2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A... College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice

Document technical information

Format pdf
Size 4.3 MB
First found Jun 9, 2017

Document content analysis

Language
English
Type
not defined
Concepts
no text concepts found

Persons

Organizations

Places

Transcript

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
Clyde W. Yancy, Mariell Jessup, Biykem Bozkurt, Javed Butler, Donald E. Casey, Jr, Mark H.
Drazner, Gregg C. Fonarow, Stephen A. Geraci, Tamara Horwich, James L. Januzzi, Maryl R.
Johnson, Edward K. Kasper, Wayne C. Levy, Frederick A. Masoudi, Patrick E. McBride, John J.V.
McMurray, Judith E. Mitchell, Pamela N. Peterson, Barbara Riegel, Flora Sam, Lynne W. Stevenson,
W.H. Wilson Tang, Emily J. Tsai and Bruce L. Wilkoff
Circulation. published online June 5, 2013;
Circulation is published by the American Heart Association, 7272 Greenville Avenue, Dallas, TX 75231
Copyright © 2013 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
Print ISSN: 0009-7322. Online ISSN: 1524-4539
The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on the
World Wide Web at:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2013/06/03/CIR.0b013e31829e8776.citation
Data Supplement (unedited) at:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/suppl/2013/06/04/CIR.0b013e31829e8776.DC1.html
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/suppl/2013/06/04/CIR.0b013e31829e8776.DC2.html
Permissions: Requests for permissions to reproduce figures, tables, or portions of articles originally published in
Circulation can be obtained via RightsLink, a service of the Copyright Clearance Center, not the Editorial Office.
Once the online version of the published article for which permission is being requested is located, click Request
Permissions in the middle column of the Web page under Services. Further information about this process is
available in the Permissions and Rights Question and Answer document.
Reprints: Information about reprints can be found online at:
http://www.lww.com/reprints
Subscriptions: Information about subscribing to Circulation is online at:
http://circ.ahajournals.org//subscriptions/
Downloaded from http://circ.ahajournals.org/ by guest on October 7, 2013
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
ACCF/AHA PRACTICE GUIDELINE
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
Developed in Collaboration With the Heart Rhythm Society
Endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation
WRITING COMMITTEE MEMBERS*
Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, FACC, FAHA, Chair†‡
Mariell Jessup, MD, FACC, FAHA, Vice Chair*†
Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA†
Frederick A. Masoudi, MD, MSPH, FACC, FAHA†#
Javed Butler, MBBS, FACC, FAHA*†
Patrick E. McBride, MD, MPH, FACC**
Donald E. Casey, Jr, MD, MPH, MBA, FACP, FAHA§ John J.V. McMurray, MD, FACC*†
Mark H. Drazner, MD, MSc, FACC, FAHA*†
Judith E. Mitchell, MD, FACC, FAHA†
Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, FACC, FAHA*†
Pamela N. Peterson, MD, MSPH, FACC, FAHA†
Stephen A. Geraci, MD, FACC, FAHA, FCCP║
Barbara Riegel, DNSc, RN, FAHA†
Tamara Horwich, MD, FACC†
Flora Sam, MD, FACC, FAHA†
Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, FACC*†
James L. Januzzi, MD, FACC*†
Maryl R. Johnson, MD, FACC, FAHA¶
W.H. Wilson Tang, MD, FACC*†
Edward K. Kasper, MD, FACC, FAHA†
Emily J. Tsai, MD, FACC†
Wayne C. Levy, MD, FACC*†
Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, FACC, FHRS*††
ACCF/AHA TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair
Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Immediate Past Chair‡‡
Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect
Nancy M. Albert, PhD, CCNS, CCRN, FAHA
Richard J. Kovacs, MD, FACC, FAHA
Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA
Frederick G. Kushner, MD, FACC, FAHA‡‡
Ralph G. Brindis, MD, MPH, MACC
E. Magnus Ohman, MD, FACC
Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA‡‡
Susan J. Pressler, PhD, RN, FAAN, FAHA
Lesley H. Curtis, PhD
Frank W. Sellke, MD, FACC, FAHA
David DeMets, PhD
Win-Kuang Shen, MD, FACC, FAHA
Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACC
William G. Stevenson, MD, FACC, FAHA‡‡
Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC, FAHA
Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, FACC, FAHA‡‡
*Writing committee members are required to recuse themselves from voting on sections to which their specific relationships with
industry and other entities may apply; see Appendix 1 for recusal information.
†ACCF/AHA representative.
‡ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines liaison.
§American College of Physicians representative.
║American College of Chest Physicians representative.
¶International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation representative.
#ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures liaison.
**American Academy of Family Physicians representative.
††Heart Rhythm Society representative.
‡‡Former Task Force member during this writing effort.
Page 1
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
This document was approved by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Board of Trustees and the American Heart Association
Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee in May 2013.
The American Heart Association requests that this document be cited as follows: Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE
Jr, Drazner MH, Fonarow GC, Geraci SA, Horwich T, Januzzi JL, Johnson MR, Kasper EK, Levy WC, Masoudi FA, McBride PE,
McMurray JJV, Mitchell JE, Peterson PN, Riegel B, Sam F, Stevenson LW, Tang WHW, Tsai EJ, Wilkoff BL. 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. Circulation. 2013;128:•••–•••.
This article has been copublished in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Copies: This document is available on the World Wide Web sites of the American College of Cardiology (www.cardiosource.org) and
the American Heart Association (my.americanheart.org). A copy of the document is available at http://my.americanheart.org/statements
by selecting either the “By Topic” link or the “By Publication Date” link. To purchase additional reprints, call 843-216-2533 or e-mail
[email protected]
Expert peer review of AHA Scientific Statements is conducted by the AHA Office of Science Operations. For more on AHA statements
and guidelines development, visit http://my.americanheart.org/statements and select the “Policies and Development” link.
Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, and/or distribution of this document are not permitted without the
express permission of the American Heart Association. Instructions for obtaining permission are located at
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/General/Copyright-Permission-Guidelines_UCM_300404_Article.jsp. A link to the “Copyright
Permissions Request Form” appears on the right side of the page.
(Circulation. 2013;128:000–000.)
© 2013 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association, Inc.
Circulation is available at http://circ.ahajournals.org
Page 2
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Table of Contents
Preamble ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
1.1. Methodology and Evidence Review ............................................................................................................. 8
1.2. Organization of the Writing Committee ....................................................................................................... 9
1.3. Document Review and Approval .................................................................................................................. 9
1.4. Scope of This Guideline With Reference to Other Relevant Guidelines or Statements ............................. 10
2. Definition of HF ............................................................................................................................................... 12
2.1. HF With Reduced EF (HFrEF) ................................................................................................................... 13
2.2. HF With Preserved EF (HFpEF)................................................................................................................. 13
3. HF Classifications ........................................................................................................................................... 14
4. Epidemiology ................................................................................................................................................... 15
4.1. Mortality ..................................................................................................................................................... 16
4.2. Hospitalizations........................................................................................................................................... 16
4.3. Asymptomatic LV Dysfunction .................................................................................................................. 16
4.4. Health-Related Quality of Life and Functional Status ................................................................................ 16
4.5. Economic Burden of HF ............................................................................................................................. 17
4.6. Important Risk Factors for HF (Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, Metabolic Syndrome, and
Atherosclerotic Disease) .................................................................................................................................... 17
5. Cardiac Structural Abnormalities and Other Causes of HF ...................................................................... 18
5.1. Dilated Cardiomyopathies .......................................................................................................................... 18
5.1.1. Definition and Classification of Dilated Cardiomyopathies.............................................................. 18
5.1.2. Epidemiology and Natural History of DCM ..................................................................................... 19
5.2. Familial Cardiomyopathies ......................................................................................................................... 19
5.3. Endocrine and Metabolic Causes of Cardiomyopathy ................................................................................ 20
5.3.1. Obesity............................................................................................................................................... 20
5.3.2. Diabetic Cardiomyopathy.................................................................................................................. 20
5.3.3. Thyroid Disease................................................................................................................................. 20
5.3.4. Acromegaly and Growth Hormone Deficiency ................................................................................. 20
5.4. Toxic Cardiomyopathy ............................................................................................................................... 21
5.4.1. Alcoholic Cardiomyopathy ............................................................................................................... 21
5.4.2. Cocaine Cardiomyopathy .................................................................................................................. 21
5.4.3. Cardiotoxicity Related to Cancer Therapies...................................................................................... 21
5.4.4. Other Myocardial Toxins and Nutritional Causes of Cardiomyopathy ............................................. 22
5.5. Tachycardia-Induced Cardiomyopathy ....................................................................................................... 22
5.6. Myocarditis and Cardiomyopathies Due to Inflammation .......................................................................... 22
5.6.1. Myocarditis........................................................................................................................................ 22
5.6.2. Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome............................................................................................ 23
5.6.3. Chagas’ Disease ................................................................................................................................ 23
5.7. Inflammation-Induced Cardiomyopathy: Noninfectious Causes ................................................................ 23
5.7.1. Hypersensitivity Myocarditis ............................................................................................................ 23
5.7.2. Rheumatological/Connective Tissue Disorders................................................................................. 24
5.8. Peripartum Cardiomyopathy ....................................................................................................................... 24
5.9. Cardiomyopathy Caused By Iron Overload ................................................................................................ 24
5.10. Amyloidosis .............................................................................................................................................. 25
5.11. Cardiac Sarcoidosis................................................................................................................................... 25
5.12. Stress (Takotsubo) Cardiomyopathy......................................................................................................... 25
6. Initial and Serial Evaluation of the HF Patient ............................................................................................ 26
6.1. Clinical Evaluation...................................................................................................................................... 26
6.1.1. History and Physical Examination: Recommendations..................................................................... 26
6.1.2. Risk Scoring: Recommendation ........................................................................................................ 27
6.2. Diagnostic Tests: Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 29
Page 3
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
6.3. Biomarkers: Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 29
6.3.1. Natriuretic Peptides: BNP or NT-proBNP ........................................................................................ 30
6.3.2. Biomarkers of Myocardial Injury: Cardiac Troponin T or I ............................................................. 31
6.3.3. Other Emerging Biomarkers.............................................................................................................. 32
6.4. Noninvasive Cardiac Imaging: Recommendations ..................................................................................... 32
6.5. Invasive Evaluation: Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 35
6.5.1. Right-Heart Catheterization............................................................................................................... 36
6.5.2. Left-Heart Catheterization ................................................................................................................. 37
6.5.3. Endomyocardial Biopsy .................................................................................................................... 37
7. Treatment of Stages A to D ............................................................................................................................ 38
7.1. Stage A: Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 38
7.1.1. Recognition and Treatment of Elevated Blood Pressure ................................................................... 38
7.1.2. Treatment of Dyslipidemia and Vascular Risk.................................................................................. 38
7.1.3. Obesity and Diabetes Mellitus........................................................................................................... 38
7.1.4. Recognition and Control of Other Conditions That May Lead to HF ............................................... 39
7.2. Stage B: Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 40
7.2.1. Management Strategies for Stage B ................................................................................................ 41
7.3. Stage C ........................................................................................................................................................ 43
7.3.1. Nonpharmacological Interventions ................................................................................................... 43
7.3.1.1. Education: Recommendation ....................................................................................................... 43
7.3.1.2. Social Support .............................................................................................................................. 44
7.3.1.3. Sodium Restriction: Recommendation......................................................................................... 44
7.3.1.4. Treatment of Sleep Disorders: Recommendation ........................................................................ 45
7.3.1.5. Weight Loss ................................................................................................................................. 45
7.3.1.6. Activity, Exercise Prescription, and Cardiac Rehabilitation: Recommendations ........................ 45
7.3.2. Pharmacological Treatment for Stage C HFrEF: Recommendations................................................ 46
7.3.2.1. Diuretics: Recommendation ......................................................................................................... 47
7.3.2.2. ACE Inhibitors: Recommendation ............................................................................................... 49
7.3.2.3. ARBs: Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 51
7.3.2.4. Beta Blockers: Recommendation ................................................................................................. 53
7.3.2.5. Aldosterone Receptor Antagonists: Recommendations ............................................................... 55
7.3.2.6. Hydralazine and Isosorbide Dinitrate: Recommendations ........................................................... 58
7.3.2.7. Digoxin: Recommendation .......................................................................................................... 59
7.3.2.8. Other Drug Treatment .................................................................................................................. 61
7.3.2.8.1. Anticoagulation: Recommendations ..................................................................................... 61
7.3.2.8.2. Statins: Recommendation...................................................................................................... 63
7.3.2.8.3. Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Recommendation .............................................................................. 63
7.3.2.9. Drugs of Unproven Value or That May Worsen HF: Recommendations .................................... 64
7.3.2.9.1. Nutritional Supplements and Hormonal Therapies ............................................................... 64
7.3.2.9.2. Antiarrhythmic Agents .......................................................................................................... 65
7.3.2.9.3. Calcium Channel Blockers: Recommendation...................................................................... 65
7.3.2.9.4. Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs ................................................................................ 66
7.3.2.9.5. Thiazolidinediones ................................................................................................................ 66
7.3.3. Pharmacological Treatment for Stage C HFpEF: Recommendations ............................................... 68
7.3.4. Device Therapy for Stage C HFrEF: Recommendations .................................................................. 70
7.3.4.1. Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator ........................................................................................ 71
7.3.4.2. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy ............................................................................................ 72
7.4. Stage D........................................................................................................................................................ 77
7.4.1. Definition of Advanced HF ............................................................................................................... 77
7.4.2. Important Considerations in Determining If the Patient Is Refractory.............................................. 77
7.4.3. Water Restriction: Recommendation ................................................................................................ 79
7.4.4. Inotropic Support: Recommendations ............................................................................................... 80
Page 4
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
7.4.5. Mechanical Circulatory Support: Recommendations ........................................................................ 81
7.4.6. Cardiac Transplantation: Recommendation ...................................................................................... 82
8. The Hospitalized Patient................................................................................................................................. 85
8.1. Classification of Acute Decompensated HF ............................................................................................... 85
8.2. Precipitating Causes of Decompensated HF: Recommendations ............................................................... 86
8.3. Maintenance of GDMT During Hospitalization: Recommendations ......................................................... 87
8.4. Diuretics in Hospitalized Patients: Recommendations ............................................................................... 88
8.5. Renal Replacement Therapy—Ultrafiltration: Recommendations ............................................................. 90
8.6. Parenteral Therapy in Hospitalized HF: Recommendation ........................................................................ 90
8.7. Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients: Recommendation................................ 91
8.8. Arginine Vasopressin Antagonists: Recommendation................................................................................ 93
8.9. Inpatient and Transitions of Care: Recommendations ................................................................................ 94
9. Important Comorbidities in HF ..................................................................................................................... 96
9.1. Atrial Fibrillation ........................................................................................................................................ 96
9.2. Anemia ...................................................................................................................................................... 101
9.3. Depression ................................................................................................................................................ 103
9.4. Other Multiple Comorbidities ................................................................................................................... 103
10. Surgical/Percutaneous/Transcather Interventional Treatments of HF: Recommendations ............... 104
11. Coordinating Care for Patients With Chronic HF .................................................................................. 106
11.1. Coordinating Care for Patients With Chronic HF: Recommendations ................................................... 106
11.2. Systems of Care to Promote Care Coordination for Patients With Chronic HF ..................................... 107
11.3. Palliative Care for Patients With HF....................................................................................................... 108
12. Quality Metrics/Performance Measures: Recommendations ................................................................. 110
13. Evidence Gaps and Future Research Directions ...................................................................................... 113
Appendix 1. Author Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant)...................................... 115
Appendix 2. Reviewer Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant) .................................. 119
Appendix 3. Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... 125
References .......................................................................................................................................................... 126
Page 5
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Preamble
The medical profession should play a central role in evaluating the evidence related to drugs, devices, and
procedures for the detection, management, and prevention of disease. When properly applied, expert analysis of
available data on the benefits and risks of these therapies and procedures can improve the quality of care,
optimize patient outcomes, and favorably affect costs by focusing resources on the most effective strategies. An
organized and directed approach to a thorough review of evidence has resulted in the production of clinical
practice guidelines that assist clinicians in selecting the best management strategy for an individual patient.
Moreover, clinical practice guidelines can provide a foundation for other applications, such as performance
measures, appropriate use criteria, and both quality improvement and clinical decision support tools.
The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA)
have jointly produced guidelines in the area of cardiovascular disease since 1980. The ACCF/AHA Task Force
on Practice Guidelines (Task Force), charged with developing, updating, and revising practice guidelines for
cardiovascular diseases and procedures, directs and oversees this effort. Writing committees are charged with
regularly reviewing and evaluating all available evidence to develop balanced, patient-centric recommendations
for clinical practice.
