Article

Gaps in the Heart Failure Guidelines

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare: ReprintsWarehouse@springernature.com.

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit Copyright.com to start a request.

For author reprints, please email rob.barclay@radcliffe-group.com.

  • Views: 669

  • Likes: 0

  • Citations: 1

Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating

Abstract

There are still many aspects of heart failure care for which gaps remain in the evidence base, resulting in gaps in the guidelines. We aim to highlight these guideline gaps including areas that warrant further research and other areas where new data are forthcoming.

Keywords

Heart failure, guidelines, quality of care,

Disclosure:Bao Tran has no conflicts of interest to declare. Gregg C Fonarow is a consult for Amgen, Bayer, Gambro, Janssen, Medtronic and Novartis.

Received:

Accepted:

Published online:

DOI:https://doi.org/10.15420/cfr.2015.01.01.50

Correspondence Details:Gregg C Fonarow, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, Ronald Reagan-UCLA Medical Center, 10833 LeConte Ave, Room 47-123 CHS, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1679, US. E: gfonarow@mednet.ucla.edu

Copyright Statement:

The copyright in this work belongs to Radcliffe Medical Media. Only articles clearly marked with the CC BY-NC logo are published with the Creative Commons by Attribution Licence. The CC BY-NC option was not available for Radcliffe journals before 1 January 2019. Articles marked ‘Open Access’ but not marked ‘CC BY-NC’ are made freely accessible at the time of publication but are subject to standard copyright law regarding reproduction and distribution. Permission is required for reuse of this content.

Heart failure (HF) remains a major public health problem resulting in substantial morbidity, mortality and healthcare expenditures globally. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2012 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure and the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF)/American Heart Association (AHA) 2013 Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure both provide comprehensive evidence-based recommendations in caring for patients with HF.1,2 Both guidelines use similar predefined scales for strength of recommendation and level of evidence for particular treatment options. The classes of recommendations range from Class I (where a given treatment is beneficial) to Class III (where a given treatment is not useful and in some cases may be harmful). The levels of evidence (LOE) range from Level A (where data have been derived from multiple randomised clinical trials [RCTs]) to Level C (where recommendations are based on consensus of expert opinions). The ACCF/AHA Guideline also emphasises the concept of optimal treatment, termed guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). Although guidelines do not substitute individual clinical judgment, improved adherence to HF guidelines translates to improved clinical outcomes in real world patients. It has been shown that each 10 % improvement in ACCF/AHA HF guideline recommended composite care was associated with a 13 % lower odds of 24-month mortality.3 However, there are still many aspects of HF care for which gaps remain in the evidence base, resulting in gaps in the guidelines. Only 19.5 % of the ACCF/AHA Guideline recommendations are considered well established by RCTs – 24 Level of Evidence A recommendations compared with 99 Level B or C. Similarly, only 34.4 % of the ESC Guideline recommendations are considered well established – 43 Level A compared with 82 Level B or C. Additionally, there are areas where new evidence has emerged but has not yet been incorporated into the guidelines. We aim to highlight these guideline gaps including areas that warrant further research, areas where data are conflicting and other areas where new data are forthcoming (see Table 1).

Gaps in Pharmacological Therapy
Substantial progress has been made in pharmacological therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), beta-blockers and aldosterone antagonists, and novel agents continue to be developed. However, uncertainty remains with some of the oldest class of drugs. The vasodilator combination hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate (H-ISDN) is the first therapy proven in a RCT to improve outcome in HFrEF. The initial Vasodilator-Heart Failure Trial 1 (V-HeFT I) showed 28 % mortality reduction compared with placebo, although this finding only reached borderline statistical significance (p=0.053).4 The follow-up V-HeFT II actually showed 28.2 % higher mortality with H-ISDN when compared with enalapril (p=0.016).5 Definitive mortality benefit of H-ISDN was finally established with the subsequent African-American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT) that enrolled self-identified African Americans with symptomatic HFrEF who were already on modern GDMT.6 The study terminated early as the H-ISDN arm showed 43 % decrease in all-cause mortality (p=0.01) and 33 % reduction in rate of hospitalisation (p=0.001) compared with placebo. However, the role of H-ISDN in non-African American patients with HFrEF in the modern era remains uncertain and warrants further research. The ESC Guideline currently gives H-ISDN an equivocal recommendation of Class IIb/LOE B in patients with HFrEF. The ACC/ AHAF Guideline recognises the differential treatment effect and gives H-ISDN Class I/LOE A in African Americans with HFrEF and Class IIa/ LOE B in other patients with HFrEF who cannot tolerate ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

The use of digoxin, the oldest compound in cardiovascular medicine, declined after the disappointing Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial, which showed a 28 % reduction in hospitalisations (p<0.001) but no difference in mortality.7,8 This trial, however, was done in an era where the current GDMT and device therapy were not commonly part of background therapy. Subsequent meta-analysis, retrospective studies and post-hoc analysis of more contemporary clinical databases have yielded conflicting conclusions, suggesting potential benefit as well as harm.9–13 Prospective RCT data would help clarify the role of digoxin in modern clinical practice in HFrEF with and without atrial fibrillation (AF).

