To improve the patient-centeredness of care, patient-reported outcomes have been increasingly used to quantify patients' symptoms, function, and quality of life. In heart failure, the Kansas City ...Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) has been qualified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a Clinical Outcome Assessment and recommended as a performance measure for quantifying the quality of care. By systematically asking the same questions reproducibly over time, the KCCQ can validly and sensitively capture the impact of heart failure on patients' lives and is strongly associated with clinical events over time. This review describes how to interpret the KCCQ, how it should be analyzed in clinical trials to maximize the interpretability of results, and how it can be used in clinical practice and population health. By providing a deeper understanding of the KCCQ, it is hoped that its use can further improve the patient-centeredness of heart failure care.
The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ...ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.
The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ...ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.
Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.
The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ...ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.
Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.
In the Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved), empagliflozin significantly reduced hospitalizations for heart failure ...while improving patient-reported health status compared with placebo. The long-term cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin among patients who have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains unclear.
To estimate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in patients with HFpEF.
This cost-effectiveness analysis performed from October 2021 to April 2022 included a Markov model using estimates of treatment efficacy, event probabilities, and utilities from EMPEROR-Preserved and published literature. Costs were derived from national surveys and pricing data sets. Quality of life was imputed from a heart failure-specific quality-of-life measure. Two analyses were performed, with and without a treatment effect on cardiovascular mortality. Subgroup analyses were based on diabetes status, ejection fraction, and health status impairment due to heart failure. The model reproduced the event rates and risk reduction with empagliflozin observed in EMPEROR-Preserved over 26 months of follow-up; future projections extended across the lifetime of patients.
Empagliflozin or standard of care.
Hospitalizations for heart failure, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
A total of 5988 patients were included in the analysis, with a mean age of 72 years, New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40%. At the Federal Supply Schedule price of $327 per month, empagliflozin yielded 0.06 additional QALYs and $26 257 incremental costs compared with standard of care, producing a cost per QALY gained of $437 442. Incremental costs consisted of total drug costs of $29 586 and savings of $3329 from reduced hospitalizations for heart failure. Cost-effectiveness was similar across subgroups. The results were most sensitive to the monthly cost, quality-of-life benefit, and mortality effect of empagliflozin. A price reduction to $153 per month, incremental utility of 0.02, or 8% reduction in cardiovascular mortality would bring empagliflozin to $180 000 per QALY gained, the threshold for intermediate value. Using Medicare Part D monthly pricing of $375 after rebates and $511 before rebates, empagliflozin would remain low value at $509 636 and $710 825 per QALY gained, respectively. Cost-effectiveness estimates were robust to variation in the frequency and disutility of heart failure hospitalizations.
In this economic evaluation, based on current cost-effectiveness benchmarks, empagliflozin provides low economic value compared with standard of care for HFpEF, largely due to its lack of efficacy on mortality and small benefit on quality of life.
Noninvasive testing and coronary angiography are used to evaluate patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain, but their effects on outcomes are uncertain.
To determine ...whether cardiovascular testing-noninvasive imaging or coronary angiography-is associated with changes in the rates of coronary revascularization or acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admission in patients who present to the ED with chest pain without initial findings of ischemia.
This retrospective cohort analysis used weekday (Monday-Thursday) vs weekend (Friday-Sunday) presentation as an instrument to adjust for unobserved case-mix variation (selection bias) between 2011 and 2012. National claims data (Truven MarketScan) was used. The data included a total of 926 633 privately insured patients ages 18 to 64 years who presented to the ED with chest pain without initial diagnosis consistent with acute ischemia.
Noninvasive testing or coronary angiography within 2 days or 30 days of presentation.
The primary end points were coronary revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery) and AMI admission at 7, 30, 180, and 365 days. The secondary end points were coronary angiography and coronary artery bypass grafting in those who underwent angiography.
The patients were ages 18 to 64 years with an average age of 44.4 years. A total of 536 197 patients (57.9%) were women. Patients who received testing (224 973) had increased risk at baseline and had greater risk of AMI admission than those who did not receive testing (701 660) (0.35% vs 0.14% at 30 days). Weekday patients (571 988) had similar baseline comorbidities to weekend patients (354 645) but were more likely to receive testing. After risk factor adjustment, testing within 30 days was associated with a significant increase in coronary angiography (36.5 per 1000 patients tested; 95% CI, 21.0-52.0) and revascularization (22.8 per 1000 patients tested; 95% CI, 10.6-35.0) at 1 year but no significant change in AMI admissions (7.8 per 1000 patients tested; 95% CI, -1.4 to 17.0). Testing within 2 days was also associated with a significant increase in coronary revascularization but no difference in AMI admissions.
Cardiac testing in patients with chest pain was associated with increased downstream testing and treatment without a reduction in AMI admissions, suggesting that routine testing may not be warranted. Further research into whether specific high-risk subgroups benefit from testing is needed.
Coronary artery calcium (CAC) can be identified on nongated chest computed tomography (CT) scans, but this finding is not consistently incorporated into care. A deep learning algorithm enables ...opportunistic CAC screening of nongated chest CT scans. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of notifying clinicians and patients of incidental CAC on statin initiation.
NOTIFY-1 (Incidental Coronary Calcification Quality Improvement Project) was a randomized quality improvement project in the Stanford Health Care System. Patients without known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or a previous statin prescription were screened for CAC on a previous nongated chest CT scan from 2014 to 2019 using a validated deep learning algorithm with radiologist confirmation. Patients with incidental CAC were randomly assigned to notification of the primary care clinician and patient versus usual care. Notification included a patient-specific image of CAC and guideline recommendations regarding statin use. The primary outcome was statin prescription within 6 months.
Among 2113 patients who met initial clinical inclusion criteria, CAC was identified by the algorithm in 424 patients. After chart review and additional exclusions were made, a radiologist confirmed CAC among 173 of 194 patients (89.2%) who were randomly assigned to notification or usual care. At 6 months, the statin prescription rate was 51.2% (44/86) in the notification arm versus 6.9% (6/87) with usual care (
<0.001). There was also more coronary artery disease testing in the notification arm (15.1% 13/86 versus 2.3% 2/87;
=0.008).
Opportunistic CAC screening of previous nongated chest CT scans followed by clinician and patient notification led to a significant increase in statin prescriptions. Further research is needed to determine whether this approach can reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events.
URL: https://www.
gov; Unique identifier: NCT04789278.
PDF