Experts in the subject under consideration are selected by the ACCF and AHA to examine subjectspecific data and write guidelines in partnership with representatives from other medical organizations and
specialty groups. Writing committees are asked to perform a literature review; weigh the strength of evidence
for or against particular tests, treatments, or procedures; and include estimates of expected outcomes where such
data exist. Patient-specific modifiers, comorbidities, and issues of patient preference that may influence the
choice of tests or therapies are considered. When available, information from studies on cost is considered, but
data on efficacy and outcomes constitute the primary basis for the recommendations contained herein.
In analyzing the data and developing recommendations and supporting text, the writing committee uses
evidence-based methodologies developed by the Task Force (1). The Class of Recommendation (COR) is an
estimate of the size of the treatment effect considering risks versus benefits in addition to evidence and/or
agreement that a given treatment or procedure is or is not useful/effective or in some situations may cause harm.
The Level of Evidence (LOE) is an estimate of the certainty or precision of the treatment effect. The writing
committee reviews and ranks evidence supporting each recommendation with the weight of evidence ranked as
LOE A, B, or C according to specific definitions that are included in Table 1. Studies are identified as
observational, retrospective, prospective, or randomized where appropriate. For certain conditions for which
inadequate data are available, recommendations are based on expert consensus and clinical experience and are
ranked as LOE C. When recommendations at LOE C are supported by historical clinical data, appropriate
references (including clinical reviews) are cited if available. For issues for which sparse data are available, a
survey of current practice among the clinicians on the writing committee is the basis for LOE C
recommendations and no references are cited. The schema for COR and LOE are summarized in Table 1, which
Page 6
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
also provides suggested phrases for writing recommendations within each COR. A new addition to this
methodology is separation of the Class III recommendations to delineate whether the recommendation is
determined to be of “no benefit” or is associated with “harm” to the patient. In addition, in view of the
increasing number of comparative effectiveness studies, comparator verbs and suggested phrases for writing
recommendations for the comparative effectiveness of one treatment or strategy versus another have been added
for COR I and IIa, LOE A or B only.
In view of the advances in medical therapy across the spectrum of cardiovascular diseases, the Task
Force has designated the term guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) to represent optimal medical therapy
as defined by ACCF/AHA guideline−recommended therapies (primarily Class I). This new term, GDMT, will
be used herein and throughout all future guidelines.
Because the ACCF/AHA practice guidelines address patient populations (and clinicians) residing in
North America, drugs that are not currently available in North America are discussed in the text without a
specific COR. For studies performed in large numbers of subjects outside North America, each writing
committee reviews the potential influence of different practice patterns and patient populations on the treatment
effect and relevance to the ACCF/AHA target population to determine whether the findings should inform a
specific recommendation.
The ACCF/AHA practice guidelines are intended to assist clinicians in clinical decision making by
describing a range of generally acceptable approaches to the diagnosis, management, and prevention of specific
diseases or conditions. The guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients in most
circumstances. The ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient must be made by the clinician and
patient in light of all the circumstances presented by that patient. As a result, situations may arise for which
deviations from these guidelines may be appropriate. Clinical decision making should involve consideration of
the quality and availability of expertise in the area where care is provided. When these guidelines are used as the
basis for regulatory or payer decisions, the goal should be improvement in quality of care. The Task Force
recognizes that situations arise in which additional data are needed to inform patient care more effectively; these
areas will be identified within each respective guideline when appropriate.
Prescribed courses of treatment in accordance with these recommendations are effective only if
followed. Because lack of patient understanding and adherence may adversely affect outcomes, clinicians
should make every effort to engage the patient’s active participation in prescribed medical regimens and
lifestyles. In addition, patients should be informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a particular treatment
and be involved in shared decision making whenever feasible, particularly for COR IIa and IIb, for which the
benefit-to-risk ratio may be lower.
The Task Force makes every effort to avoid actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may
arise as a result of industry relationships or personal interests among the members of the writing committee. All
writing committee members and peer reviewers of the guideline are required to disclose all current healthcarePage 7
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
related relationships, including those existing 12 months before initiation of the writing effort. In December
2009, the ACCF and AHA implemented a new policy for relationship with industry and other entities (RWI)
that requires the writing committee chair plus a minimum of 50% of the writing committee to have no relevant
RWI (Appendix 1 for the ACCF/AHA definition of relevance). These statements are reviewed by the Task
Force and all members during each conference call and/or meeting of the writing committee and are updated as
changes occur. All guideline recommendations require a confidential vote by the writing committee and must be
approved by a consensus of the voting members. Members are not permitted to draft or vote on any text or
recommendations pertaining to their RWI. Members who recused themselves from voting are indicated in the
list of writing committee members, and specific section recusals are noted in Appendix 1. Authors’ and peer
reviewers’ RWI pertinent to this guideline are disclosed in Appendixes 1 and 2, respectively. Additionally, to
ensure complete transparency, writing committee members’ comprehensive disclosure informationincluding
RWI not pertinent to this documentis available as an online supplement. Comprehensive disclosure
information for the Task Force is also available online at http://www.cardiosource.org/en/ACC/AboutACC/Who-We-Are/Leadership/Guidelines-and-Documents-Task-Forces.aspx. The work of writing committees
is supported exclusively by the ACCF and AHA without commercial support. Writing committee members
volunteered their time for this activity.
In an effort to maintain relevance at the point of care for practicing clinicians, the Task Force continues
to oversee an ongoing process improvement initiative. As a result, in response to pilot projects, several changes
to these guidelines will be apparent, including limited narrative text, a focus on summary and evidence tables
(with references linked to abstracts in PubMed), and more liberal use of summary recommendation tables (with
references that support LOE) to serve as a quick reference.
In April 2011, the Institute of Medicine released 2 reports: Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust
and Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews (2, 3). It is noteworthy that the
ACCF/AHA practice guidelines are cited as being compliant with many of the proposed standards. A thorough
review of these reports and of our current methodology is under way, with further enhancements anticipated.
The recommendations in this guideline are considered current until they are superseded by a focused
update or the full-text guideline is revised. Guidelines are official policy of both the ACCF and AHA.
Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA
Chair, ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines
1. Introduction
1.1. Methodology and Evidence Review
The recommendations listed in this document are, whenever possible, evidence based. An extensive evidence
review was conducted through October 2011 and selected other references through April 2013. Searches were
Page 8
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
extended to studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted in human subjects and that were published in
English from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Reports, and other
selected databases relevant to this guideline. Key search words included but were not limited to the following:
heart failure, cardiomyopathy, quality of life, mortality, hospitalizations, prevention, biomarkers, hypertension,
dyslipidemia, imaging, cardiac catheterization, endomyocardial biopsy, angiotensin-converting enzyme
inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor antagonists/blockers, beta blockers, cardiac, cardiac resynchronization
therapy, defibrillator, device-based therapy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, device implantation,
medical therapy, acute decompensated heart failure, preserved ejection fraction, terminal care and
transplantation, quality measures, and performance measures. Additionally, the committee reviewed documents
related to the subject matter previously published by the ACCF and AHA. References selected and published in
this document are representative and not all-inclusive.
To provide clinicians with a representative evidence base, whenever deemed appropriate or when
published, the absolute risk difference and number needed to treat or harm are provided in the guideline (within
tables), along with confidence intervals and data related to the relative treatment effects such as odds ratio,
relative risk, hazard ratio, and incidence rate ratio.
1.2. Organization of the Writing Committee
The committee was composed of physicians and a nurse with broad expertise in the evaluation, care, and
management of patients with heart failure (HF). The authors included general cardiologists, HF and transplant
specialists, electrophysiologists, general internists, and physicians with methodological expertise. The
committee included representatives from the ACCF, AHA, American Academy of Family Physicians, American
College of Chest Physicians, Heart Rhythm Society, and International Society for Heart and Lung
Transplantation.
1.3. Document Review and Approval
This document was reviewed by 2 official reviewers each nominated by both the ACCF and the AHA,
as well as 1 to 2 reviewers each from the American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Chest
Physicians, Heart Rhythm Society, and International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, as well as 32
individual content reviewers (including members of the ACCF Adult Congenital and Pediatric Cardiology
Council, ACCF Cardiovascular Team Council, ACCF Council on Cardiovascular Care for Older Adults, ACCF
Electrophysiology Committee, ACCF Heart Failure and Transplant Council, ACCF Imaging Council, ACCF
Prevention Committee, ACCF Surgeons’ Scientific Council, and ACCF Task Force on Appropriate Use
Criteria). All information on reviewers’ RWI was distributed to the writing committee and is published in this
document (Appendix 2).
Page 9
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
This document was approved for publication by the governing bodies of the ACCF and AHA and
endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and Heart Rhythm
Society.
Table 1. Applying Classification of Recommendation and Level of Evidence
A recommendation with Level of Evidence B or C does not imply that the recommendation is weak. Many important
clinical questions addressed in the guidelines do not lend themselves to clinical trials. Although randomized trials are
unavailable, there may be a very clear clinical consensus that a particular test or therapy is useful or effective.
*Data available from clinical trials or registries about the usefulness/efficacy in different subpopulations, such as sex, age,
history of diabetes, history of prior myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and prior aspirin use.
†For comparative effectiveness recommendations (Class I and IIa; Level of Evidence A and B only), studies that support
the use of comparator verbs should involve direct comparisons of the treatments or strategies being evaluated.
1.4. Scope of This Guideline With Reference to Other Relevant Guidelines or Statements
Page 10
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
This guideline covers multiple management issues for the adult patient with HF. Although of increasing
importance, HF in children and congenital heart lesions in adults are not specifically addressed in this guideline.
The reader is referred to publically available resources to address questions in these areas. However, this
guideline does address HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF) in more detail and similarly revisits hospitalized
HF. Additional areas of renewed interest are in stage D HF, palliative care, transition of care, and quality of care
for HF. Certain management strategies appropriate for the patient at risk for HF or already affected by HF are
also reviewed in numerous relevant clinical practice guidelines and scientific statements published by the
ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines, AHA, ACCF Task Force on Appropriate Use Criteria,
European Society of Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute. The writing committee saw no need to reiterate the recommendations contained in those guidelines and
chose to harmonize recommendations when appropriate and eliminate discrepancies. This is especially the case
for device-based therapeutics, where complete alignment between the HF guideline and the device-based
therapy guideline was deemed imperative (4). Some recommendations from earlier guidelines have been
updated as warranted by new evidence or a better understanding of earlier evidence, whereas others that were no
longer accurate or relevant or which were overlapping were modified; recommendations from previous
guidelines that were similar or redundant were eliminated or consolidated when possible.
The present document recommends a combination of lifestyle modifications and medications that constitute
GDMT. GDMT is specifically referenced in the recommendations for the treatment of HF (Figure 1; Section
7.3.2). Both for GDMT and other recommended drug treatment regimens, the reader is advised to confirm
dosages with product insert material and to evaluate carefully for contraindications and drug-drug interactions.
Table 2 is a list of documents deemed pertinent to this effort and is intended for use as a resource; it obviates the
need to repeat already extant guideline recommendations. Additional other HF guideline statements are
highlighted as well for the purpose of comparison and completeness.
Table 2. Associated Guidelines and Statements
Title
Organization
Guidelines
Guidelines for the Management of Adults With Congenital Heart Disease
Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation
Guideline for Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk in Asymptomatic Adults
Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities
Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Secondary Prevention and Risk Reduction Therapy for Patients With
Coronary and Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease: 2011 Update
Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable
Ischemic Heart Disease
Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non–STPage 11
Publication
Year
(Reference)
ACCF/AHA
ACCF/AHA/HRS
ACCF/AHA
ACCF/AHA
ACCF/AHA/HRS
ACCF/AHA
ACCF/AHA/SCAI
AHA/ACCF
2008 (5)
2011 (6-8)
2010 (9)
2011 (10)
2013 (4)
2011 (11)
2011 (12)
2011 (13)
ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS
/PCNA/SCAI/STS
ACCF/AHA
ACCF/AHA
2012 (14)
2013 (15)
2013 (16)
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease
Comprehensive Heart Failure Practice Guideline
Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart
Failure
Chronic Heart Failure: Management of Chronic Heart Failure in Adults in
Primary and Secondary Care
Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis
Guidelines for the Care of Heart Transplant Recipients
Statements
Contemporary Definitions and Classification of the Cardiomyopathies
Genetics and Cardiovascular Disease
Appropriate Utilization of Cardiovascular Imaging in Heart Failure
Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization Focused Update
ACCF/AHA
HFSA
ESC
2008 (17)
2010 (18)
2012 (19)
NICE
2010 (20)
ACCP
ISHLT
2012 (21)
2010 (22)
AHA
AHA
ACCF
2006 (23)
2012 (24)
2013 (25)
ACCF
2012 (26)
Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection,
NHLBI
2003 (27)
Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure
Implications of Recent Clinical Trials for the National Cholesterol Education
NHLBI
2002 (28)
Program Adult Treatment Panel III Guidelines
Referral, Enrollment, and Delivery of Cardiac Rehabilitation/Secondary
2011 (29)
AHA/AACVPR
Prevention Programs at Clinical Centers and Beyond
Decision Making in Advanced Heart Failure
AHA
2012 (30)
Recommendations for the Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support: Device AHA
2012 (31)
Strategies and Patient Selection
Advanced Chronic Heart Failure
ESC
2007 (32)
Oral Antithrombotic Agents for the Prevention of Stroke in Nonvalvular AHA/ASA
2012 (33)
Atrial Fibrillation
Third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction
ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF
2012 (34)
AACVPR indicates American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; AATS, American Association
for Thoracic Surgery; ACCF, American College of Cardiology Foundation; ACCP, American College of Chest Physicians;
ACP, American College of Physicians; AHA, American Heart Association; ASA, American Stroke Association; ESC,
European Society of Cardiology; HFSA, Heart Failure Society of America; HRS, Heart Rhythm Society; ISHLT,
International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation; NHLBI, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; NICE,
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; PCNA, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association; SCAI, Society
for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; STS, Society of Thoracic Surgeons; and WHF, World Heart Federation.
2. Definition of HF
HF is a complex clinical syndrome that results from any structural or functional impairment of ventricular filling
or ejection of blood. The cardinal manifestations of HF are dyspnea and fatigue, which may limit exercise
tolerance, and fluid retention, which may lead to pulmonary and/or splanchnic congestion and/or peripheral
edema. Some patients have exercise intolerance but little evidence of fluid retention, whereas others complain
primarily of edema, dyspnea, or fatigue. Because some patients present without signs or symptoms of volume
overload, the term “heart failure” is preferred over “congestive heart failure.” There is no single diagnostic test
for HF because it is largely a clinical diagnosis based on a careful history and physical examination.
The clinical syndrome of HF may result from disorders of the pericardium, myocardium, endocardium,
heart valves, or great vessels or from certain metabolic abnormalities, but most patients with HF have symptoms
due to impaired left ventricular (LV) myocardial function. It should be emphasized that HF is not synonymous
with either cardiomyopathy or LV dysfunction; these latter terms describe possible structural or functional
Page 12
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
reasons for the development of HF. HF may be associated with a wide spectrum of LV functional abnormalities,
which may range from patients with normal LV size and preserved EF to those with severe dilatation and/or
markedly reduced EF. In most patients, abnormalities of systolic and diastolic dysfunction coexist, irrespective
of EF. EF is considered important in classification of patients with HF because of differing patient
demographics, comorbid conditions, prognosis, and response to therapies (35) and because most clinical trials
selected patients based on EF. EF values are dependent on the imaging technique used, method of analysis, and
operator. Because other techniques may indicate abnormalities in systolic function among patients with a
preserved EF, it is preferable to use the terms preserved or reduced EF over preserved or reduced systolic
function. For the remainder of this guideline, we will consistently refer to HF with preserved EF and HF with
reduced EF as HFpEF and HFrEF, respectively (Table 3).
2.1. HF With Reduced EF (HFrEF)
In approximately half of patients with HFrEF, variable degrees of LV enlargement may accompany HFrEF (36,
37). The definition of HFrEF has varied, with guidelines of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%,
<40%, and ≤40% (18, 19, 38). Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with HF have mainly enrolled
patients with HFrEF with an EF ≤35% or ≤40%, and it is only in these patients that efficacious therapies have
been demonstrated to date. For the present guideline, HFrEF is defined as the clinical diagnosis of HF and EF
≤40%. Those with LV systolic dysfunction commonly have elements of diastolic dysfunction as well (39).