The benefit of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with AF is well established. However, in patients with very depressed ejection fraction (EF) who are at risk for intracardiac thrombi, anticoagulation has not been shown to be beneficial. Two RCTs of patients with HFrEF in sinus rhythm showed no clinical benefit and increased bleeding with warfarin when compared with aspirin.14,15 Given the improved safety and efficacy of the new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, apixaban and rivaroxaban), these agents should be studied in subsets of patients with HFrEF in sinus rhythm that are at highest risk for thromboembolism.

Newer agents, ivabradine, aliskiren and LCZ696, are still establishing their roles in HF. The ESC Guideline gives ivabradine a Class IIa/LOE B recommendation in patients with symptomatic HFrEF and heart rate >70 beats per minute (BPM) based on the Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial (SHIFT), which showed 26 % decrease in HF hospitalisations (p<0.0001) and a previous trial, which established its safety.16,17 In the US, ivabradine is still awaiting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and has not received formal recommendation in the ACCF/AHA Guideline. Aliskiren is a novel agent that targets the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) to reduce blood pressure. The Aliskiren Trial on Acute Heart Failure Outcomes (ASTRONAUT) investigated aliskiren in patients with HFrEF and acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). It showed increased rates of adverse effects, such as hyperkalaemia (relative risk [RR] 1.19 [0.98–1.46]), hypotension (RR 1.36 [1.07–1.72]) and renal failure (RR 1.37 [1.08–1.75]) in the aliskiren arm without benefit in mortality or hospitalisation.18 An ongoing RCT is investigating the role of aliskiren or aliskiren/enalapril combination in patients with chronic HFrEF (NCT00853658). Aliskiren has not received formal recommendation by the ACCF/AHA or ESC guidelines and its role in HF appears uncertain. In contrast to this is LCZ696, a novel dual-acting angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), which has the potential to shift the foundation of HFrEF therapy. The recent Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial was stopped early with LCZ696 demonstrating significant reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.76–0.93) and HF hospitalisations (HR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.71–0.89) as well as improvement in quality of life compared with enalapril.19 Based on these findings, we anticipate expedited approval of LCZ696 by both US and European regulatory agencies, and the addition of ARNI in the next ESC and ACCF/AHA Guideline update.

Gaps in Device Therapy
Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) has played an important role in the past decade in decreasing hospitalisations and increasing survival of patients with HFrEF. Though benefits are clear for symptomatic patients in sinus rhythm with typical left bundle branch block (LBBB) (particularly with QRS width >150 ms), there are some populations where data are equivocal.20 Post-hoc analysis of the major CRT trials showed no significant benefit in subgroups with non-LBBB morphology or subgroups with QRS duration <150 msec.21,22 Results are pending of the recently completed Pacing Affects Cardiovascular Endpoints in Patients with Right Bundle-Branch Block (PACE-RBBB) trial, which is evaluating whether univentricular right ventricular (RV) pacing can restore synchronisation in patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) (NCT01169493). The benefits of CRT are also unclear in patients with AF where efficient CRT delivery is compromised by underlying conduction. Thus these patients have been excluded from most major CRT trials.23 In the Resynchronization–Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT) that evaluated CRT in patients with mild-to-moderate HF, subsets of patients with permanent AF had no clinical benefit with CRT.24 An ongoing RCT is evaluating the strategy of atrioventricular junction ablation to increase CRT response in patients with permanent AF (NCT01522898). Finally, although up to 30–45 % of CRT-implanted patients receive little benefit, the management of these CRT non-responders remains controversial.25 A meta-analysis suggests small improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with CRT optimisation procedures, but it is unclear whether this would translate into hard outcomes, and the ideal optimisation protocol remains undefined.26
 

Table 1: Gaps in Heart Failure Guidelines

Article image
Download

Device-based clinical management interventions for HF have shown mixed results. Previous trials of thoracic impedance monitoring and remote monitoring systems have failed to show improvement in outcomes.27,28 More recently, however, the Influence of Home Monitoring on Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Patients with Impaired Left Ventricular Function (IN-TIME) trial showed that an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)-based telemonitoring system dramatically reduced mortality when compared with standard care (HR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.16–0.83).29 Another device, an implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor, was shown in the CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Functional Class III Heart Failure Patients (CHAMPION) trial to decrease HF hospitalisation (HR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.60–0.85).30 However, in both these positive trials the contribution of additional patient–physician interaction on outcomes cannot be underestimated. Notably there was a delay in FDA approval of the pulmonary artery pressure monitoring device over question of potential bias in preferential support of treatment group.31 Neither the ACCF/AHA nor the ESC Guideline endorses a remote monitoring strategy.

