
Genome-wide microarrays (19,462 genes) were used to define mRNA changes ...correlating with dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction LVEF ≤ 55) and risk of graft loss within 3 years postbiopsy. LVEF data was available for 1,013 biopsies and survival data for 779 patients (74 losses). Molecular classifiers were built for predicting dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 55) and postbiopsy 3-year survival.
Dysfunction is correlated with dedifferentiation—decreased expression of normal heart transcripts, for example, solute carriers, along with increased expression of inflammation genes. Many genes with reduced expression in dysfunction were matrix genes such as fibulin 1 and decorin. Gene ontology (GO) categories suggested matrix remodeling and inflammation, not rejection.
Genes associated with the risk of failure postbiopsy overlapped dysfunction genes but also included genes affecting microcirculation, for example, arginase 2, which reduces NO production, and endothelin 1. GO terms also reflected increased glycolysis and response to hypoxia, but decreased VEGF and angiogenesis pathways. T cell-mediated rejection was associated with reduced survival and antibody-mediated rejection with relatively good survival, but the main determinants of survival were features of parenchymal injury.
Both dysfunction and graft loss were correlated with increased biopsy expression of BNP (gene NPPB).
Survival probability classifiers divided hearts into risk quintiles, with actuarial 3-year postbiopsy survival >95% for the highest versus 50% for the lowest.
Dysfunction in transplanted hearts reflects dedifferentiation, decreased matrix genes, injury, and inflammation. The risk of short-term loss includes these changes but is also associated with microcirculation abnormalities, glycolysis, and response to hypoxia.
Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is a progressive clinical syndrome, and many patients' condition worsen over time despite treatment. Patients with more severe disease are often ...intolerant of available medical therapies.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil for the treatment of patients with severe heart failure (HF) enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) randomized clinical trial.
The GALACTIC-HF study was a global double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trial that was conducted at multiple centers between January 2017 and August 2020. A total of 8232 patients with symptomatic HF (defined as New York Heart Association symptom class II-IV) and left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less were randomized to receive omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo and followed up for a median of 21.8 months (range, 15.4-28.6 months). The current post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil therapy among patients classified as having severe HF compared with patients without severe HF. Severe HF was defined as the presence of all of the following criteria: New York Heart Association symptom class III to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and hospitalization for HF within the previous 6 months.
Participants were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo.
The primary end point was time to first HF event or cardiovascular (CV) death. Secondary end points included time to CV death and safety and tolerability.
Among 8232 patients enrolled in the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial, 2258 patients (27.4%; mean SD age, 64.5 11.6 years; 1781 men 78.9%) met the specified criteria for severe HF. Of those, 1106 patients were randomized to the omecamtiv mecarbil group and 1152 to the placebo group. Patients with severe HF who received omecamtiv mecarbil experienced a significant treatment benefit for the primary end point (hazard ratio HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90), whereas patients without severe HF had no significant treatment benefit (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.08; P = .005 for interaction). For CV death, the results were similar (HR for patients with vs without severe HF: 0.88 95% CI, 0.75-1.03 vs 1.10 95% CI, 0.97-1.25; P = .03 for interaction). Omecamtiv mecarbil therapy was well tolerated in patients with severe HF, with no significant changes in blood pressure, kidney function, or potassium level compared with placebo.
In this post hoc analysis of data from the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial, omecamtiv mecarbil therapy may have provided a clinically meaningful reduction in the composite end point of time to first HF event or CV death among patients with severe HF. These data support a potential role of omecamtiv mecarbil therapy among patients for whom current treatment options are limited.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02929329.
BACKGROUNDCost-related medication nonadherence (CRMNA) refers to not taking medications as prescribed because of difficulties paying for them.
OBJECTIVESThe aims of this study were (1) to assess the ...prevalence of CRMNA to immunosuppressants in heart transplant recipients internationally and (2) to determine multilevel correlates (patient, center, and healthcare system levels) of CRMNA.
METHODSUsing data from the cross-sectional international BRIGHT study, applying multistaged sampling, CRMNA was assessed via 3 self-report items in 1365 patients from 36 heart transplant centers in 11 countries. Cost-related medication nonadherence was defined as any positive answer on any of the 3 items. Healthcare system–level (ie, insurance coverage, out-of-pocket expenditures) and patient-level (ie, intention, perceived financial burden, cost as a barrier, a health belief regarding medication benefits, cost-related self-efficacy, and demographic factors) CRMNA correlates were assessed. Correlates were examined using mixed logistic regression analysis.
RESULTSAcross all study countries, CRMNA had an average prevalence of 2.6% (range, 0% Switzerland/Brazil to 9.8% Australia) and was positively related to being single (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.17–4.47), perceived financial burden (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.55–2.99), and cost as a barrier (odds ratio, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.66–4.07). Four protective factors were identifiedwhite ethnicity (odds ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.19–0.74), intention to adhere (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.63), self-efficacy (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.43–0.67), and belief about medication benefit (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.57–0.87). Regarding variability, 81.3% was explained at the patient level; 13.8%, at the center level; and 4.8%, at the country level.
CONCLUSIONIn heart transplant recipients, the CRMNA prevalence varies across countries but is lower than in other chronically ill populations. Identified patient-level correlates are novel (ie, intention to adhere, cost-related barriers, and cost-related self-efficacy) and indicate patient-perceived medication cost burden.