Although coronary artery disease (CAD) with antecedent myocardial infarction (MI) is a major cause of HFrEF,
many other risk factors (Section 4.6) may lead to LV enlargement and HFrEF.
2.2. HF With Preserved EF (HFpEF)
In patients with clinical HF, studies estimate that the prevalence of HFpEF is approximately 50% (range 40% to
71%) (40). These estimates vary largely because of the differing EF cut-off criteria and challenges in diagnostic
criteria for HFpEF. HFpEF has been variably classified as EF >40%, >45%, >50%, and ≥55%. Because some of
these patients do not have entirely normal EF but also do not have major reduction in systolic function, the term
preserved EF has been used. Patients with an EF in the range of 40% to 50% represent an intermediate group.
These patients are often treated for underlying risk factors and comorbidities and with GDMT similar to that
used in patients with HFrEF. Several criteria have been proposed to define the syndrome of HFpEF. These
include (a) clinical signs or symptoms of HF; (b) evidence of preserved or normal LVEF; and (c) evidence of
abnormal LV diastolic dysfunction that can be determined by Doppler echocardiography or cardiac
catheterization (41). The diagnosis of HFpEF is more challenging than the diagnosis of HFrEF because it is
largely one of excluding other potential noncardiac causes of symptoms suggestive of HF. Studies have
suggested that the incidence of HFpEF is increasing and that a greater portion of patients hospitalized with HF
have HFpEF (42). In the general population, patients with HFpEF are usually older women with a history of
Page 13
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
hypertension. Obesity, CAD, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation (AF), and hyperlipidemia are also highly
prevalent in HFpEF in population-based studies and registries (40, 43). Despite these associated cardiovascular
risk factors, hypertension remains the most important cause of HFpEF, with a prevalence of 60% to 89% from
large controlled trials, epidemiological studies, and HF registries (44). It has been recognized that a subset of
patients with HFpEF previously had HFrEF (45). These patients with improvement or recovery in EF may be
clinically distinct from those with persistently preserved or reduced EF. Further research is needed to better
characterize these patients.
Table 3. Definitions of HFrEF and HFpEF
Classification
I. Heart failure with
reduced ejection fraction
(HFrEF)
II. Heart failure with
preserved ejection fraction
(HFpEF)
EF (%)
≤40
Description
Also referred to as systolic HF. Randomized clinical trials have mainly
enrolled patients with HFrEF, and it is only in these patients that
efficacious therapies have been demonstrated to date.
≥50
Also referred to as diastolic HF. Several different criteria have been
used to further define HFpEF. The diagnosis of HFpEF is challenging
because it is largely one of excluding other potential noncardiac causes
of symptoms suggestive of HF. To date, efficacious therapies have not
been identified.
a. HFpEF, borderline
41 to 49
These patients fall into a borderline or intermediate group. Their
characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes appear similar to
those of patients with HFpEF.
b. HFpEF, improved
>40
It has been recognized that a subset of patients with HFpEF previously
had HFrEF. These patients with improvement or recovery in EF may
be clinically distinct from those with persistently preserved or reduced
EF. Further research is needed to better characterize these patients.
EF indicates ejection fraction; HF, heart failure; HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; and HFrEF, heart
failure with reduced ejection fraction.
See Online Data Supplement 1 for additional data on HFpEF.
3. HF Classifications
Both the ACCF/AHA stages of HF (38) and the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification
(38, 46) provide useful and complementary information about the presence and severity of HF. The ACCF/AHA
stages of HF emphasize the development and progression of disease and can be used to describe individuals and
populations, whereas the NYHA classes focus on exercise capacity and the symptomatic status of the disease
(Table 4).
The ACCF/AHA stages of HF recognize that both risk factors and abnormalities of cardiac structure are
associated with HF. The stages are progressive and inviolate; once a patient moves to a higher stage, regression
to an earlier stage of HF is not observed. Progression in HF stages is associated with reduced 5-year survival and
increased plasma natriuretic peptide concentrations (47). Therapeutic interventions in each stage aimed at
modifying risk factors (stage A), treating structural heart disease (stage B), and reducing morbidity and
mortality (stages C and D) (covered in detail in Section 7) are reviewed in this document. The NYHA functional
Page 14
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
classification gauges the severity of symptoms in those with structural heart disease, primarily stages C and D. It
is a subjective assessment by a clinician and can change frequently over short periods of time. Although
reproducibility and validity may be problematic (48), the NYHA functional classification is an independent
predictor of mortality (49). It is widely used in clinical practice and research and for determining the eligibility
of patients for certain healthcare services.
Table 4. Comparison of ACCF/AHA Stages of HF and NYHA Functional Classifications
A
B
C
ACCF/AHA Stages of HF (38)
At high risk for HF but without structural
heart disease or symptoms of HF
Structural heart disease but without signs
or symptoms of HF
Structural heart disease with prior or
current symptoms of HF
NYHA Functional Classification (46)
None
I
No limitation of physical activity. Ordinary
physical activity does not cause symptoms of
HF.
No limitation of physical activity. Ordinary
physical activity does not cause symptoms of
HF.
Slight limitation of physical activity.
Comfortable at rest, but ordinary physical
activity results in symptoms of HF.
Marked limitation of physical activity.
Comfortable at rest, but less than ordinary
activity causes symptoms of HF.
Unable to carry on any physical activity
without symptoms of HF, or symptoms of HF
at rest.
I
II
III
IV
D
Refractory HF requiring specialized
interventions
ACCF indicates American College of Cardiology Foundation; AHA, American Heart Association; HF, heart failure; and
NYHA, New York Heart Association.
See Online Data Supplement 2 for additional data on ACCF/AHA stages of HF and NYHA functional
classifications.
4. Epidemiology
The lifetime risk of developing HF is 20% for Americans ≥40 years of age (50). In the United States, HF
incidence has largely remained stable over the past several decades, with >650,000 new HF cases diagnosed
annually (51-53). HF incidence increases with age, rising from approximately 20 per 1,000 individuals 65 to 69
years of age to >80 per 1,000 individuals among those >85 years of age (52). Approximately 5.1 million persons
in the United States have clinically manifest HF, and the prevalence continues to rise (51). In the Medicareeligible population, HF prevalence increased from 90 to 121 per 1,000 beneficiaries from 1994 to 2003 (52).
HFrEF and HFpEF each make up about half of the overall HF burden (54). One in 5 Americans will be >65
years of age by 2050 (55). Because HF prevalence is highest in this group, the number of Americans with HF is
expected to significantly worsen in the future. Disparities in the epidemiology of HF have been identified.
Blacks have the highest risk for HF (56). In the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) study, incidence
rate per 1,000 person-years was lowest among white women (52, 53) and highest among black men (57), with
Page 15
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
blacks having a greater 5-year mortality rate than whites (58). HF in non-Hispanic black males and females has
a prevalence of 4.5% and 3.8%, respectively, versus 2.7% and 1.8% in non-Hispanic white males and females,
respectively (51).
4.1. Mortality
Although survival has improved, the absolute mortality rates for HF remain approximately 50% within 5 years
of diagnosis (53, 59). In the ARIC study, the 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year case fatality rates after hospitalization
for HF were 10.4%, 22%, and 42.3%, respectively (58). In another population cohort study with 5-year mortality
data, survival for stage A, B, C, and D HF was 97%, 96%, 75%, and 20%, respectively (47). Thirty-day
postadmission mortality rates decreased from 12.6% to 10.8% from 1993 to 2005; however, this was due to
lower in-hospital death rates. Postdischarge mortality actually increased from 4.3% to 6.4% during the same
time frame (60). These observed temporal trends in HF survival are primarily restricted to patients with reduced
EF and are not seen in those with preserved EF (40).
See Online Data Supplement 3 for additional data on mortality.
4.2. Hospitalizations
HF is the primary diagnosis in >1 million hospitalizations annually (51). Patients hospitalized for HF are at high
risk for all-cause rehospitalization, with a 1-month readmission rate of 25% (61). In 2010, physician office visits
for HF cost $1.8 billion. The total cost of HF care in the United States exceeds $40 billion annually, with over
half of these costs spent on hospitalizations (51).
4.3. Asymptomatic LV Dysfunction
The prevalence of asymptomatic LV systolic or diastolic dysfunction ranges from 6% to 21% and increases with
age (62-64). In the Left Ventricular Dysfunction Prevention study, participants with untreated asymptomatic LV
dysfunction had a 10% risk for developing HF symptoms and an 8% risk of death or HF hospitalization annually
(65). In a community-based population, asymptomatic mild LV diastolic dysfunction was seen in 21% and
moderate or severe diastolic dysfunction in 7%, and both were associated with an increased risk of symptomatic
HF and mortality (64).
4.4. Health-Related Quality of Life and Functional Status
HF significantly decreases health-related quality of life (HRQOL), especially in the areas of physical
functioning and vitality (66, 67). Lack of improvement in HRQOL after discharge from the hospital is a
powerful predictor of rehospitalization and mortality (68, 69). Women with HF have consistently been found to
have poorer HRQOL than men (67, 70). Ethnic differences also have been found, with Mexican Hispanics
Page 16
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
reporting better HRQOL than other ethnic groups in the United States (71). Other determinants of poor HRQOL
include depression, younger age, higher body mass index (BMI), greater symptom burden, lower systolic blood
pressure, sleep apnea, low perceived control, and uncertainty about prognosis (70, 72-76). Memory problems
may also contribute to poor HRQOL (76).
Pharmacological therapy is not a consistent determinant of HRQOL; therapies such as angiotensinconverting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) improve HRQOL only modestly
or delay the progressive worsening of HRQOL in HF (77). At present, the only therapies shown to improve
HRQOL are cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) (78) and certain disease management and educational
approaches (79-82). Self-care and exercise may improve HRQOL, but the results of studies evaluating these
interventions are mixed (83-86). Throughout this guideline we refer to meaningful survival as a state in which
HRQOL is satisfactory to the patient.
See Online Data Supplement 4 for additional data on HRQOL and functional capacity.
4.5. Economic Burden of HF
In 1 in 9 deaths in the United States, HF is mentioned on the death certificate. The number of deaths with any
mention of HF was as high in 2006 as it was in 1995 (51). Approximately 7% of all cardiovascular deaths are
due to HF.
As previously noted, in 2012, HF costs in the United States exceeded $40 billion (51). This total
includes the cost of healthcare services, medications, and lost productivity. The mean cost of HF-related
hospitalizations was $23,077 per patient and was higher when HF was a secondary rather than the primary
diagnosis. Among patients with HF in 1 large population study, hospitalizations were common after HF
diagnosis, with 83% of patients hospitalized at least once and 43% hospitalized at least 4 times. More than half
of the hospitalizations were related to noncardiovascular causes (87-89).
4.6. Important Risk Factors for HF (Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, Metabolic Syndrome, and
Atherosclerotic Disease)
Many conditions or comorbidities are associated with an increased propensity for structural heart disease. The
expedient identification and treatment of these comorbid conditions may forestall the onset of HF (14, 27, 90). A
list of the important documents that codify treatment for these concomitant conditions appears in Table 2.
Hypertension. Hypertension may be the single most important modifiable risk factor for HF in the United
States. Hypertensive men and women have a substantially greater risk for developing HF than normotensive
men and women (91). Elevated levels of diastolic and especially systolic blood pressure are major risk factors
for the development of HF (91, 92). The incidence of HF is greater with higher levels of blood pressure, older
Page 17
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
age, and longer duration of hypertension. Long-term treatment of both systolic and diastolic hypertension
reduces the risk of HF by approximately 50% (93-96). With nearly a quarter of the American population
afflicted by hypertension and the lifetime risk of developing hypertension at >75% in the United States (97),
strategies to control hypertension are a vital part of any public health effort to prevent HF.
Diabetes mellitus. Obesity and insulin resistance are important risk factors for the development of HF (98, 99).
The presence of clinical diabetes markedly increases the likelihood of developing HF in patients without
structural heart disease (100) and adversely affects the outcomes of patients with established HF (101, 102).
Metabolic syndrome. The metabolic syndrome includes any 3 of the following: abdominal adiposity,
hypertriglyceridemia, low high-density lipoprotein, hypertension, and fasting hyperglycemia. The prevalence of
metabolic syndrome in the United States exceeds 20% of persons ≥20 years of age and 40% of those >40 years
of age (103). The appropriate treatment of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia (104) can
significantly reduce the development of HF.
Atherosclerotic disease. Patients with known atherosclerotic disease (e.g., of the coronary, cerebral, or
peripheral blood vessels) are likely to develop HF, and clinicians should seek to control vascular risk factors in
such patients according to guidelines (13).
5. Cardiac Structural Abnormalities and Other Causes of HF
5.1. Dilated Cardiomyopathies
5.1.1. Definition and Classification of Dilated Cardiomyopathies
Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) refers to a large group of heterogeneous myocardial disorders that are
characterized by ventricular dilation and depressed myocardial contractility in the absence of abnormal loading
conditions such as hypertension or valvular disease. In clinical practice and multicenter HF trials, the etiology of
HF has often been categorized into ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy, with the term DCM used
interchangeably with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. This approach fails to recognize that “nonischemic
cardiomyopathy” may include cardiomyopathies due to volume or pressure overload, such as hypertension or
valvular heart disease, which are not conventionally accepted as DCM (105). With the identification of genetic
defects in several forms of cardiomyopathies, a new classification scheme based on genomics was proposed in
2006 (23). We recognize that classification of cardiomyopathies is challenging, mixing anatomic designations
(i.e., hypertrophic and dilated) with functional designations (i.e., restrictive) and is unlikely to satisfy all users.
The aim of the present guideline is to target appropriate diagnostic and treatment strategies for preventing the
Page 18
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
development and progression of HF in patients with cardiomyopathies; we do not wish to redefine new
classification strategies for cardiomyopathies.
5.1.2. Epidemiology and Natural History of DCM
The age-adjusted prevalence of DCM in the United States averages 36 cases per 100,000 population, and DCM
accounts for 10,000 deaths annually (106). In most multicenter RCTs and registries in HF, approximately 30%
to 40% of enrolled patients have DCM (107-109). Compared with whites, African Americans have almost a 3fold increased risk for developing DCM, irrespective of comorbidities or socioeconomic factors (108-110). Sexrelated differences in the incidence and prognosis of DCM are conflicting and may be confounded by differing
etiologies (108, 109, 111). The prognosis in patients with symptomatic HF and DCM is relatively poor, with
25% mortality at 1 year and 50% mortality at 5 years (112). Approximately 25% of patients with DCM with
recent onset of HF symptoms will improve within a short time even in the absence of optimal GDMT (113), but
patients with symptoms lasting >3 months who present with severe clinical decompensation generally have less
chance of recovery (113). Patients with idiopathic DCM have a lower total mortality rate than patients with other
types of DCM (114). However, GDMT is beneficial in all forms of DCM (78, 109, 115-117).
5.2. Familial Cardiomyopathies
Increasingly, it is recognized that many (20% to 35%) patients with an idiopathic DCM have a familial
cardiomyopathy (defined as 2 closely related family members who meet the criteria for idiopathic DCM) (118,
119). Consideration of familial cardiomyopathies includes the increasingly important discovery of
noncompaction cardiomyopathies. Advances in technology permitting high-throughput sequencing and
genotyping at reduced costs have brought genetic screening to the clinical arena. For further information on this
topic, the reader is referred to published guidelines, position statements, and expert consensus statements (118,
120-123) (Table 5).
Table 5. Screening of Family Members and Genetic Testing in Patients With Idiopathic or Familial DCM
Condition
Familial DCM
•
•
Idiopathic DCM
•
•
Screening of Family Members
First-degree relatives not known to be
affected should undergo periodic, serial
echocardiographic screening with assessment
of LV function and size.
Frequency of screening is uncertain, but
every 3-5 y is reasonable (118).
Patients should inform first-degree relatives
of their diagnosis.
Relatives should update their clinicians and
discuss whether they should undergo
screening by echocardiography.
DCM indicates dilated cardiomyopathy; and LV, left ventricular.
Page 19
•
•
•
Genetic Testing
Genetic testing may be considered in
conjunction with genetic counseling
(118, 121-123).
The utility of genetic testing in this
setting remains uncertain.
Yield of genetic testing may be higher
in patients with significant cardiac
conduction disease and/or a family
history of premature sudden cardiac
death (118, 121-123).