From a structural standpoint, new data about transcatheter mitral valve repair is encouraging. Secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) is a common consequence of left ventricular (LV) enlargement and dysfunction, but surgical repair has not been proven to be superior to medical therapy for functional MR.32 Two recent non-randomised trials reported results of transcatheter mitral valve repair MitraClip in patients with severe MR who were deemed too high-risk for surgery.33,34 In both studies more than 70 % of patients had functional MR. After mitral valve repair using MitraClip device, patients experienced improved clinical symptoms, decreased LV dimensions, and in one of the trials decreased mortality compared with a propensity matched cohort. Further prospective controlled trials are ongoing to define transcatheter mitral valve repair’s role in patients with symptomatic functional MR (NCT01626079 and NCT01772108). Pending results from these RCTs, the ACCF/AHA Guideline gives transcatheter mitral valve repair for functional MR an ambivalent Class IIb/LOE B recommendation, and the ESC Guideline does not give a specific class of recommendation about this topic.

Gaps in Non-pharmacological Therapy
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common aetiology of HFrEF.35 While revascularisation with concurrent use of viability studies in severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy is logically sound, recent studies have challenged this dictum. The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial showed no mortality benefit with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) when compared to medical therapy in patients with EF <35 %.36 Though notably, after taking into account patient crossover from the medical therapy arm, the ‘as-treated’ analysis showed decreased mortality with CABG (HR 0.70, 95 % CI 0.58–0.84). An imaging substudy of STICH showed that viability assessment by single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) or dobutamine echocardiography did not identify patients who would benefit from CABG.7 Cardiac magnetic resonance and position emission tomography imaging promise improved sensitivities and specificities in identifying viable myocardium, but their impact on clinical outcomes has not been rigorously tested.38 Thus the roles of viability testing and revascularisation in patients with CAD and severely reduced EF remain debatable. The ESC Guideline gives a viability testing Class IIa/LOE C recommendation and recommends against revascularisation in patients without viable myocardium (Class III/LOE C). The ACCF/AHA Guideline gives viability testing and revascularisation in patients with LVEF <35 % a Class IIa/ LOE B recommendation.

Though sodium and fluid restriction in patients with HF appears intuitive, its role is controversial. Even though sodium restriction is endorsed by many guidelines, small RCTs have shown worse neurohormonal profiles and increase in HF admissions for patients with HFrEF assigned to low-sodium diet.39–41 Similarly, other small trials have shown no significant benefit with fluid restriction in patients with HF.42,43 More recently, one RCT showed New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement in patients with chronic HF randomised to modest sodium and fluid restriction,44 while another RCT showed no clinical benefit with aggressive sodium and fluid restriction in hospitalised patients with ADHF.45 Despite conflicting data, the ACCF/ AHA Guideline gives sodium restriction and fluid restriction Class IIa/ LOE C recommendation, and the ESC Guideline gives only a general recommendation supporting sodium restriction and fluid restriction for symptomatic HF. Well-powered outcome trials are needed. Given the complexity of sodium and fluid homeostasis, perhaps the answer may be individualised targets based on the patient’s clinical status.

Other non-pharmacological interventions, such as self-management counselling, telephone support and home visitation have been advocated. However, there is no definitive evidence supporting an individual approach.46 While intensive multidisciplinary programmes have been found to reduce mortality and hospitalisation, the resources required to maintain this strategy have limited its ability to reach a wide spectrum of patients.47

Gaps in Acute Heart Failure Therapy
Despite significant advances in understanding the pathophysiology of HF, treatment of ADHF has changed little in the past decade. The mainstays of parenteral pharmacological treatments, such as diuretics, vasodilators and positive inotropes, improve haemodynamics but have not been shown to improve outcomes.48 The optimal diuretic regimen remains at the discretion of the clinician as the Diuretic Optimization Strategies Evaluation (DOSE) trial did not show clear benefits for low-dose or high-dose diuretics and bolus or continuous infusion.49 Contemporary trial of a common clinical practice, low-dose dopamine in ADHF, failed to show clinical benefits in the Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation (ROSE) trial.50 Though intravenous nitrates and nitroprusside are widely used in practice, data demonstrating their safety and efficacy are sparse. The vasodilator nesiritide was widely used based on improvement in dyspnoea from the Vasodilation in the Management of Acute Congestive Heart Failure (VMAC) trial, but it fell out of favour after safety concerns were raised.51 Confirmatory trials demonstrated safety but also no significant clinical benefits.50,52 Ironically, given the number of trials, nesiritide has one of the largest bodies of evidence demonstrating safety compared with other pharmacological therapies for ADHF. Novel agents for ADHF that improve outcomes are urgently needed. The most promising of these is serelaxin, a peptide hormone with vasodilatory effect. In the Relaxin in Acute Heart Failure (RELAX-AHF) trial, serelaxin significantly reduced the primary endpoint of dyspnoea in patients with both HFrEF and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).53,54 Unexpectedly there was a large reduction in the non-predefined endpoint of mortality (HR 0.63, 95 % CI 0.42–0.93), and a larger trial is looking to confirm this finding (NCT01870778). Another phase III trial is ongoing to evaluate ularitide, a synthetic natriuretic peptide, in ADHF (NCT01661634). Omecamtiv mecarbil, a novel inotrope-like agent, is awaiting phase III trial though phase II did not achieve the primary endpoint of reducing dyspnoea.55