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
5.3. Endocrine and Metabolic Causes of Cardiomyopathy
5.3.1. Obesity
Obesity cardiomyopathy is defined as cardiomyopathy due entirely or predominantly to obesity (Section
7.3.1.5). Although the precise mechanisms causing obesity-related HF are not known, excessive adipose
accumulation results in an increase in circulating blood volume. A subsequent, persistent increase in cardiac
output, cardiac work, and systemic blood pressure (124) along with lipotoxicity-induced cardiac myocyte injury
and myocardial lipid accumulation have been implicated as potential mechanisms (125, 126). A study with
participants from the Framingham Heart Study reported that after adjustment for established risk factors, obesity
was associated with significant future risk of development of HF (99). There are no large-scale studies of the
safety or efficacy of weight loss with diet, exercise, or bariatric surgery in obese patients with HF.
5.3.2. Diabetic Cardiomyopathy
Diabetes mellitus is now well recognized as a risk factor for the development of HF independent of age,
hypertension, obesity, hypercholesterolemia, or CAD. The association between mortality and hemoglobin A1c
(HbA1c) in patients with diabetes mellitus and HF appears U-shaped, with the lowest risk of death in those
patients with modest glucose control (7.1% <HbA1c ≤7.8%) and with increased risk with extremely high or low
HbA1c levels (127). The optimal treatment strategy in patients with diabetes and HF is controversial; some
studies have suggested potential harm with several glucose-lowering medications (127, 128). The safety and
efficacy of diabetes therapies in HF, including metformin, sulfonylureas, insulin, and glucagon-like peptide
analogues await further data from prospective clinical trials (129-131). Treatment with thiazolidinediones (e.g.,
rosiglitazone) is associated with fluid retention in patients with HF (129, 132) and should be avoided in patients
with NYHA class II through IV HF.
5.3.3. Thyroid Disease
Hyperthyroidism has been implicated in causing DCM but most commonly occurs with persistent sinus
tachycardia or AF and may be related to tachycardia (133). Abnormalities in cardiac systolic and diastolic
performance have been reported in hypothyroidism. However, the classic findings of myxedema do not usually
indicate cardiomyopathy. The low cardiac output results from bradycardia, decreased ventricular filling, reduced
cardiac contractility, and diminished myocardial work (133, 134).
5.3.4. Acromegaly and Growth Hormone Deficiency
Impaired cardiovascular function has been associated with reduced life expectancy in patients with growth
hormone deficiency and excess. Experimental and clinical studies implicate growth hormone and insulin-like
growth factor I in cardiac development (135). Cardiomyopathy associated with acromegaly is characterized by
Page 20
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
myocardial hypertrophy with interstitial fibrosis, lympho-mononuclear infiltration, myocyte necrosis, and
biventricular concentric hypertrophy (135).
5.4. Toxic Cardiomyopathy
5.4.1. Alcoholic Cardiomyopathy
Chronic alcoholism is one of the most important causes of DCM (136). The clinical diagnosis is suspected when
biventricular dysfunction and dilatation are persistently observed in a heavy drinker in the absence of other
known causes for myocardial disease. Alcoholic cardiomyopathy most commonly occurs in men 30 to 55 years
of age who have been heavy consumers of alcohol for >10 years (137). Women represent approximately 14% of
the alcoholic cardiomyopathy cases but may be more vulnerable with less lifetime alcohol consumption (136,
138). The risk of asymptomatic alcoholic cardiomyopathy is increased in those consuming >90 g of alcohol per
day (approximately 7 to 8 standard drinks per day) for >5 years (137). Interestingly, in the general population,
mild to moderate alcohol consumption has been reported to be protective against development of HF (139, 140).
These paradoxical findings suggest that duration of exposure and individual genetic susceptibility play an
important role in pathogenesis. Recovery of LV function after cessation of drinking has been reported (141).
Even if LV dysfunction persists, the symptoms and signs of HF improve after abstinence (141).
5.4.2. Cocaine Cardiomyopathy
Long-term abuse of cocaine may result in DCM even without CAD, vasculitis, or MI. Depressed LV function
has been reported in 4% to 18% of asymptomatic cocaine abusers (142-144). The safety and efficacy of beta
blockers for chronic HF due to cocaine use are unknown (145).
5.4.3. Cardiotoxicity Related to Cancer Therapies
Several cytotoxic antineoplastic drugs, especially the anthracyclines, are cardiotoxic and can lead to long-term
cardiac morbidity. Iron-chelating agents that prevent generation of oxygen free-radicals, such as dexrazoxane,
are cardioprotective (146, 147), and reduce the occurrence and severity of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity
and development of HF.
Other antineoplastic chemotherapies with cardiac toxicity are the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab
(Herceptin), high-dose cyclophosphamide, taxoids, mitomycin-C, 5-fluorouracil, and the interferons (148). In
contrast to anthracycline-induced cardiac toxicity, trastuzumab-related cardiac dysfunction does not appear to
increase with cumulative dose, nor is it associated with ultrastructural changes in the myocardium. However,
concomitant anthracycline therapy significantly increases the risk for cardiotoxicity during trastuzumab
treatment. The cardiac dysfunction associated with trastuzumab is most often reversible on discontinuation of
treatment and initiation of standard medical therapy for HF (149). The true incidence and reversibility of
Page 21
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
chemotherapy-related cardiotoxicity is not well documented, and meaningful interventions to prevent injury
have not yet been elucidated.
5.4.4. Other Myocardial Toxins and Nutritional Causes of Cardiomyopathy
In addition to the classic toxins described above, a number of other toxic agents may lead to LV dysfunction and
HF, including ephedra, cobalt, anabolic steroids, chloroquine, clozapine, amphetamine, methylphenidate, and
catecholamines (150). Ephedra, which has been used for athletic performance enhancement and weight loss, was
ultimately banned by the US Food and Drug Administration for its high rate of adverse cardiovascular
outcomes, including LV systolic dysfunction, development of HF, and sudden cardiac death (SCD) (151).
Primary and secondary nutritional deficiencies may lead to cardiomyopathy. Chronic alcoholism,
anorexia nervosa, AIDS, and pregnancy can account for other rare causes of thiamine deficiency−related
cardiomyopathy in the western world (152). Deficiency in L-carnitine, a necessary cofactor for fatty acid
oxidation, may be associated with a syndrome of progressive skeletal myopathy and cardiomyopathy (153).
5.5. Tachycardia-Induced Cardiomyopathy
Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy is a reversible cause of HF characterized by LV myocardial dysfunction
caused by increased ventricular rate. The degree of dysfunction correlates with the duration and rate of the
tachyarrhythmia. Virtually any supraventricular tachycardia with a rapid ventricular response may induce
cardiomyopathy. Ventricular arrhythmias, including frequent premature ventricular complexes, may also induce
cardiomyopathy. Maintenance of sinus rhythm or control of ventricular rate is critical to treating patients with
tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (154). Reversibility of the cardiomyopathy with treatment of the
arrhythmia is the rule, although this may not be complete in all cases. The underlying mechanisms for this are
not well understood.
Ventricular pacing at high rates may cause cardiomyopathy. Additionally, right ventricular pacing alone
may exacerbate HF symptoms, increase hospitalization for HF, and increase mortality (155, 156). Use of CRT in
patients with a conduction delay due to pacing may result in improved LV function and functional capacity.
5.6. Myocarditis and Cardiomyopathies Due to Inflammation
5.6.1. Myocarditis
Inflammation of the heart may cause HF in about 10% of cases of initially unexplained cardiomyopathy (105,
157). A variety of infectious organisms, as well as toxins and medications, most often postviral in origin, may
cause myocarditis. In addition, myocarditis is also seen as part of other systemic diseases such as systemic lupus
erythematosus and other myocardial muscle diseases such as HIV cardiomyopathy and possibly peripartum
cardiomyopathy. Presentation may be acute, with a distinct onset, severe hemodynamic compromise, and severe
LV dysfunction as seen in acute fulminant myocarditis, or it may be subacute, with an indistinct onset and
Page 22
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
better-tolerated LV dysfunction (158). Prognosis varies, with spontaneous complete resolution (paradoxically
most often seen with acute fulminant myocarditis) (158) to the development of DCM despite
immunosuppressive therapy (159). The role of immunosuppressive therapy is controversial (159). Targeting
such therapy to specific individuals based on the presence or absence of viral genome in myocardial biopsy
samples may improve response to immunosuppressive therapy (160).
Giant-cell myocarditis is a rare form of myocardial inflammation characterized by fulminant HF, often
associated with refractory ventricular arrhythmias and a poor prognosis (161, 162). Histologic findings include
diffuse myocardial necrosis with numerous multinucleated giant cells without granuloma formation.
Consideration for advanced HF therapies, including immunosuppression, mechanical circulatory support
(MCS), and transplantation is warranted.
5.6.2. Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
The extent of immunodeficiency influences the incidence of HIV-associated DCM (163-165). In long-term
echocardiographic follow-up (166), 8% of initially asymptomatic HIV-positive patients were diagnosed with
DCM during the 5-year follow-up. Whether early treatment with ACE inhibitors and/or beta blockers will
prevent or delay disease progression in these patients is unknown at this time.
5.6.3. Chagas’ Disease
Although Chagas’ disease is a relatively uncommon cause of DCM in North America, it remains an important
cause of death in Central and South America (167). Symptomatic chronic Chagas’ disease develops in an
estimated 10% to 30% of infected persons, years or even decades after the Trypanosoma cruzi infection. Cardiac
changes may include biventricular enlargement, thinning or thickening of ventricular walls, apical aneurysms,
and mural thrombi. The conduction system is often affected, typically resulting in right bundle-branch block, left
anterior fascicular block, or complete atrioventricular block.
5.7. Inflammation-Induced Cardiomyopathy: Noninfectious Causes
5.7.1. Hypersensitivity Myocarditis
Hypersensitivity to a variety of agents may result in allergic reactions that involve the myocardium,
characterized by peripheral eosinophilia and a perivascular infiltration of the myocardium by eosinophils,
lymphocytes, and histiocytes. A variety of drugs, most commonly the sulfonamides, penicillins, methyldopa,
and other agents such as amphotericin B, streptomycin, phenytoin, isoniazid, tetanus toxoid,
hydrochlorothiazide, dobutamine, and chlorthalidone have been reported to cause allergic hypersensitivity
myocarditis (168). Most patients are not clinically ill but may die suddenly, presumably secondary to an
arrhythmia.
Page 23
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
5.7.2. Rheumatological/Connective Tissue Disorders
Along with a number of cardiac abnormalities (e.g., pericarditis, pericardial effusion, conduction system
abnormalities, including complete atrioventricular heart block), DCM can be a rare manifestation of systemic
lupus erythematosus and usually correlates with disease activity (169). Studies suggest that echocardiographic
evidence of abnormal LV filling may reflect the presence of myocardial fibrosis and could be a marker of
subclinical myocardial involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus patients (170).
Scleroderma is a rare cause of DCM. One echocardiographic study showed that despite normal LV
dimensions or fractional shortening, subclinical systolic impairment was present in the majority of patients with
scleroderma (171). Cardiac involvement in rheumatoid arthritis generally is in the form of myocarditis and/or
pericarditis, and development of DCM is rare (172). Myocardial involvement in rheumatoid arthritis is thought
to be secondary to microvasculitis and subsequent microcirculatory disturbances. Myocardial disease in
rheumatoid arthritis can occur in the absence of clinical symptoms or abnormalities of the electrocardiogram
(ECG) (173).
5.8. Peripartum Cardiomyopathy
Peripartum cardiomyopathy is a disease of unknown cause in which LV dysfunction occurs during the last
trimester of pregnancy or the early puerperium. It is reported in 1:1,300 to 1:4,000 live births (174). Risk factors
for peripartum cardiomyopathy include advanced maternal age, multiparity, African descent, and long-term
tocolysis. Although its etiology remains unknown, most theories have focused on hemodynamic and
immunologic causes (174). The prognosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is related to the recovery of ventricular
function. Significant improvement in myocardial function is seen in 30% to 50% of patients in the first 6 months
after presentation (174). However, for those patients who do not recover to normal or near-normal function, the
prognosis is similar to other forms of DCM (175). Cardiomegaly that persists for >4 to 6 months after diagnosis
indicates a poor prognosis, with a 50% mortality rate at 6 years. Subsequent pregnancy in women with a history
of peripartum cardiomyopathy may be associated with a further decrease in LV function and can result in
clinical deterioration, including death. However, if ventricular function has normalized in women with a history
of peripartum cardiomyopathy, the risk may be less (174). There is an increased risk of venous
thromboembolism, and anticoagulation is recommended, especially if ventricular dysfunction is persistent.
5.9. Cardiomyopathy Caused By Iron Overload
Iron overload cardiomyopathy manifests itself as systolic or diastolic dysfunction secondary to increased
deposition of iron in the heart and occurs with common genetic disorders such as primary hemochromatosis or
with lifetime transfusion requirements as seen in beta-thalassemia major (176). Hereditary hemochromatosis, an
autosomal recessive disorder, is the most common hereditary disease of Northern Europeans, with a prevalence
of approximately 5 per 1,000. The actuarial survival rates of persons who are homozygous for the mutation of
Page 24
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
the hemochromatosis gene C282Y have been reported to be 95%, 93%, and 66%, at 5, 10, and 20 years,
respectively (177). Similarly, in patients with thalassemia major, cardiac failure is one of the most frequent
causes of death. Chelation therapy, including newer forms of oral chelators, such as deferoxamine, and
phlebotomy, have dramatically improved the outcome of hemochromatosis, and the roles of gene therapy,
hepcidin, and calcium channel blockers are being actively investigated (178).
5.10. Amyloidosis
Cardiac amyloidosis involves the deposition of insoluble proteins as fibrils in the heart, resulting in HF. Primary
or AL amyloidosis (monoclonal kappa or lambda light chains), secondary amyloidosis (protein A), familial TTR
amyloidosis (mutant transthyretin), dialysis-associated amyloidosis (beta-2-microglobulin), or senile TTR
amyloidosis (wild-type transthyretin) can affect the heart, but cardiac involvement is primarily encountered in
AL and TTR amyloidosis (179). The disease can be rapidly progressive, and, in patients with ventricular septum
thickness >15 mm, LVEF <40%, and symptoms of HF, median survival may be <6 months (180). Cardiac
biomarkers (e.g., B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), cardiac troponin) have been reported to predict response and
progression of disease and survival (181). Three percent to 4% of African Americans carry an amyloidogenic
allele of the human serum protein transthyretin (TTR V122I), which appears to increase risk for cardiac amyloid
deposition after 65 years of age (182).
5.11. Cardiac Sarcoidosis
Cardiac sarcoidosis is an underdiagnosed disease that may affect as many as 25% of patients with
systemic sarcoidosis. Although most commonly recognized in patients with other manifestations of sarcoidosis,
cardiac involvement may occur in isolation and go undetected. Cardiac sarcoidosis may present as
asymptomatic LV dysfunction, HF, atrioventricular block, atrial or ventricular arrhythmia, and SCD (183).
Although untested in clinical trials, early use of high-dose steroid therapy may halt or reverse cardiac damage
(184). Cardiac magnetic resonance and cardiac positron emission tomographic scanning can identify cardiac
involvement with patchy areas of myocardial inflammation and fibrosis. In the setting of ventricular
tachyarrhythmia, patients may require placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary
prevention of SCD (185).
5.12. Stress (Takotsubo) Cardiomyopathy
Stress cardiomyopathy is characterized by acute reversible LV dysfunction in the absence of significant CAD,
triggered by acute emotional or physical stress (23). This phenomenon is identified by a distinctive pattern of
“apical ballooning,” first described in Japan as takotsubo, and often affects postmenopausal women (186). A
majority of patients have a clinical presentation similar to that of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and may have
transiently elevated cardiac enzymes.
Page 25
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
6. Initial and Serial Evaluation of the HF Patient
6.1. Clinical Evaluation
6.1.1. History and Physical Examination: Recommendations
Class I
1. A thorough history and physical examination should be obtained/performed in patients
presenting with HF to identify cardiac and noncardiac disorders or behaviors that might cause or
accelerate the development or progression of HF. (Level of Evidence: C)
2. In patients with idiopathic DCM, a 3-generational family history should be obtained to aid in
establishing the diagnosis of familial DCM. (Level of Evidence: C)
3. Volume status and vital signs should be assessed at each patient encounter. This includes serial
assessment of weight, as well as estimates of jugular venous pressure and the presence of
peripheral edema or orthopnea (187-190). (Level of Evidence: B)
Despite advances in imaging technology and increasing availability of diagnostic laboratory testing, a careful
history and physical examination remain the cornerstones in the assessment of patients with HF. The
components of a focused history and physical examination for the patient with HF are listed in Table 6. The
history provides clues to the etiology of the cardiomyopathy, including the diagnosis of familial cardiomyopathy
(defined as ≥2 relatives with idiopathic DCM). Familial syndromes are now recognized to occur in 20% to 35%
of patients with apparent idiopathic DCM (118); thus, a 3-generation family history should be obtained. The
history also provides information about the severity of the disease and the patient’s prognosis and identifies
opportunities for therapeutic interventions. The physical examination provides information about the severity of
illness and allows assessment of volume status and adequacy of perfusion. In advanced HFrEF, orthopnea and
jugular venous pressure are useful findings to detect elevated LV filling pressures (187, 189, 190).
Table 6. History and Physical Examination in HF
History
Potential clues suggesting etiology of HF
Duration of illness
Severity and triggers of dyspnea and fatigue,
presence of chest pain, exercise capacity, physical
activity, sexual activity
Anorexia and early satiety, weight loss
Weight gain
Palpitations, (pre)syncope, ICD shocks
Symptoms suggesting transient ischemic attack or
thromboembolism
Development of peripheral edema or ascites
Disordered breathing at night, sleep problems
Comments
A careful family history may identify an underlying familial
cardiomyopathy in patients with idiopathic DCM (118).
Other etiologies outlined in Section 5 should be considered
as well.
A patient with recent-onset systolic HF may recover over
time (113).
To determine NYHA class; identify potential symptoms of
coronary ischemia.
Gastrointestinal symptoms are common in patients with HF.
Cardiac cachexia is associated with adverse prognosis (191).
Rapid weight gain suggests volume overload.
Palpitations may be indications of paroxysmal AF or
ventricular tachycardia. ICD shocks are associated with
adverse prognosis (192).
Affects consideration of the need for anticoagulation.
Suggests volume overload.
Treatment for sleep apnea may improve cardiac function and
decrease pulmonary hypertension (193).
Page 26
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Recent or frequent prior hospitalizations for HF
History of discontinuation of medications for HF
Associated with adverse prognosis (194).
Determine whether lack of GDMT in patients with HFrEF
reflects intolerance, an adverse event, or perceived
contraindication to use. Withdrawal of these medications has
been associated with adverse prognosis (195, 196).
Medications that may exacerbate HF
Removal of such medications may represent a therapeutic
opportunity.
Diet
Awareness and restriction of sodium and fluid intake should
be assessed.
Adherence to medical regimen
Access to medications; family support; access to follow-up;
cultural sensitivity
Physical Examination
Comments
BMI and evidence of weight loss
Obesity may be a contributing cause of HF; cachexia may
correspond with poor prognosis.
Blood pressure (supine and upright)
Assess for hypertension or hypotension. Width of pulse
pressure may reflect adequacy of cardiac output. Response of
blood pressure to Valsalva maneuver may reflect LV filling
pressures (197).
Pulse
Manual palpation will reveal strength and regularity of pulse
rate.
Examination for orthostatic changes in blood
Consistent with volume depletion or excess vasodilation
pressure and heart rate
from medications.
Jugular venous pressure at rest and following
Most useful finding on physical examination to identify
abdominal compression (Heywood video)
congestion (187-190, 198).
Presence of extra heart sounds and murmurs
S3 is associated with adverse prognosis in HFrEF (188).
Murmurs may be suggestive of valvular heart disease.
Size and location of point of maximal impulse
Enlarged and displaced point of maximal impulse suggests
ventricular enlargement.
Presence of right ventricular heave
Suggests significant right ventricular dysfunction and/or
pulmonary hypertension.
Pulmonary status: respiratory rate, rales, pleural
In advanced chronic HF, rales are often absent despite major
effusion
pulmonary congestion.
Hepatomegaly and/or ascites
Usually markers of volume overload.
Peripheral edema
Many patients, particularly those who are young, may be not
edematous despite intravascular volume overload. In obese
patients and elderly patients, edema may reflect peripheral
rather than cardiac causes.
Temperature of lower extremities
Cool lower extremities may reflect inadequate cardiac
output.
BMI indicates body mass index; DCM, dilated cardiomyopathy; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; HF, heart
failure; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; ICD, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; LV, left
ventricular; and NYHA, New York Heart Association.
See Online Data Supplements 5, 6, and 7 for additional data on stress testing and clinical evaluation.
6.1.2. Risk Scoring: Recommendation
Class IIa
1. Validated multivariable risk scores can be useful to estimate subsequent risk of mortality in
ambulatory or hospitalized patients with HF (199-207). (Level of Evidence: B)
In the course of standard evaluation, clinicians should routinely assess the patient’s potential for adverse
outcome, because accurate risk stratification may help guide therapeutic decision making, including a more
rapid transition to advanced HF therapies. A number of methods objectively assess risk, including biomarker
Page 27
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
testing (Section 6.3), as well as a variety of multivariable clinical risk scores (Table 7); these risk scores are for
use in ambulatory (199, 203, 205, 206, 208) and hospitalized patients (200, 202, 204, 205, 209). Risk models
specifically for patients with HFpEF have also been described (201).
One well-validated risk score, the Seattle Heart Failure Model, is available in an interactive application
on the Internet (210) and provides robust information about risk of mortality in ambulatory patients with HF.
For patients hospitalized with acutely decompensated HF, the model developed by ADHERE (Acute
Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry) incorporates 3 routinely measured variables on hospital
admission (i.e., systolic blood pressure, blood urea nitrogen, and serum creatinine) and stratifies subjects into
categories with a 10-fold range of crude in-hospital mortality (from 2.1% to 21.9%) (200). Notably, clinical risk
scores have not performed as well in estimating risk of hospital readmission (211). For this purpose, biomarkers
such as natriuretic peptides hold considerable promise (212, 213) (Section 6.3).
Table 7. Selected Multivariable Risk Scores to Predict Outcome in HF
Risk Score
Reference/Link
Chronic HF
All patients with chronic HF
Seattle Heart Failure Model
(203) / http://SeattleHeartFailureModel.org
Heart Failure Survival Score
(199) / http://handheld.softpedia.com/get/Health/Calculator/HFSSCalc-37354.shtml
(206)
(207)
CHARM Risk Score
CORONA Risk Score
Specific to chronic HFpEF
I-PRESERVE Score
Acutely decompensated HF
ADHERE Classification and Regression Tree
(CART) Model
(201)
(200)
American Heart Association Get With The
Guidelines Score
(205)
/
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthcareProfessional/GetWith
TheGuidelinesHFStroke/GetWithTheGuidelinesHeartFailureHomeP
age/Get-With-The-Guidelines-Heart-Failure-Home%20Page_UCM_306087_SubHomePage.jsp
EFFECT Risk Score
(202) / http://www.ccort.ca/Research/CHFRiskModel.aspx
ESCAPE Risk Model and Discharge Score
(214)
OPTIMIZE HF Risk-Prediction Nomogram
(215)
ADHERE indicates Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry; CHARM, Candesartan in Heart failureAssessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity; CORONA, Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart
Failure; EFFECT, Enhanced Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment; ESCAPE, Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart
Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness; HF, heart failure; HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection
fraction; I-PRESERVE, Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Study; and OPTIMIZE, Organized
Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure.
See Online Data Supplement 8 for additional data on clinical evaluation risk scoring.
Page 28
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
6.2. Diagnostic Tests: Recommendations
Class I
1. Initial laboratory evaluation of patients presenting with HF should include complete blood count,
urinalysis, serum electrolytes (including calcium and magnesium), blood urea nitrogen, serum
creatinine, glucose, fasting lipid profile, liver function tests, and thyroid-stimulating hormone.
(Level of Evidence: C)
2. Serial monitoring, when indicated, should include serum electrolytes and renal function. (Level of
Evidence: C)
3. A 12-lead ECG should be performed initially on all patients presenting with HF. (Level of
Evidence: C)
Class IIa
1. Screening for hemochromatosis or HIV is reasonable in selected patients who present with HF
(216). (Level of Evidence: C)
2. Diagnostic tests for rheumatologic diseases, amyloidosis, or pheochromocytoma are reasonable in
patients presenting with HF in whom there is a clinical suspicion of these diseases. (Level of
Evidence: C)
6.3. Biomarkers: Recommendations
A. Ambulatory/Outpatient
Class I
1. In ambulatory patients with dyspnea, measurement of BNP or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic
peptide (NT-proBNP) is useful to support clinical decision making regarding the diagnosis of HF,
especially in the setting of clinical uncertainty (217-223). (Level of Evidence: A)
2. Measurement of BNP or NT-proBNP is useful for establishing prognosis or disease severity in
chronic HF (222, 224-229). (Level of Evidence: A)
Class IIa
1. BNP- or NT-proBNP−
−guided HF therapy can be useful to achieve optimal dosing of GDMT in
select clinically euvolemic patients followed in a well-structured HF disease management program
(230-237). (Level of Evidence: B)
Class IIb
1. The usefulness of serial measurement of BNP or NT-proBNP to reduce hospitalization or
mortality in patients with HF is not well established (230-237). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Measurement of other clinically available tests such as biomarkers of myocardial injury or
fibrosis may be considered for additive risk stratification in patients with chronic HF (238-244).
(Level of Evidence: B)
B. Hospitalized/Acute
Class I
1. Measurement of BNP or NT-proBNP is useful to support clinical judgment for the diagnosis of
acutely decompensated HF, especially in the setting of uncertainty for the diagnosis (212, 245250). (Level of Evidence: A)
2. Measurement of BNP or NT-proBNP and/or cardiac troponin is useful for establishing prognosis
or disease severity in acutely decompensated HF (248, 251-258). (Level of Evidence: A)
Class IIb
Page 29
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
1. The usefulness of BNP- or NT-proBNP−
−guided therapy for acutely decompensated HF is not wellestablished (259, 260). (Level of Evidence: C)
2. Measurement of other clinically available tests such as biomarkers of myocardial injury or
fibrosis may be considered for additive risk stratification in patients with acutely decompensated
HF (248, 253, 256, 257, 261-267). (Level of Evidence: A)
In addition to routine clinical laboratory tests, other biomarkers are gaining greater attention for their utility in
HF management. These biomarkers may reflect various pathophysiological aspects of HF, including myocardial
wall stress, hemodynamic abnormalities, inflammation, myocyte injury, neurohormonal upregulation, and
myocardial remodeling, as well as extracellular matrix turnover. Thus, these biomarkers are potentially powerful
adjuncts to current standards for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of acute and chronic HF.
6.3.1. Natriuretic Peptides: BNP or NT-proBNP
BNP or its amino-terminal cleavage equivalent (NT-proBNP) is derived from a common 108-amino acid
precursor peptide (proBNP108) that is generated by cardiomyocytes in the context of numerous triggers, most
notably myocardial stretch. Following several steps of processing, BNP and NT-proBNP are released from the
cardiomyocyte, along with variable amounts of proBNP108, the latter of which is detected by all assays that
measure either “BNP” or “NT-proBNP.”
Assays for BNP and NT-proBNP have been increasingly used to establish the presence and severity of
HF. In general, BNP and NT-proBNP values are reasonably correlated, and either can be used in patient care
settings as long as their respective absolute values and cut points are not used interchangeably. BNP and NTproBNP are useful to support clinical judgment for the diagnosis or exclusion of HF, in the setting of chronic
ambulatory HF (217-223) or acute decompensated HF (245-250); the value of natriuretic peptide testing is
particularly significant when the etiology of dyspnea is unclear.
Although lower values of BNP or NT-proBNP exclude the presence of HF and higher values have
reasonably high positive predictive value to diagnose HF, clinicians should be aware that elevated plasma levels
for both natriuretic peptides have been associated with a wide variety of cardiac and noncardiac causes (Table 8)
(268-271).
BNP and NT-proBNP levels improve with treatment of chronic HF (225, 272-274), with lowering of
levels over time in general, correlating with improved clinical outcomes (248, 251, 254, 260). Thus, BNP or
NT-proBNP “guided” therapy has been studied against standard care without natriuretic peptide measurement to
determine whether guided therapy renders superior achievement of GDMT in patients with HF. However, RCTs
have yielded inconsistent results.
The positive and negative natriuretic peptide−guided therapy trials differ primarily in their study
populations, with successful trials enrolling younger patients and only those with HFrEF. In addition, a lower
natriuretic peptide goal and/or a substantial reduction in natriuretic peptides during treatment are consistently
present in the positive “guided” therapy trials (275). Although most trials examining the strategy of biomarker
“guided” HF management were small and underpowered, 2 comprehensive meta-analyses concluded that BNPPage 30
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
guided therapy reduces all-cause mortality in patients with chronic HF compared with usual clinical care (231,
232), especially in patients <75 years of age. This survival benefit may be attributed to increased achievement of
GDMT. In some cases, BNP or NT-proBNP levels may not be easily modifiable. If the BNP or NT-proBNP
value does not fall after aggressive HF care, risk for death or hospitalization for HF is significant. On the other
hand, some patients with advanced HF have normal BNP or NT-proBNP levels or have falsely low BNP levels
because of obesity and HFpEF. All of these patients should still receive appropriate GDMT.
Table 8. Selected Causes of Elevated Natriuretic Peptide Concentrations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cardiac
Heart failure, including RV syndromes
Acute coronary syndrome
Heart muscle disease, including LVH
Valvular heart disease
Pericardial disease
Atrial fibrillation
Myocarditis
Cardiac surgery
Cardioversion
Noncardiac
Advancing age
Anemia
Renal failure
Pulmonary: obstructive sleep apnea, severe
pneumonia, pulmonary hypertension
Critical illness
Bacterial sepsis
Severe burns
Toxic-metabolic insults, including cancer
chemotherapy and envenomation
LVH indicates left ventricular hypertrophy; and RV, right ventricular.
6.3.2. Biomarkers of Myocardial Injury: Cardiac Troponin T or I
Abnormal concentrations of circulating cardiac troponin are found in patients with HF, often without obvious
myocardial ischemia and frequently in those without underlying CAD. This suggests ongoing myocyte injury or
necrosis in these patients (238-241, 276). In chronic HF, elaboration of cardiac troponins is associated with
impaired hemodynamics (238), progressive LV dysfunction (239), and increased mortality rates (238-241, 276).
Similarly, in patients with acute decompensated HF, elevated cardiac troponin levels are associated with worse
clinical outcomes and mortality (253, 257, 263); decrease in troponin levels over time with treatment is
associated with a better prognosis than persistent elevation in patients with chronic (239) or acute HF (277).
Given the tight association with ACS and troponin elevation as well as the link between MI and the
Page 31
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
development of acute HF (278), the measurement of troponin I or T should be routine in patients presenting with
acutely decompensated HF syndromes.
6.3.3. Other Emerging Biomarkers
Besides natriuretic peptides or troponins, multiple other biomarkers, including those reflecting inflammation,
oxidative stress, neurohormonal disarray, and myocardial and matrix remodeling, have been widely examined
for their prognostic value in HF. Biomarkers of myocardial fibrosis, soluble ST2 and galectin-3 are not only
predictive of hospitalization and death in patients with HF but also additive to natriuretic peptide levels in their
prognostic value. Markers of renal injury may also offer additional prognostic value because renal function or
injury may be involved in the pathogenesis, progression, decompensation, or complications in chronic or acute
decompensated HF (242-244, 264, 265, 279). Strategies that combine multiple biomarkers may ultimately prove
beneficial in guiding HF therapy in the future.
See Table 9 for a summary of recommendations from this section.
Table 9. Recommendations for Biomarkers in HF
Biomarker, Application
Setting
COR
LOE
References
I
A
(212, 217-223, 245-250)
Natriuretic peptides
Diagnosis or exclusion of HF
Prognosis of HF
Achieve GDMT
Guidance for acutely
decompensated HF therapy
Biomarkers of myocardial injury
Additive risk stratification
Ambulatory,
Acute
Ambulatory,
Acute
Ambulatory
I
A
IIa
B
(222, 224-229, 248, 251258)
(230-237)
Acute
IIb
C
(259, 260)
Acute,
Ambulatory
I
A
(238-244, 248, 253, 256267)
IIb
B
(238, 240-244, 280)
IIb
A
(248, 253, 256, 257, 261267)
Biomarkers of myocardial fibrosis
Ambulatory
Additive risk stratification
Acute
COR indicates Class of Recommendation; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; HF, heart failure; and LOE, Level
of Evidence.
6.4. Noninvasive Cardiac Imaging: Recommendations
See Table 10 for a summary of recommendations from this section.