From a non-pharmacological standpoint, contemporary ultrafiltration devices used for rapid fluid removal promised rapid decongestion in treatment of ADHF. The Ultrafiltration versus intravenous Diuretics for Patients Hospitalized for Acute Decompensated Congestive Heart Failure (UNLOAD) and Continuous Ultrafiltration for Congestive Heart Failure (CUORE) trials showed reduced readmission rates with ultrafiltration compared with diuretics (HR 0.56, 95 % CI 0.28–0.51 and HR 0.14, 95 % CI 0.04–0.48, respectively).56,57 However, the Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (CARRESS-HF) trial evaluating patients with ADHF and renal dysfunction showed only excess adverse events in the ultrafiltration group (72 versus 57 %, p=0.03), driven by worsened renal function, bleeding complications and intravenous catheter-related complications.58 Unfortunately, a larger trial to evaluate the role of ultrafiltration on readmissions for HF has been terminated due to patient recruitment challenges (NCT01474200). The ESC Guideline does not provide specific recommendation for ultrafiltration, and the ACCF/AHA Guideline gives it an equivocal Class IIB/LOE B recommendation. The ideal patient population who would benefit from ultrafiltration remains uncertain until more definitive data from larger trials are available.

Future clinical trials of therapies for ADHF should target HFpEF and HFrEF separately in addition to stratifying patients based on severity of decompensation and co-morbidities. Pressure to expand inclusion criteria to enrol enough patients to power studies for mortality benefits may ultimately dilute findings by increasing patient heterogeneity.

Gaps in Diagnosis and Treatment of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction
The management of HFrEF has made substantial gains over the past three decades. In contrast, despite the high prevalence, mortality and morbidity of HFpEF, little progress has been made in establishing unified diagnostic criteria.59 The treatment of HFpEF remains largely opinion-based with little good evidence to guide therapy. Though promising in theory, trials of beta-blocker, ACEI, ARB, aldosterone antagonists, digoxin and phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors have all shown largely disappointing results.60 Establishing broadly applicable therapies is hampered by the heterogeneity of the syndrome. LCZ696, discussed previously in HFrEF, was found to reduce N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic (NT-proBNP) and left atrial size in patients with HFpEF when compared with valsartan in a phase II RCT.61 The followup phase III trial powered to evaluate mortality has recently started recruiting patients (NCT01920711). Future studies should more distinctly subclassify different clinical phenotypes of HFpEF to target the dominant pathophysiology. And while mortality and hospitalisation are important clinical endpoints, they may be too insensitive for this heterogeneous population with multiple co-morbidities. There should be more focus on using health-related quality of life and other measures of health status as part of clinical trial endpoints to elicit meaningful results.

Additional ambiguity is seen in the intermediate group with EF between 40 and 50 %. These patients are often treated with therapy recommended for patients with HFrEF despite being underrepresented or excluded from most HFrEF trials.1 Finally, patients with a history of HFrEF where EF have recovered represent another subset where little is known about the natural history and prognosis. They likely represent a distinct phenotype in the spectrum of HFrEF and HFpEF and need further characterisation to determine the need for continued therapies.62

Gaps in Treatment of Co-morbidities
Common non-cardiac co-morbidities, such as anaemia, lung disease, kidney disease, diabetes and depression, likely play important roles in progression of HF and may interfere with diagnosis and therapy. Anaemia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may confound the diagnosis of worsening HF. Depression may interfere with a patient’s ability to self-manage. Kidney disease often limits the use of ACEI/ARB, and severe lung disease may limit the use of beta-blocker. Frailty, cancer, gout, obesity and other co-morbidities may also directly affect HF therapy. The long-term safety and efficacy of many treatments for these co-morbidities in patients with HF are unknown. Moreover, as HF trials commonly exclude patients with significant co-morbidities, it is not clear whether GDMT have differential effects in these particular patients.63

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can co-exist and confound the diagnosis of HF. Unfortunately, patients with severe COPD are often excluded from HF trials, so data are limited in this population.64 Despite concern about beta-blockers exacerbating COPD, it has been shown that even non-selective beta-blockers, such as carvedilol, are not associated with worse outcomes in patients with chronic HF and COPD.65 However, in the setting of an acute COPD exacerbation, the role of beta-blockers remains unknown. Additionally, the use of beta-2 agonist bronchodilators have been implicated in worsening HF, though this finding is limited by the observational nature of the data.66

Anaemia is a common finding in patients with HF and is independently associated with increased mortality risk.67 However, It is unclear whether anaemia is simply a marker of disease severity or a direct mediator of poor outcomes. Reduction of Events by Darbepoetin Alfa in Heart Failure (RED-HF), the largest RCT to evaluate erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with HFrEF and anaemia, showed no difference in death or HF hospitalisation but increased thromboembolic events in the darbepoetin alfa group (13.5 % versus 10.0 %, p=0.009).68 In patients with HF and iron deficiency, however, the Ferinject Assessment in Patients with Iron Deficiency and Chronic Heart Failure (FAIR-HF) trial showed that Intravenous (IV) ferric carboxymaltose improved NYHA class, six-minute walk distance and quality of life.69 A multicentre RCT evaluating oral iron in patients with HFrEF and iron deficiency is expected to start soon (NCT02188784).