Class I
1. Patients with suspected or new-onset HF, or those presenting with acute decompensated HF,
should undergo a chest x-ray to assess heart size and pulmonary congestion and to detect
Page 32
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
alternative cardiac, pulmonary, and other diseases that may cause or contribute to the patient’s
symptoms. (Level of Evidence: C)
2. A 2-dimensional echocardiogram with Doppler should be performed during initial evaluation of
patients presenting with HF to assess ventricular function, size, wall thickness, wall motion, and
valve function. (Level of Evidence: C)
3. Repeat measurement of EF and measurement of the severity of structural remodeling are useful
to provide information in patients with HF who have had a significant change in clinical status;
who have experienced or recovered from a clinical event; or who have received treatment,
including GDMT, that might have had a significant effect on cardiac function; or who may be
candidates for device therapy. (Level of Evidence: C)
Class IIa
1. Noninvasive imaging to detect myocardial ischemia and viability is reasonable in patients
presenting with de novo HF who have known CAD and no angina unless the patient is not eligible
for revascularization of any kind. (Level of Evidence: C)
2. Viability assessment is reasonable in select situations when planning revascularization in HF
patients with CAD (281-285). (Level of Evidence: B)
3. Radionuclide ventriculography or magnetic resonance imaging can be useful to assess LVEF and
volume when echocardiography is inadequate. (Level of Evidence: C)
4. Magnetic resonance imaging is reasonable when assessing myocardial infiltrative processes or
scar burden (286-288). (Level of Evidence: B)
Class III: No Benefit
1. Routine repeat measurement of LV function assessment in the absence of clinical status change or
treatment interventions should not be performed (289, 290). (Level of Evidence: B)
The chest x-ray is important for the evaluation of patients presenting with signs and symptoms of HF because it
assesses cardiomegaly and pulmonary congestion and may reveal alternative causes, cardiopulmonary or
otherwise, of the patient’s symptoms. Apart from congestion, however, other findings on chest x-ray are
associated with HF only in the context of clinical presentation. Cardiomegaly may be absent in HF. A chest xray may also show other cardiac chamber enlargement, increased pulmonary venous pressure, interstitial or
alveolar edema, valvular or pericardial calcification, or coexisting thoracic diseases. Considering its low
sensitivity and specificity, the chest x-ray should not be the sole determinant of the specific cause of HF.
Moreover, a supine chest x-ray has limited value in acute decompensated HF.
Although a complete history and physical examination are important first steps, the most useful
diagnostic test in the evaluation of patients with or at risk for HF (e.g., postacute MI) is a comprehensive 2dimensional echocardiogram; coupled with Doppler flow studies, the transthoracic echocardiogram can identify
abnormalities of myocardium, heart valves, and pericardium. Echocardiography can reveal subclinical HF and
predict risk of subsequent events (291-295). Use of echocardiograms in patients with suspected HF improves
disease identification and provision of appropriate medical care (296).
Echocardiographic evaluation should address whether LVEF is reduced, LV structure is abnormal, and
other structural abnormalities are present that could account for the clinical presentation. This information
should be quantified, including numerical estimates of EF measurement, ventricular dimensions, wall thickness,
Page 33
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
calculations of ventricular volumes, and evaluation of chamber geometry and regional wall motion.
Documentation of LVEF is an HF quality-of-care performance measure (297). Right ventricular size and
function as well as atrial size and dimensions should also be measured. All valves should be evaluated for
anatomic and flow abnormalities. Secondary changes, particularly the severity of mitral and tricuspid valve
insufficiency, should be determined. Noninvasive hemodynamic data constitute important additional
information. Mitral valve inflow pattern, pulmonary venous inflow pattern, and mitral annular velocity provide
data about LV filling and left atrial pressure. The tricuspid valve regurgitant gradient, coupled with
measurement of inferior vena cava diameter and its response during respiration, provides estimates of systolic
pulmonary artery pressure and central venous pressure. Many of these abnormalities are prognostically
important and can be present without manifest HF.
Serial echocardiographic evaluations are useful because evidence of cardiac reverse remodeling can
provide important information in patients who have had a change in clinical status or have experienced or
recovered from an event or treatment that affects cardiac function. However, the routine repeat assessment of
ventricular function in the absence of changing clinical status or a change in treatment intervention is not
indicated.
The preference for echocardiography as an imaging modality is due to its widespread availability and
lack of ionizing radiation; however, other imaging modalities may be of use. Magnetic resonance imaging
assesses LV volume and EF measurements at least as accurately as echocardiography. However, additional
information about myocardial perfusion, viability, and fibrosis from magnetic resonance imaging can help
identify HF etiology and assess prognosis (298). Magnetic resonance imaging provides high anatomical
resolution of all aspects of the heart and surrounding structure, leading to its recommended use in known or
suspected congenital heart diseases (5). Cardiac computed tomography can also provide accurate assessment of
cardiac structure and function, including the coronary arteries (299). An advantage of cardiac computed
tomography over echocardiography may be its ability to characterize the myocardium, but studies have yet to
demonstrate the importance of this factor. Reports of cardiac computed tomography in patients with suspected
HF are limited. Furthermore, both cardiac computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging lose
accuracy with high heart rates. Radionucleotide ventriculography may also be used for evaluation of cardiac
function when other tests are unavailable or inadequate. However, as a planar technique, radionuclide
ventriculography cannot directly assess valvular structure, function, or ventricular wall thickness; it may be
more useful for assessing LV volumes in patients with significant baseline wall motion abnormalities or
distorted geometry. Ventriculography is highly reproducible (300). Single photon emission computed
tomography or positron emission tomography scans are not primarily used to determine LV systolic global and
regional function unless these parameters are quantified from the resultant images during myocardial perfusion
and/or viability assessment (301, 302). Candidates for coronary revascularization who present with a high
suspicion for obstructive CAD should undergo coronary angiography. Stress nuclear imaging or
Page 34
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
echocardiography may be an acceptable option for assessing ischemia in patients presenting with HF who have
known CAD and no angina unless they are ineligible for revascularization (303). Although the results of the
STICH (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) trial have cast doubt on the role of myocardial viability
assessment to determine the mode of therapy (304), the data are nevertheless predictive of a positive outcome.
When these data are taken into consideration with multiple previous studies demonstrating the usefulness of
this approach (281-285), it becomes reasonable to recommend viability assessment when treating patients with
HFrEF who have known CAD (14).
Table 10. Recommendations for Noninvasive Cardiac Imaging
Recommendations
Patients with suspected, acute, or new-onset HF should undergo a chest xray
A 2-dimensional echocardiogram with Doppler should be performed for
initial evaluation of HF
Repeat measurement of EF is useful in patients with HF who have had a
significant change in clinical status or received treatment that might affect
cardiac function or for consideration of device therapy
Noninvasive imaging to detect myocardial ischemia and viability is
reasonable in HF and CAD
Viability assessment is reasonable before revascularization in HF patients
with CAD
Radionuclide ventriculography or MRI can be useful to assess LVEF and
volume
MRI is reasonable when assessing myocardial infiltration or scar
Routine repeat measurement of LV function assessment should not be
performed
COR
LOE
I
C
I
C
I
C
IIa
C
IIa
B
(281-285)
IIa
C
IIa
III: No
Benefit
B
(286-288)
B
(289, 290)
CAD indicates coronary artery disease; COR, Class of Recommendation; EF, ejection fraction; HF, heart failure; LOE,
Level of Evidence; LV, left ventricular; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; and MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.
See Online Data Supplement 9 for additional data on imaging−echocardiography.
6.5. Invasive Evaluation: Recommendations
See Table 11 for a summary of recommendations from this section.
Class I
1. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring with a pulmonary artery catheter should be performed to
guide therapy in patients who have respiratory distress or clinical evidence of impaired perfusion
in whom the adequacy or excess of intracardiac filling pressures cannot be determined from
clinical assessment. (Level of Evidence: C)
Class IIa
1. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring can be useful for carefully selected patients with acute HF
who have persistent symptoms despite empiric adjustment of standard therapies and
a. whose fluid status, perfusion, or systemic or pulmonary vascular resistance is uncertain;
Page 35
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
b. whose systolic pressure remains low, or is associated with symptoms, despite initial therapy;
c. whose renal function is worsening with therapy;
d. who require parenteral vasoactive agents; or
e. who may need consideration for MCS or transplantation. (Level of Evidence: C)
2. When ischemia may be contributing to HF, coronary arteriography is reasonable for patients
eligible for revascularization. (Level of Evidence: C)
3. Endomyocardial biopsy can be useful in patients presenting with HF when a specific diagnosis is
suspected that would influence therapy. (Level of Evidence: C)
Class III: No Benefit
1. Routine use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring is not recommended in normotensive patients
with acute decompensated HF and congestion with symptomatic response to diuretics and
vasodilators (305). (Level of Evidence: B)
Class III: Harm
1. Endomyocardial biopsy should not be performed in the routine evaluation of patients with HF.
(Level of Evidence: C)
6.5.1. Right-Heart Catheterization
There has been no established role for routine or periodic invasive hemodynamic measurements in the
management of HF. Most drugs used for the treatment of HF are prescribed on the basis of their ability to
improve symptoms or survival rather than their effect on hemodynamic variables. The initial and target doses of
these drugs are generally selected on the basis of controlled trial experience rather than changes produced in
cardiac output or pulmonary capillary wedge pressure. Hemodynamic monitoring is indicated in patients with
clinically indeterminate volume status and those refractory to initial therapy, particularly if intracardiac filling
pressures and cardiac output are unclear. Patients with clinically significant hypotension (systolic blood pressure
typically <90 mm Hg or symptomatic low systolic blood pressure) and/or worsening renal function during initial
therapy might also benefit from invasive hemodynamic measurements (305, 306). Patients being considered for
cardiac transplantation or placement of an MCS device are also candidates for complete right-heart
catheterization, including an assessment of pulmonary vascular resistance, a necessary part of the initial
transplantation evaluation. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring should be performed in patients with (1)
presumed cardiogenic shock requiring escalating pressor therapy and consideration of MCS; (2) severe clinical
decompensation in which therapy is limited by uncertain contributions of elevated filling pressures,
hypoperfusion, and vascular tone; (3) apparent dependence on intravenous inotropic infusions after initial
clinical improvement; or (4) persistent severe symptoms despite adjustment of recommended therapies. On the
other hand, routine use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring is not recommended in normotensive patients with
acute decompensated HF who have a symptomatic response to diuretics and vasodilators. This reinforces the
concept that right-heart catheterization is best reserved for those situations where a specific clinical or
therapeutic question needs to be addressed.
Page 36
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
6.5.2. Left-Heart Catheterization
Left-heart catheterization or coronary angiography is indicated for patients with HF and angina and may be
useful for those patients without angina but with LV dysfunction. Invasive coronary angiography should be used
in accordance with the ACCF/AHA coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary
intervention Guidelines (10, 12) (Table 2) and should only be performed in patients who are potentially eligible
for revascularization (307-309). In patients with known CAD and angina or with significant ischemia diagnosed
by ECG or noninvasive testing and impaired ventricular function, coronary angiography is indicated. Among
those without a prior diagnosis, CAD should be considered as a potential etiology of impaired LV function and
should be excluded wherever possible. Coronary angiography may be considered in these circumstances to
detect and localize large-vessel coronary obstructions. In patients in whom CAD has been excluded as the cause
of LV dysfunction, coronary angiography is generally not indicated unless a change in clinical status suggests
interim development of ischemic disease.
6.5.3. Endomyocardial Biopsy
Endomyocardial biopsy can be useful when seeking a specific diagnosis that would influence therapy, and
biopsy should thus be considered in patients with rapidly progressive clinical HF or worsening ventricular
dysfunction that persists despite appropriate medical therapy. Endomyocardial biopsy should also be considered
in patients suspected of having acute cardiac rejection status after heart transplantation or having myocardial
infiltrative processes. A specific example is to determine chemotherapy for primary cardiac amyloidosis.
Additional other indications for endomyocardial biopsy include in patients with rapidly progressive and
unexplained cardiomyopathy, those in whom active myocarditis, especially giant cell myocarditis, is being
considered (310). Routine endomyocardial biopsy is not recommended in all cases of HF, given limited
diagnostic yield and the risk of procedure-related complications.
Table 11. Recommendations for Invasive Evaluation
Recommendations
COR
LOE
I
C
IIa
C
IIa
C
Monitoring with a pulmonary artery catheter should be performed in patients
with respiratory distress or impaired systemic perfusion when clinical
assessment is inadequate
Invasive hemodynamic monitoring can be useful for carefully selected patients
with acute HF with persistent symptoms and/or when hemodynamics are
uncertain
When ischemia may be contributing to HF, coronary arteriography is reasonable
Endomyocardial biopsy can be useful in patients with HF when a specific
diagnosis is suspected that would influence therapy
Routine use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring is not recommended in
normotensive patients with acute HF
IIa
C
III: No
Benefit
B
(305)
Endomyocardial biopsy should not be performed in the routine evaluation of HF
III: Harm
C
COR indicates Class of Recommendation; HF, heart failure; and LOE, Level of Evidence.
Page 37
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
See Online Data Supplement 10 for additional data on biopsy.
7. Treatment of Stages A to D
7.1. Stage A: Recommendations
Class I
1. Hypertension and lipid disorders should be controlled in accordance with contemporary
guidelines to lower the risk of HF (27, 94, 311-314). (Level of Evidence: A)
2. Other conditions that may lead to or contribute to HF, such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, tobacco
use, and known cardiotoxic agents, should be controlled or avoided. (Level of Evidence: C)
7.1.1. Recognition and Treatment of Elevated Blood Pressure
The lifetime risk for development of hypertension is considerable and represents a major public health issue
(97). Elevated blood pressure is a major risk factor for the development of both HFpEF and HFrEF (91, 92), a
risk that extends across all age ranges. Long-term treatment of both systolic and diastolic hypertension has been
shown to reduce the risk of incident HF by approximately 50% (94, 311-314). Treatment of hypertension is
particularly beneficial in older patients (311). One trial of a diuretic-based program demonstrated a number
needed to treat of 52 to prevent 1 HF event in 2 years (311). In another study, elderly patients with a history or
ECG evidence of prior MI had a >80% risk reduction for incident HF with aggressive blood pressure control
(94). Given the robust outcomes with blood pressure reduction, clinicians should lower both systolic and
diastolic blood pressure in accordance with published guidelines (27).
Choice of antihypertensive therapy should also follow guidelines (27), with specific options tailored to
concomitant medical problems, such as diabetes mellitus or CAD. Diuretic-based antihypertensive therapy has
repeatedly been shown to prevent HF in a wide range of patients; ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and beta blockers are
also effective. Data are less clear for calcium antagonists and alpha blockers in reducing the risk for incident HF.
7.1.2. Treatment of Dyslipidemia and Vascular Risk
Patients with known atherosclerotic disease are likely to develop HF. Clinicians should seek to control vascular
risk factors in such patients according to guidelines (28). Aggressive treatment of hyperlipidemia with statins
reduces the likelihood of HF in at-risk patients (315, 316). Long-term treatment with ACE inhibitors in similar
patients may also decrease the risk of HF (314, 317).
7.1.3. Obesity and Diabetes Mellitus
Obesity and overweight have been repeatedly linked to an increased risk for HF (99, 318, 319). Presumably, the
link between obesity and risk for HF is explained by the clustering of risk factors for heart disease in those with
elevated BMI, (i.e., the metabolic syndrome). Similarly, insulin resistance, with or without diabetes mellitus, is
also an important risk factor for the development of HF (92, 320-323). Diabetes mellitus is an especially
important risk factor for women and may, in fact, triple the risk for developing HF (91, 324). Dysglycemia
Page 38
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
appears to be directly linked to risk, with HbA1c concentrations powerfully predicting incident HF. Those with
HbA1c >10.5% had a nearly 4-fold increase in the risk for HF compared with those with a value of <6.5%
(322). Current consensus advocates that clinicians should make every effort to control hyperglycemia, although
such control has not yet been shown to reduce the subsequent risk of HF. Additionally, standard therapies for
diabetes mellitus, such as use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs, can prevent the development of other risk factors for
HF, such as renal dysfunction (325, 326), and may themselves directly lower the likelihood of HF (327-329).
Although risk models for the development of incident HF in patients with diabetes mellitus have been developed
(323), their prospective use to reduce risk has not been validated. Despite the lack of supportive, prospective,
randomized data, consensus exists that risk factor recognition and modification are vital for the prevention of
HF among at-risk patients (e.g., obese patients or patients with diabetes mellitus).