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is highly associated with poor clinical status in patients with HF.70 The interaction between these two clinical syndromes is complex, and patients with DM have been shown to respond differently to HFrEF therapy compared with non-diabetics.71 From a DM therapy standpoint, while thiazolidinedione has clearly been shown to increase HF, the safety of newer therapies for DM – glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors – are unknown for patients with HF. Even insulin, an established treatment, has been associated with higher mortality in patients with advanced HF, though this may be more related to severity of diabetes.72

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the associated cardiorenal syndrome portend poorer prognosis and significantly impact management of HF patients.73 Significant renal dysfunction may preclude the use of ACEIs, ARBs and mineralocorticoids in patients with HFrEF. In addition, patients with advanced kidney disease (stage 4 and stage 5 CKD) and end-stage renal disease are frequently excluded from HF trials.74 In the setting of ADHF, no effective therapy for cardiorenal syndrome has been found, perhaps mirroring the lack of progress in ADHF care in the last decade.

Depression is also highly prevalent in patients with HF and independently predicts increased hospitalisation and mortality.75 However, there has been surprisingly little work done on defining the interaction between the two diseases and finding effective therapy. Although data have contested conventional wisdom that beta-blocker is associated with depression, beta-blocker’s effect on patients with concomitant HF and depression is unclear.76 While tricyclic antidepressants should be avoided in patients with HF due to known risks of QT interval prolongation and ventricular arrhythmia, the ideal antidepressant in HF patients is unknown. Sertraline Against Depression and Heart Disease in Chronic Heart Failure (SADHART-CHF), one of the few RCTs to date on this topic, found no benefit with sertraline in patients with HF and depression.77

Finally, pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a common complication of HF and is independently associated with poor prognosis.78 Unfortunately, there is no validated treatment for PH due to left heart disease. Perhaps due to patient heterogeneity, clinical trials have not shown benefits with prostanoids, endothelin-1 antagonists or guanylate cyclase stimulators in patients with HFrEF.79 For patients with HFpEF and PH, one small placebo-controlled trial showed that sildenafil increased exercise capacity and improved haemodynamic status.80 However a larger trial, Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibition to Improve Clinical Status and Exercise Capacity in Diastolic Heart Failure (RELAX), evaluated sildenafil in HFpEF and showed no difference in clinical outcomes compared to placebo.81 Ongoing trials are evaluating the role of sildenafil (NCT01616381) and tadalafil (NCT01910389) in patients with PH and HFrEF, and the role of riociguat in patients with PH and HFpEF (NCT01172756). Neither the ACCF/AHA nor the ESC Guideline specifically addresses patients with HF and PH.

Gaps in Variation of Heart Failure Care
In negative trials, the clinical heterogeneity of patient population is sometimes invoked as a reason why a therapy does not reach statistical significance. However, from a population perspective, most RCTs that form the current evidence base do not randomise a sufficient number of women and underrepresented minorities, thus limiting their generalizability. Women and various racial and ethnic groups have significant differences in aetiology of HF and response to treatment due to underlying biological differences and disparities in healthcare utilisation.82 Future trials should strive to enrol higher proportions of these underrepresented populations. Encouragingly, data from the Get With The Guidelines®-Heart Failure registry shows that a concerted national quality improvement programme can deliver equally effective care across racial and ethnic groups.83

In clinical trials, the impact of therapy on quality of life can sometimes be deemed less important than the primary endpoint of mortality. This issue is particularly relevant for very elderly patients or patients with poor long-term prognosis, where symptom control may be more valuable than mortality benefits. Additionally, palliative services and hospice remain underutilised in patients with advanced HF, especially when compared with patients with cancer.84 Determining the optimal timing and palliative care approach is difficult in HF because of the undulating course of disease and availability of advanced therapies for end-stage HF, such as heart transplantation and ventricular assist devices.

Conclusion
The economic burden of HF continues to grow and HF is one of the single most expensive and deadly healthcare problems. Additional clinical and comparative effectiveness research studies are urgently needed, along with development of new and innovative therapies. Significant gaps remain in the evidence base and guidelines for HF, particularly in the care of patients with HFpEF, patients with ADHF and patients with HF, and multiple co-morbidities. Other gaps in evidence that we did not address include the increasing use of ventricular assist devices, novel cardiac biomarkers and advanced cardiac imaging techniques. Along with encouraging novel devices and pharmacological therapies, it remains important to refine the roles of established therapies. When such evidence-based, guideline-directed therapies exist or emerge, every effort should be made to effectively implement these HF therapies to optimise care and outcomes.

 

References

  1. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2013;62:e147–239.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  2. McMurray JJ, Adamopoulos S, Anker SD, et al. ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC, Eur J Heart Fail, 2012;14:803–69.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  3. Fonarow GC, Albert NM, Curtis AB, et al. Associations between outpatient heart failure process-of-care measures and mortality, Circulation, 2011;123:1601–10.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  4. Cohn JN, Archibald DG, Ziesche S, et al. Effect of vasodilator therapy on mortality in chronic congestive heart failure. Results of a Veterans Administration Cooperative Study, N Engl J Med, 1986;314:1547–52.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  5. Cohn JN, Johnson G, Ziesche S, et al. A comparison of enalapril with hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate in the treatment of chronic congestive heart failure, N Engl J Med, 1991;325:303–10.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  6. Taylor AL, Ziesche S, Yancy C, et al. Combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine in blacks with heart failure, N Engl J Med, 2004;351:2049–57.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  7. Digitalis Investigation Group, The effect of digoxin on mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure, N Engl J Med, 1997;336:525–33.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  8. Ambrosy AP, Butler J, Ahmed A, et al. The use of digoxin in patients with worsening chronic heart failure: reconsidering an old drug to reduce hospital admissions, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2014;63:1823–32.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  9. Turakhia MP, Santangeli P, Winkelmayer WC, et al. Increased mortality associated with digoxin in contemporary patients with atrial fibrillation: findings from the TREAT-AF study, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2014;64:660–8.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  10. Ahmed A, Rich MW, Love TE, et al. Digoxin and reduction in mortality and hospitalization in heart failure: a comprehensive post hoc analysis of the DIG trial, Eur Heart J, 2006;27:178–86.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  11. Hood WB Jr, Dans AL, Guyatt GH, et al. Digitalis for treatment of congestive heart failure in patients in sinus rhythm: a systematic review and meta-analysis, J Card Fail, 2004;10:155–64.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  12. Gheorghiade M, Fonarow GC, van Veldhuisen DJ, et al. Lack of evidence of increased mortality among patients with atrial fibrillation taking digoxin: findings from post hoc propensity-matched analysis of the AFFIRM trial, Eur Heart J, 2013;34:1489–97.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  13. Whitbeck MG, Charnigo RJ, Khairy P, et al. Increased mortality among patients taking digoxin--analysis from the AFFIRM study, Eur Heart J, 2013;34:1481–8.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  14. Homma S, Thompson JL, Pullicino PM, et al. Warfarin and aspirin in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm, N Engl J Med, 2012;366:1859–69.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  15. Massie BM, Collins JF, Ammon SE, et al. Randomized trial of warfarin, aspirin, and clopidogrel in patients with chronic heart failure: the Warfarin and Antiplatelet Therapy in Chronic Heart Failure (WATCH) trial, Circulation, 2009;119:1616–24.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  16. Fox K, Ford I, Steg PG, et al. Ivabradine for patients with stable coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction (BEAUTIFUL): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Lancet, 2008;372:807–16.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  17. Swedberg K, Komajda M, Böhm M, et al. Ivabradine and outcomes in chronic heart failure (SHIFT): a randomised placebo-controlled study, Lancet, 2010;376:875–85.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  18. Gheorghiade M, Böhm M, Greene SJ, et al. Effect of aliskiren on postdischarge mortality and heart failure readmissions among patients hospitalized for heart failure: the ASTRONAUT randomized trial, JAMA, 2013;309:1125–35.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  19. McMurray JJ, Packer M, Desai AS, et al. Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure, N Engl J Med, 2014;371:993–1004.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  20. Prinzen FW, Vernooy K, Auricchio A, Cardiac resynchronization therapy: state-of-the-art of current applications, guidelines, ongoing trials, and areas of controversy, Circulation, 2013;128:2407–18.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  21. Sipahi I, Carrigan TP, Rowland DY, et al. Impact of QRS duration on clinical event reduction with cardiac resynchronization therapy: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Arch Intern Med, 2011;171:1454–62.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  22. Sipahi I, Chou JC, Hyden M, et al. Effect of QRS morphology on clinical event reduction with cardiac resynchronization therapy: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Am Heart J, 2012;163:260–7.e3.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  23. Dickstein K, Vardas PE, Auricchio A, et al. 2010 focused update of ESC Guidelines on device therapy in heart failure: an update of the 2008 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure and the 2007 ESC Guidelines for cardiac and resynchronization therapy. Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association and the European Heart Rhythm Association, Eur J Heart Fail, 2010;12:1143–53.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  24. Healey JS, Hohnloser SH, Exner DV, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation: results from the Resynchronization for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT), Circ Heart Fail, 2012;5:566–70.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  25. Zacà V, Mondillo S, Gaddi R, Favilli R, Profiling cardiac resynchronization therapy patients: responders, non-responders and those who cannot respond--the good, the bad and the ugly?, Int J Cardiovasc Imaging, 2011;27:51–7.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  26. Kosmala W, Marwick TH, Meta-analysis of effects of optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy on left ventricular function, exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with heart failure, Am J Cardiol, 2014;113:988–94.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  27. van Veldhuisen DJ, Braunschweig F, Conraads V, et al. Intrathoracic impedance monitoring, audible patient alerts, and outcome in patients with heart failure, Circulation, 2011;124:1719–26.