7.1.4. Recognition and Control of Other Conditions That May Lead to HF
A substantial genetic risk exists in some patients for the development of HF. As noted in Section 6.1, obtaining a
3-generation family history of HF is recommended. Adequate therapy of AF is advisable, given a clear
association between uncontrolled heart rate and development of HF. Many therapeutic agents can exert
important cardiotoxic effects, with consequent risk for HF, and clinicians should be aware of such risk. For
example, cardiotoxic chemotherapy regimens and trastuzumab (particularly anthracycline based) may increase
the risk for HF in certain patients (330-332); it may be reasonable to evaluate those who are receiving (or who
have received) such agents for LV dysfunction. The use of advanced echocardiographic techniques or
biomarkers to identify increased HF risk in those receiving chemotherapy may be useful (333) but remain
unvalidated as yet.
Tobacco use is strongly associated with risk for incident HF (92, 320, 334), and patients should be
strongly advised about the hazards of smoking, with attendant efforts at quitting. Cocaine and amphetamines are
anecdotally but strongly associated with HF, and their avoidance is mandatory. Although it is recognized that
alcohol consumption is associated with subsequent development of HF (92, 139, 140), there is some uncertainty
about the amount of alcohol ingested and the likelihood of developing HF, and there may be sex differences as
well. Nevertheless, the heavy use of alcohol has repeatedly been associated with heightened risk for
development of HF. Therefore, patients should be counseled about their alcohol intake.
Although several epidemiological studies have revealed an independent link between risk for incident
HF and biomarkers such as natriuretic peptides (335, 336), highly sensitive troponin (337), and measures of
renal function such as creatinine, phosphorus, urinary albumin, or albumin-creatinine ratio (320, 323, 334, 336,
338-340), it remains unclear whether the risk for HF reflected by any of these biomarkers is modifiable.
Although routine screening with BNP before echocardiography may be a cost-effective strategy to identify highrisk patients (341), routine measurement of biomarkers in stage A patients is not yet justified.
Page 39
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
See Online Data Supplement 11 for additional data on stage A HF.
7.2. Stage B: Recommendations
See Table 12 for a summary of recommendations from this section.
Class I
1. In all patients with a recent or remote history of MI or ACS and reduced EF, ACE inhibitors
should be used to prevent symptomatic HF and reduce mortality (342-344). In patients intolerant
of ACE inhibitors, ARBs are appropriate unless contraindicated (314, 345). (Level of Evidence: A)
2. In all patients with a recent or remote history of MI or ACS and reduced EF, evidence-based beta
blockers should be used to reduce mortality (346-348). (Level of Evidence: B)
3. In all patients with a recent or remote history of MI or ACS, statins should be used to prevent
symptomatic HF and cardiovascular events (104, 349-354). (Level of Evidence: A)
4. In patients with structural cardiac abnormalities, including LV hypertrophy, in the absence of a
history of MI or ACS, blood pressure should be controlled in accordance with clinical practice
guidelines for hypertension to prevent symptomatic HF (27, 94, 311-313). (Level of Evidence: A)
5. ACE inhibitors should be used in all patients with a reduced EF to prevent symptomatic HF, even
if they do not have a history of MI (65, 344). (Level of Evidence: A)
6. Beta blockers should be used in all patients with a reduced EF to prevent symptomatic HF, even if
they do not have a history of MI. (Level of Evidence: C)
Class IIa
1. To prevent sudden death, placement of an ICD is reasonable in patients with asymptomatic
ischemic cardiomyopathy who are at least 40 days post-MI, have an LVEF of 30% or less, are on
appropriate medical therapy, and have reasonable expectation of survival with a good functional
status for more than 1 year (355). (Level of Evidence: B)
Class III: Harm
1. Nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers with negative inotropic effects may be harmful in
asymptomatic patients with low LVEF and no symptoms of HF after MI. (Level of Evidence: C)
Patients with reduced LVEF may not have HF symptoms and are most often identified during an evaluation for
another disorder (e.g., abnormal heart sounds, abnormal ECG, abnormal chest x-ray, hypertension or
hypotension, an arrhythmia, acute MI, or pulmonary or systemic thromboembolic event). However, the costeffectiveness of routine periodic population screening for asymptomatic reduced LVEF is not recommended at
this time. Echocardiographic evaluation should be performed in selected patients who are at high risk of reduced
LVEF (e.g., those with a strong family history of cardiomyopathy, long-standing hypertension, previous MI, or
those receiving cardiotoxic therapies). In addition, it should be acknowledged that many adults may have
asymptomatic valvular abnormalities or congenital heart lesions that if unrecognized could lead to the
development of clinical HF. Although these asymptomatic patients are in stage B as well, the management of
valvular and congenital heart disease is beyond the scope of this guideline.
Page 40
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
7.2.1. Management Strategies for Stage B
In general, all recommendations for patients with stage A HF also apply to those with stage B HF, particularly
with respect to control of blood pressure in the patient with LV hypertrophy (27, 94, 311, 312) and the
optimization of lipids with statins (349, 356). CAD is a major risk factor for the development of HF and a key
target for prevention of HF. The 5-year risk of developing HF after acute MI is 7% and 12% for men and
women, respectively; for men and women between the ages of 40 and 69 and those >70 years of age, the risk is
22% and 25%, respectively (51). Current evidence supports the use of ACE inhibitors and (to a lower level of
evidence) beta-blocker therapy to impede maladaptive LV remodeling in patients with stage B HF and low
LVEF to improve mortality and morbidity (344). At 3-year follow-up, those patients treated with ACE inhibitors
demonstrated combined endpoints of reduced hospitalization or death, a benefit that extended up to a 12-year
follow-up (65). ARBs are reasonable alternatives to ACE inhibitors. In 1 study, losartan reduced adverse
outcomes in a population with hypertension (357), and in another study of patients post-MI with low LVEF,
valsartan was equivalent to captopril (345). Data with beta blockers are less convincing in a population with
known CAD, although in 1 trial (346) carvedilol therapy in patients with stage B and low LVEF was associated
with a 31% relative risk reduction in adverse long-term outcomes. In patients with previously established
structural heart disease, the administration of agents known to have negative inotropic properties such as
nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers and certain antiarrhythmics should be avoided.
Elevations in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure are major risk factors for developing LV
hypertrophy, another form of stage B (91, 92). Although the magnitude of benefit varies with the trial selection
criteria, target blood pressure reduction, and HF criteria, effective hypertension treatment invariably reduces HF
events. Consequently, long-term treatment of both systolic and diastolic hypertension reduces the risk of moving
from stage A or B to stage C HF (93, 94, 311, 329). Several large controlled studies have uniformly
demonstrated that optimal blood pressure control decreases the risk of new HF by approximately 50% (96). It is
imperative that strategies to control hypertension be part of any effort to prevent HF.
Clinicians should lower both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in accordance with published
guidelines (27). Target levels of blood pressure lowering depend on major cardiovascular risk factors, (e.g.,
CAD, diabetes mellitus, or renal disease) (358). Thus, when an antihypertensive regimen is devised, optimal
control of blood pressure should remain the primary goal, with the choice of drugs determined by the
concomitant medical problems.
Diuretic-based antihypertensive therapy has been shown to prevent HF in a wide range of target
populations (359, 360). In refractory hypertensive patients, spironolactone (25 mg) should be considered as an
additional agent (27). Eplerenone, in synergy with enalapril, has also demonstrated reduction in LV mass (361).
ACE inhibitors and beta blockers are also effective in the prevention of HF (27). Nevertheless, neither
ACE inhibitors nor beta blockers as single therapies are superior to other antihypertensive drug classes,
including calcium channel blockers, in the reduction of all cardiovascular outcomes. However, in patients with
Page 41
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
type 2 diabetes mellitus, ACE inhibitors and ARBs significantly reduced the incidence of HF in patients (327329). In contrast, calcium channel blockers and alpha blockers were less effective in preventing the HF
syndrome, particularly in HFrEF (359).
The Framingham studies have shown a 60% increased risk of death in patients with asymptomatic low
LVEF compared with those with normal LVEF; almost half of these patients remained free of HF before their
death (62-65). MADIT-II (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II) (362) demonstrated a 31%
relative risk reduction in all-cause mortality in patients with post-MI with LVEF ≤30% receiving a prophylactic
ICD compared with standard of care (355). These findings provided justification for broad adoption of ICDs for
primary prevention of SCD in the post-MI setting with reduced LVEF, even in the absence of HF symptoms,
that is, patients in stage B HF.
Several other ACCF/AHA guidelines addressing the appropriate management of patients with stage
Bthose with cardiac structural abnormalities but no symptoms of HFare listed in Table 13.
Table 12. Recommendations for Treatment of Stage B HF
Recommendations
In patients with a history of MI and reduced EF, ACE
inhibitors or ARBs should be used to prevent HF
In patients with MI and reduced EF, evidence-based beta
blockers should be used to prevent HF
In patients with MI, statins should be used to prevent HF
Blood pressure should be controlled to prevent symptomatic
HF
ACE inhibitors should be used in all patients with a reduced
EF to prevent HF
Beta blockers should be used in all patients with a reduced EF
to prevent HF
An ICD is reasonable in patients with asymptomatic ischemic
cardiomyopathy who are at least 40 d post-MI, have an LVEF
≤30%, and on GDMT
Nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers may be
harmful in patients with low LVEF
COR
LOE
References
I
A
(314, 342-345)
I
B
(346-348)
I
A
I
A
(104, 349-354)
(27, 94, 311313)
I
A
(65, 344)
I
C
N/A
IIa
B
(355)
III: Harm
C
N/A
ACE indicates angiotensin-converting enzyme; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blocker; COR, Class of Recommendation; EF,
ejection fraction; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; HF, heart failure; ICD, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator;
LOE, Level of Evidence; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MI, myocardial infarction; and N/A, not available.
Table 13. Other ACCF/AHA Guidelines Addressing Patients With Stage B HF
Consideration
Patients with an acute MI who have not developed HF
symptoms treated according to GDMT
Coronary revascularization for patients without symptoms of
HF in accordance with GDMT
Valve replacement or repair for patients with hemodynamically
significant valvular stenosis or regurgitation and no symptoms
Page 42
Reference
2013 UA/NSTEMI Guideline (16)
2013 STEMI Guideline (15)
2011 PCI Guideline (12)
2011 CABG Guideline (10)
2012 SIHD Guideline (14)
2008 Focused Update incorporated into
the 2006 VHD Guideline (17)
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
of HF in accordance with GDMT
ACCF indicates American College of Cardiology Foundation; AHA, American Heart Association; CABG, coronary artery
bypass graft; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; HF, heart failure; MI, myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous
coronary intervention; SIHD, stable ischemic heart disease; STEMI, ST-elevation myocardial infarction; UA/NSTEMI,
unstable angina/non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction; and VHD, valvular heart disease.
See Online Data Supplement 12 for additional data on stage B HF.
7.3. Stage C
See Online Data Supplement 13 for additional data on stage C HF.
7.3.1. Nonpharmacological Interventions
7.3.1.1. Education: Recommendation
Class I
1. Patients with HF should receive specific education to facilitate HF self-care (363-368). (Level of
Evidence: B)
The self-care regimen for patients with HF is complex and multifaceted (363). Patients need to understand how
to monitor their symptoms and weight fluctuations, restrict their sodium intake, take their medications as
prescribed, and stay physically active. Education regarding these recommendations is necessary, albeit not
always sufficient, to significantly improve outcomes. After discharge, many patients with HF need disease
management programs, which are reviewed in Section 11.
A systematic review of 35 educational intervention studies for patients with HF demonstrated that
education improved knowledge, self-monitoring, medication adherence, time to hospitalization, and days in the
hospital (363). Patients who receive in-hospital education have higher knowledge scores at discharge and 1 year
later when compared with those who did not receive in-hospital education (364). Data have called into question
the survival benefit of discharge education (369, 370). However, prior data have suggested that discharge
education may result in fewer days of hospitalization, lower costs, and lower mortality rates within a 6-month
follow-up (365). Patients educated in all 6 categories of the HF core measures from The Joint Commission were
significantly less likely to be readmitted for any cause, including HF (366). Even a single home-based
educational intervention for patients and families has been shown to decrease emergency visits and unplanned
hospitalizations in adults with HF (367).
See Online Data Supplement 14 for additional data on patient nonadherence.
Page 43
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
7.3.1.2. Social Support
Social support is thought to buffer stress and promote treatment adherence and a healthy lifestyle (371). Most
studies examining the relationship between social support and hospitalization in adults with HF have found that
a lack of social support is associated with higher hospitalization rates (372, 373) and mortality risk (374, 375).
7.3.1.3. Sodium Restriction: Recommendation
Class IIa
1. Sodium restriction is reasonable for patients with symptomatic HF to reduce congestive
symptoms. (Level of Evidence: C)
Dietary sodium restriction is commonly recommended to patients with HF and is endorsed by many guidelines
(18, 376, 377). The data on which this recommendation is drawn upon, however, are modest, and variances in
protocols, fluid intake, measurement of sodium intake and compliance, and other clinical and therapeutic
characteristics among these studies make it challenging to compare data and draw definitive conclusions.
Observational data suggest an association between dietary sodium intake with fluid retention and risk for
hospitalization (378, 379). Other studies, however, have signaled a worsening neurohormonal profile with
sodium restriction in HF (380-390). Sodium homeostasis is altered in patients with HF as opposed to healthy
individuals, which may partially explain these trends. In most of these studies, patients were not receiving
GDMT; no study to date has evaluated the effects of sodium restriction on neurohormonal activation and
outcomes in optimally treated patients with HF. With the exception of 1 observational study that evaluated
patients with HFpEF (383), all other studies have focused on patients with HFrEF. These data are mostly from
white patients; when the differences in cardiovascular and renal pathophysiology among races are considered,
the effects of sodium restriction in nonwhite patients with HF cannot be ascertained from these studies. To make
this more complicated, the 3 RCTs that assessed outcomes with sodium restriction have all shown that lower
sodium intake is associated with worse outcomes in patients with HFrEF (384-386).
These limitations make it difficult to give precise recommendations about daily sodium intake and
whether it should vary with respect to the type of HF (e.g., HFrEF versus HFpEF), disease severity (e.g., NYHA
class), HF-related comorbidities (e.g., renal dysfunction), or other characteristics (e.g., age or race). Because of
the association between sodium intake and hypertension, LV hypertrophy, and cardiovascular disease, the AHA
recommendation for restriction of sodium to 1,500 mg/d appears to be appropriate for most patients with stage A
and B HF (387-392). However, for patients with stage C and D HF, currently there are insufficient data to
endorse any specific level of sodium intake. Because sodium intake is typically high (>4 g/d) in the general
population, clinicians should consider some degree (e.g., <3 g) of sodium restriction in patients with stage C and
D HF for symptom improvement.
Page 44
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
7.3.1.4. Treatment of Sleep Disorders: Recommendation
Class IIa
1. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) can be beneficial to increase LVEF and improve
functional status in patients with HF and sleep apnea (393-396). (Level of Evidence: B)
Sleep disorders are common in patients with HF. A study of adults with chronic HF treated with evidence-based
therapies found that 61% had either central or obstructive sleep apnea (397). Despite having less sleep time and
sleep efficiency compared with those without HF, patients with HF, including those with documented sleep
disorders, rarely report excessive daytime sleepiness (398). Thus, a high degree of suspicion for sleep disorders
should be maintained for these patients. The decision to refer a patient to a sleep study should be based on
clinical judgment.
The primary treatment for obstructive sleep apnea is nocturnal CPAP. In a major trial, CPAP for
obstructive sleep apnea was effective in decreasing the apnea−hypopnea index, improving nocturnal
oxygenation, increasing LVEF, lowering norepinephrine levels, and increasing the distance walked in 6 minutes;
these benefits were sustained for up to 2 years (394). Smaller studies suggest that CPAP can improve cardiac
function, sympathetic activity, and HRQOL in patients with HF and obstructive sleep apnea (395, 396).
See Online Data Supplement 15 for additional data on the treatment of sleep disorders.
7.3.1.5. Weight Loss
Obesity is defined as a BMI ≥30 kg/m2. Patients with HF who have a BMI between 30 and 35 kg/m2 have lower
mortality and hospitalization rates than those with a BMI in the normal range (99). Weight loss may reflect
cachexia caused by the higher total energy expenditure associated with HF compared with that of healthy
sedentary subjects (399). The diagnosis of cardiac cachexia independently predicts a worse prognosis (191). At
the other end of the continuum, morbidly obese patients may have worse outcomes compared with patients
within the normal weight range and those who are obese. A U-shaped distribution curve has been suggested in
which mortality is greatest in cachectic patients; lower in normal, overweight, and mildly obese patients; and
higher again in more severely obese patients (400).
Although there are anecdotal reports about symptomatic improvement after weight reduction in obese
patients with HF (401, 402), large-scale clinical trials on the role of weight loss in patients with HF with obesity
have not been performed. Because of reports of development of cardiomyopathy, sibutramine is contraindicated
in HF (403).