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  28. Anker SD, Koehler F, Abraham WT, Telemedicine and remote management of patients with heart failure, Lancet, 2011;378:731–9.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  29. Hindricks G, Taborsky M, Glikson M, et al. Implant-based multiparameter telemonitoring of patients with heart failure (IN-TIME): a randomised controlled trial, Lancet, 2014;384:583–90.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  30. Araham WT, Adamson PB, Bourge RC, et al. Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: a randomised controlled trial, Lancet, 2011;377:658–66.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  31. Loh JP, Barbash IM, Waksman R, Overview of the 2011 Food and Drug Administration Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee Meeting on the CardioMEMS Champion Heart Failure Monitoring System, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2013;61:1571–6.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  32. Wu AH, Aaronson KD, Bolling SF, et al. Impact of mitral valve annuloplasty on mortality risk in patients with mitral regurgitation and left ventricular systolic dysfunction, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005;45:381–7.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  33. Glower DD, Kar S, Trento A, et al. Percutaneous mitral valve repair for mitral regurgitation in high-risk patients: results of the EVEREST II study, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2014;64:172–81.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  34. Swaans MJ, Bakker AL, Alipour A, et al. Survival of transcatheter mitral valve repair compared with surgical and conservative treatment in high-surgical-risk patients, JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2014;7:875–81.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  35. Gheorghiade M, Bonow RO, Chronic heart failure in the United States: a manifestation of coronary artery disease, Circulation, 1998;97:282–9.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  36. Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Deja MA, et al. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, N Engl J Med, 2011;364:1607–16.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  37. Bonow RO, Maurer G, Lee KL, et al. Myocardial viability and survival in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction, N Engl J Med, 2011;364:1617–25.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  38. Srichai MB, Jaber WA, Viability by MRI or PET would have changed the results of the STICH trial, Prog Cardiovasc Dis, 2013;55:487–93.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  39. Parrinello G, Di Pasquale P, Licata G, et al. Long-term effects of dietary sodium intake on cytokines and neurohormonal activation in patients with recently compensated congestive heart failure, J Card Fail, 2009;15:864–73.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  40. Paterna S, Gaspare P, Fasullo S, et al. Normal-sodium diet compared with low-sodium diet in compensated congestive heart failure: is sodium an old enemy or a new friend?, Clin Sci (Lond), 2008;114:221–30.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  41. Paterna S, Parrinello G, Cannizzaro S, et al. Medium term effects of different dosage of diuretic, sodium, and fluid administration on neurohormonal and clinical outcome in patients with recently compensated heart failure, Am J Cardiol, 2009;103:93–102.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  42. Holst M, Stromberg A, Lindholm M, Willenheimer R, Liberal versus restricted fluid prescription in stabilised patients with chronic heart failure: result of a randomised cross-over study of the effects on health-related quality of life, physical capacity, thirst and morbidity, Scand Cardiovasc J, 2008;42:316–22.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  43. Travers B, O’Loughlin C, Murphy NF, et al. Fluid restriction in the management of decompensated heart failure: no impact on time to clinical stability, J Card Fail, 2007;13:128–32.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  44. Philipson H, Ekman I, Forslund HB, et al. Salt and fluid restriction is effective in patients with chronic heart failure, Eur J Heart Fail, 2013;15:1304–10.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  45. Aliti GB, Rabelo ER, Clausell N, et al. Aggressive fluid and sodium restriction in acute decompensated heart failure: a randomized clinical trial, JAMA Intern Med, 2013;173:1058–64.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  46. Bui AL, Fonarow GC, Home monitoring for heart failure management, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2012;59:97–104.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  47. McAlister FA, Stewart S, Ferrua S, McMurray JJ, Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of heart failure patients at high risk for admission: a systematic review of randomized trials, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2004;44:810–9.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  48. Selby VN, Teerlink JR, What’s new in the treatment of acute heart failure?, Curr Cardiol Rep, 2013;15:393.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  49. Felker GM, Lee KL, Bull DA, et al. Diuretic strategies in patients with acute decompensated heart failure, N Engl J Med, 2011;364:797–805.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  50. Chen HH, Anstrom KJ, Givertz MM, et al. Low-dose dopamine or low-dose nesiritide in acute heart failure with renal dysfunction: the ROSE acute heart failure randomized trial, JAMA, 2013;310:2533–43.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  51. Topol EJ, Nesiritide - not verified, N Engl J Med, 2005;353:113–6.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  52. O’Connor CM, Starling RC, Hernandez AF, et al. Effect of nesiritide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure, N Engl J Med, 2011;365:32–43.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  53. Teerlink JR, Cotter G, Davison BA, et al. Serelaxin, recombinant human relaxin-2, for treatment of acute heart failure (RELAX-AHF): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial, Lancet, 2013;381:29–39.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  54. Filippatos G, Teerlink JR, Farmakis D, et al. Serelaxin in acute heart failure patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: results from the RELAX-AHF trial, Eur Heart J, 2014;35:1041–50.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  55. Teerlink J, Hot Line IV: Late breaking trials on heart failure and acute coronary syndrome, Presented at: European Society of Cardiology Congress, Amsterdam, 3 September 2013.
  56. Costanzo MR, Guglin ME, Saltzberg MT, et al. Ultrafiltration versus intravenous diuretics for patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007;49:675–83.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  57. Marenzi G, Muratori M, Cosentino ER, et al. Continuous ultrafiltration for congestive heart failure: the CUORE trial, J Card Fail, 2014;20:9–17.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  58. Bart BA, Goldsmith SR, Lee KL, et al. Ultrafiltration in decompensated heart failure with cardiorenal syndrome, N Engl J Med, 2012;367:2296–304.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  59. Butler J, Fonarow GC, Zile MR, et al. Developing therapies for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: current state and future directions, JACC Heart Fail, 2014;2:97–112.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  60. Senni M, Paulus WJ, Gavazzi A, et al. New strategies for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the importance of targeted therapies for heart failure phenotypes, Eur Heart J, 2014;35:2797–815.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  61. Solomon SD, Zile M, Pieske B, et al. The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a phase 2 double-blind randomised controlled trial, Lancet, 2012;380:1387–95.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  62. Basuray A, French B, Ky B, et al. Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction: clinical description, biomarkers, and outcomes, Circulation, 2014;129:2380–7.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  63. Boyd CM, Vollenweider D, Puhan MA, Informing Evidence-Based Decision-Making for Patients with Comorbidity: Availability of Necessary Information in Clinical Trials for Chronic Diseases, PLoS One, 2012;7:e41601.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  64. Hawkins NM, Petrie MC, Macdonald MR, et al. Heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease the quandary of Beta-blockers and Beta-agonists, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2011;57:2127–38.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  65. Mentz RJ, Wojdyla D, Fiuzat M, et al. Association of beta-blocker use and selectivity with outcomes in patients with heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (from OPTIMIZE-HF), Am J Cardiol, 2013;111:582–7.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  66. Mentz RJ, Fiuzat M, Kraft M, et al. Bronchodilators in heart failure patients with COPD: is it time for a clinical trial?, J Card Fail, 2012;18:413–22.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  67. Groenveld HF, Januzzi JL, Damman K, et al. Anemia and mortality in heart failure patients a systematic review and meta-analysis, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2008;52:818–27.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  68. Swedberg K, Young JB, Anand IS, et al. Treatment of anemia with darbepoetin alfa in systolic heart failure, N Engl J Med, 2013;368:1210–9.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  69. Anker SD, Comin Colet J, Filippatos G, et al. Ferric carboxymaltose in patients with heart failure and iron deficiency, N Engl J Med, 2009;361:2436–48.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  70. Khan SS, Butler J, Gheorghiade M, Management of comorbid diabetes mellitus and worsening heart failure, JAMA, 2014;311:2379–80.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  71. Maggioni AP, Greene SJ, Fonarow GC, et al. Effect of aliskiren on post-discharge outcomes among diabetic and non-diabetic patients hospitalized for heart failure: insights from the ASTRONAUT trial, Eur Heart J, 2013;34:3117–27.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  72. Smooke S, Horwich TB, Fonarow GC, Insulin-treated diabetes is associated with a marked increase in mortality in patients with advanced heart failure, Am Heart J, 2005;149:168–74.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  73. Heywood JT, Fonarow GC, Costanzo MR, et al. High prevalence of renal dysfunction and its impact on outcome in 118,465 patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure: a report from the ADHERE database, J Card Fail, 2007;13:422–30.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  74. Damman K, Tang WH, Felker GM, et al. Current evidence on treatment of patients with chronic systolic heart failure and renal insufficiency: practical considerations from published data, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2014;63:853–71.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  75. Albert NM, Fonarow GC, Abraham WT, et al. Depression and clinical outcomes in heart failure: an OPTIMIZE-HF analysis, Am J Med, 2009;122:366–73.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  76. Ko DT, Hebert PR, Coffey CS, et al. Beta-blocker therapy and symptoms of depression, fatigue, and sexual dysfunction, JAMA, 2002;288:351–7.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  77. O’Connor CM, Jiang W, Kuchibhatla M, et al. Safety and efficacy of sertraline for depression in patients with heart failure: results of the SADHART-CHF (Sertraline Against Depression and Heart Disease in Chronic Heart Failure) trial, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2010;56:692–9.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  78. Grigioni F, Potena L, Galiè N, et al. Prognostic implications of serial assessments of pulmonary hypertension in severe chronic heart failure, J Heart Lung Transplant, 2006;25:1241–6.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  79. Vachiéry JL, Adir Y, Barberà JA, et al. Pulmonary hypertension due to left heart diseases, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2013;62:D100–8.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  80. Guazzi M, Vicenzi M, Arena R, Guazzi MD, Pulmonary hypertension in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a target of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition in a 1-year study, Circulation, 2011;124:164–74.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  81. Redfield MM, Chen HH, Borlaug BA, et al. Effect of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition on exercise capacity and clinical status in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a randomized clinical trial, JAMA, 2013;309:1268–77.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  82. McLean RC, Jessup M, The challenge of treating heart failure: a diverse disease affecting diverse populations, JAMA, 2013;310:2033–4.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  83. Thomas KL, Hernandez AF, Dai D, et al. Association of race/ethnicity with clinical risk factors, quality of care, and acute outcomes in patients hospitalized with heart failure, Am Heart J, 2011;161:746–54.
    Crossref | Pubmed
  84. Lemond L, Allen LA, Palliative care and hospice in advanced heart failure, Prog Cardiovasc Dis, 2011;54:168–78.
    Crossref | Pubmed
Previous Volume Article