7.3.1.6. Activity, Exercise Prescription, and Cardiac Rehabilitation: Recommendations
Class I
Page 45
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
1. Exercise training (or regular physical activity) is recommended as safe and effective for patients
with HF who are able to participate to improve functional status (404-407). (Level of Evidence: A)
Class IIa
1. Cardiac rehabilitation can be useful in clinically stable patients with HF to improve functional
capacity, exercise duration, HRQOL, and mortality (404, 406-411). (Level of Evidence: B)
Exercise training in patients with HF is safe and has numerous benefits. Meta-analyses show that cardiac
rehabilitation reduces mortality; improves functional capacity, exercise duration, and HRQOL; and reduces
hospitalizations (409). Other benefits include improved endothelial function, blunted catecholamine spillover,
increased peripheral oxygen extraction, and reduced hospital admission (405, 407, 410, 411).
Many RCTs of exercise training in HF have been conducted, but the statistical power of most was low
(408). A major trial of exercise and HF randomly assigned 2,331 patients (mean EF, 25%; ischemic etiology,
52%) to either exercise training for 3 months versus usual care (406). In unadjusted analyses, there was no
significant difference at the end of the study in either total mortality or hospitalizations. When adjusted for
coronary heart disease risk factors, there was an 11% reduction in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease
mortality, or hospitalizations (p<0.03) in the exercise training group (406). A meta-analysis demonstrated
improved peak oxygen consumption and decreased all-cause mortality with exercise (409).
See Online Data Supplement 16 for additional data on cardiac exercise.
7.3.2. Pharmacological Treatment for Stage C HFrEF: Recommendations
Class I
1. Measures listed as Class I recommendations for patients in stages A and B are recommended where
appropriate for patients in stage C. (Levels of Evidence: A, B, and C as appropriate)
2. GDMT as depicted in Figure 1 should be the mainstay of pharmacological therapy for HFrEF (108,
343, 345, 346, 412-426). (Level of Evidence: A)
Figure 1. Stage C HFrEF: evidence-based, guideline-directed medical therapy.
Page 46
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
ACEI indicates angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blocker; HFrEF, heart failure with
reduced ejection fraction; Hydral-Nitrates, hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate; LOE, Level of Evidence; and NYHA, New
York Heart Association.
7.3.2.1. Diuretics: Recommendation
Class I
1. Diuretics are recommended in patients with HFrEF who have evidence of fluid retention, unless
contraindicated, to improve symptoms. (Level of Evidence: C)
Diuretics inhibit the reabsorption of sodium or chloride at specific sites in the renal tubules. Bumetanide,
furosemide, and torsemide act at the loop of Henle (thus, the term loop diuretics), whereas thiazides,
metolazone, and potassium-sparing agents (e.g., spironolactone) act in the distal portion of the tubule (427, 428).
Loop diuretics have emerged as the preferred diuretic agents for use in most patients with HF. Thiazide diuretics
Page 47
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
may be considered in hypertensive patients with HF and mild fluid retention because they confer more persistent
antihypertensive effects.
Controlled trials have demonstrated the ability of diuretic drugs to increase urinary sodium excretion
and decrease physical signs of fluid retention in patients with HF (429, 430). In intermediate-term studies,
diuretics have been shown to improve symptoms and exercise tolerance in patients with HF (431-433); however,
diuretic effects on morbidity and mortality are not known. Diuretics are the only drugs used for the treatment of
HF that can adequately control the fluid retention of HF. Appropriate use of diuretics is a key element in the
success of other drugs used for the treatment of HF. The use of inappropriately low doses of diuretics will result
in fluid retention. Conversely, the use of inappropriately high doses of diuretics will lead to volume contraction,
which can increase the risk of hypotension and renal insufficiency.
7.3.2.1.1. Diuretics: Selection of Patients
Diuretics should be prescribed to all patients who have evidence of, and to most patients with a prior history of,
fluid retention. Diuretics should generally be combined with an ACE inhibitor, beta blocker, and aldosterone
antagonist. Few patients with HF will be able to maintain target weight without the use of diuretics.
7.3.2.1.2. Diuretics: Initiation and Maintenance
The most commonly used loop diuretic for the treatment of HF is furosemide, but some patients respond more
favorably to other agents in this category (e.g., bumetanide, torsemide) because of their increased oral
bioavailability (434, 435). Table 14 lists oral diuretics recommended for use in the treatment of chronic HF. In
outpatients with HF, diuretic therapy is commonly initiated with low doses, and the dose is increased until urine
output increases and weight decreases, generally by 0.5 to 1.0 kg daily. Further increases in the dose or
frequency (i.e., twice-daily dosing) of diuretic administration may be required to maintain an active diuresis and
sustain weight loss. The ultimate goal of diuretic treatment is to eliminate clinical evidence of fluid retention.
Diuretics are generally combined with moderate dietary sodium restriction. Once fluid retention has resolved,
treatment with the diuretic should be maintained in some patients to prevent the recurrence of volume overload.
Patients are commonly prescribed a fixed dose of diuretic, but the dose of these drugs frequently may need
adjustment. In many cases, this adjustment can be accomplished by having patients record their weight each day
and adjusting the diuretic dosage if weight increases or decreases beyond a specified range. Patients may
become unresponsive to high doses of diuretic drugs if they consume large amounts of dietary sodium, are
taking agents that can block the effects of diuretics (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs],
including cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors) (436-438) or have a significant impairment of renal function or
perfusion (434). Diuretic resistance can generally be overcome by the intravenous administration of diuretics
(including the use of continuous infusions) (439) or combination of different diuretic classes (e.g., metolazone
with a loop diuretic) (440-443).
Page 48
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
7.3.2.1.3. Diuretics: Risks of Treatment
The principal adverse effects of diuretics include electrolyte and fluid depletion, as well as hypotension and
azotemia. Diuretics can cause the depletion of potassium and magnesium, which can predispose patients to
serious cardiac arrhythmias (444). The risk of electrolyte depletion is markedly enhanced when 2 diuretics are
used in combination.
Table 14. Oral Diuretics Recommended for Use in the Treatment of Chronic HF
Drug
Initial Daily Dose(s)
Loop diuretics
Bumetanide
0.5 to 1.0 mg once or twice
Furosemide
20 to 40 mg once or twice
Torsemide
10 to 20 mg once
Thiazide diuretics
Chlorothiazide
250 to 500 mg once or twice
Chlorthalidone
12.5 to 25.0 mg once
Hydrochlorothiazide
25 mg once or twice
Indapamide
2.5 mg once
Metolazone
2.5 mg once
Potassium-sparing diuretics*
Amiloride
5 mg once
Spironolactone
12.5 to 25.0 mg once
Triamterene
50 to 75 mg twice
Sequential nephron blockade
Metolazone
2.5 to 10.0 mg once plus loop diuretic
Hydrochlorothiazide
25 to 100 mg once or twice plus loop diuretic
Chlorothiazide (IV)
500 to 1,000 mg once plus loop diuretic
*Eplerenone, although also a diuretic, is primarily used in chronic HF.
†Higher doses may occasionally be used with close monitoring.
HF indicates heart failure; IV, intravenous; and N/A, not applicable.
Maximum Total
Daily Dose
Duration of
Action
10 mg
600 mg
200 mg
4 to 6 h
6 to 8 h
12 to 16 h
1,000 mg
100 mg
200 mg
5 mg
20 mg
6 to 12 h
24 to 72 h
6 to 12 h
36 h
12 to 24 h
20 mg
50 mg†
200 mg
24 h
1 to 3 h
7 to 9 h
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Online Data Supplement 17 for additional data on diuretics.
7.3.2.2. ACE Inhibitors: Recommendation
Class I
1. ACE inhibitors are recommended in patients with HFrEF and current or prior symptoms, unless
contraindicated, to reduce morbidity and mortality (343, 412-414). (Level of Evidence: A)
7.3.2.2.1. ACE Inhibitors: Selection of Patients
ACE inhibitors can reduce the risk of death and reduce hospitalization in HFrEF. The benefits of ACE inhibition
were seen in patients with mild, moderate, or severe symptoms of HF and in patients with or without CAD. ACE
inhibitors should be prescribed to all patients with HFrEF. Unless there is a contraindication, ACE inhibitors are
used together with a beta blocker. Patients should not be given an ACE inhibitor if they have experienced lifethreatening adverse reactions (i.e., angioedema) during previous medication exposure or if they are pregnant or
Page 49
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
plan to become pregnant. Clinicians should prescribe an ACE inhibitor with caution if the patient has very low
systemic blood pressures (systolic blood pressure <80 mm Hg), markedly increased serum levels of creatinine
(>3 mg/dL), bilateral renal artery stenosis, or elevated levels of serum potassium (>5.0 mEq/L).
7.3.2.2.2. ACE Inhibitors: Initiation and Maintenance
The available data suggest that there are no differences among available ACE inhibitors in their effects on
symptoms or survival (414). Treatment with an ACE inhibitor should be initiated at low doses (Table 15),
followed by gradual dose increments if lower doses have been well tolerated. Renal function and serum
potassium should be assessed within 1 to 2 weeks of initiation of therapy and periodically thereafter, especially
in patients with preexisting hypotension, hyponatremia, diabetes mellitus, azotemia, or in those taking potassium
supplements. In controlled clinical trials that were designed to evaluate survival, the dose of the ACE inhibitor
was not determined by a patient’s therapeutic response but was increased until the predetermined target dose
was reached (343, 413, 414). Clinicians should attempt to use doses that have been shown to reduce the risk of
cardiovascular events in clinical trials. If these target doses of an ACE inhibitor cannot be used or are poorly
tolerated, intermediate doses should be used with the expectation that there are likely to be only small
differences in efficacy between low and high doses. Abrupt withdrawal of treatment with an ACE inhibitor can
lead to clinical deterioration and should be avoided.
7.3.2.2.3. ACE Inhibitors: Risks of Treatment
The majority of the adverse reactions of ACE inhibitors can be attributed to the 2 principal pharmacological
actions of these drugs: those related to angiotensin suppression and those related to kinin potentiation. Other
types of adverse effects may also occur (e.g., rash and taste disturbances). Up to 20% of patients will experience
an ACE inhibitor−induced cough. With the use of ACE inhibitors, particular care should be given to the
patient’s volume status, renal function, and concomitant medications (Sections 7.3.2.1 and 7.3.2.9). However,
most HF patients (85% to 90%) can tolerate these drugs.
See Online Data Supplement 18 for additional data on ACE inhibitors.
Table 15. Drugs Commonly Used for Stage C HFrEF
Drug
Initial Daily Dose(s)
Maximum Dose(s)
Mean Doses Achieved in
Clinical Trials
ACE inhibitors
Captopril
Enalapril
Fosinopril
Lisinopril
6.25 mg 3 times
2.5 mg twice
5 to 10 mg once
2.5 to 5 mg once
50 mg 3 times
10 to 20 mg twice
40 mg once
20 to 40 mg once
Page 50
122.7 mg/d (422)
16.6 mg/d (413)
N/A
32.5 to 35.0 mg/d (445)
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Perindopril
Quinapril
Ramipril
Trandolapril
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 mg once
5 mg twice
1.25 to 2.5 mg once
1 mg once
8 to 16 mg once
20 mg twice
10 mg once
4 mg once
4 to 8 mg once
25 to 50 mg once
20 to 40 mg twice
32 mg once
50 to 150 mg once
160 mg twice
24 mg/d (420)
129 mg/d (421)
254 mg/d (108)
12.5 to 25.0 mg once
25 mg once
25 mg once or twice
50 mg once
26 mg/d (425)
42.6 mg/d (446)
ARBs
Candesartan
Losartan
Valsartan
Aldosterone antagonists
Spironolactone
Eplerenone
Beta blockers
Bisoprolol
1.25 mg once
10 mg once
8.6 mg/d (117)
Carvedilol
3.125 mg twice
50 mg twice
37 mg/d (447)
Carvedilol CR
10 mg once
80 mg once
N/A
Metoprolol succinate
extended release
12.5 to 25 mg once
200 mg once
159 mg/d (448)
(metoprolol CR/XL)
Hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate
37.5 mg hydralazine/
75 mg hydralazine/
Fixed-dose combination
~175 mg hydralazine/90 mg
20 mg isosorbide dinitrate 40 mg isosorbide
(424)
isosorbide dinitrate daily
3 times daily
dinitrate 3 times daily
Hydralazine and isosorbide Hydralazine: 25 to 50 mg, Hydralazine: 300 mg
dinitrate (449)
3 or 4 times daily and
daily in divided doses
isosorbide dinitrate:
and isosorbide dinitrate
N/A
20 to 30 mg
120 mg daily in divided
3 or 4 times daily
doses
ACE indicates angiotensin-converting enzyme; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blocker; CR, controlled release; CR/XL,
controlled release/extended release; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; and N/A, not applicable.
7.3.2.3. ARBs: Recommendations
Class I
1. ARBs are recommended in patients with HFrEF with current or prior symptoms who are ACE
inhibitor intolerant, unless contraindicated, to reduce morbidity and mortality (108, 345, 415,
450). (Level of Evidence: A)
Class IIa
1. ARBs are reasonable to reduce morbidity and mortality as alternatives to ACE inhibitors as firstline therapy for patients with HFrEF, especially for patients already taking ARBs for other
indications, unless contraindicated (451-456). (Level of Evidence: A)
Class llb
1. Addition of an ARB may be considered in persistently symptomatic patients with HFrEF who are
already being treated with an ACE inhibitor and a beta blocker in whom an aldosterone
antagonist is not indicated or tolerated (420, 457). (Level of Evidence: A)
Class III: Harm
Page 51
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
1. Routine combined use of an ACE inhibitor, ARB, and aldosterone antagonist is potentially
harmful for patients with HFrEF. (Level of Evidence: C)
ARBs were developed with the rationale that a) angiotensin II production continues in the presence of ACE
inhibition, driven through alternative enzyme pathways and b) interference with the renin-angiotensin system
without inhibition of kininase would produce all of the benefits of ACE inhibitors while minimizing the risk of
adverse reactions to them. However, it is now known that some of the benefits of ACE inhibitors may be related
to the accumulation of kinins rather than to the suppression of angiotensin II formation, whereas some of the
adverse effects of ACE inhibitors in HF are related to the suppression of angiotensin II formation.
In several placebo-controlled studies, long-term therapy with ARBs produced hemodynamic,
neurohormonal, and clinical effects consistent with those expected after interference with the renin-angiotensin
system. Reduced hospitalization and mortality have been demonstrated. ACE inhibitors remain the first choice
for inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system in systolic HF, but ARBs can now be considered a reasonable
alternative.
7.3.2.3.1. ARBs: Selection of Patients
ARBs are used in patients with HFrEF who are ACE inhibitor intolerant; an ACE-inhibition intolerance
primarily related to cough is the most common indication. In addition, an ARB may be used as an alternative to
an ACE inhibitor in patients who are already taking an ARB for another reason, such as hypertension, and who
subsequently develop HF. Angioedema occurs in <1% of patients who take an ACE inhibitor, but it occurs more
frequently in blacks. Because its occurrence may be life-threatening, clinical suspicion of this reaction justifies
the subsequent avoidance of all ACE inhibitors for the lifetime of the patient. ACE inhibitors should not be
initiated in any patient with a history of angioedema. Although ARBs may be considered as alternative therapy
for patients who have developed angioedema while taking an ACE inhibitor, there are some patients who have
also developed angioedema with ARBs, and caution is advised when substituting an ARB in a patient who has
had angioedema associated with use of an ACE inhibitor (458-461).
7.3.2.3.2. ARBs: Initiation and Maintenance
When used, ARBs should be initiated with the starting doses shown in Table 15. Many of the considerations
with initiation of an ARB are similar to those with initiation of an ACE inhibitor, as discussed previously. Blood
pressure (including postural blood pressure changes), renal function, and potassium should be reassessed within
1 to 2 weeks after initiation and followed closely after changes in dose. Patients with systolic blood pressure <80
mm Hg, low serum sodium, diabetes mellitus, and impaired renal function merit close surveillance during
therapy with inhibitors of the renin angiotensin-aldosterone system. Titration is generally achieved by doubling
doses. For stable patients, it is reasonable to add therapy with beta-blocking agents before full target doses of
either ACE inhibitors or ARBs are reached.
Page 52
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
7.3.2.3.3. ARBs: Risks of Treatment
The risks of ARBs are attributed to suppression of angiotensin stimulation. These risks of hypotension, renal
dysfunction, and hyperkalemia are greater when combined with another inhibitor of this neurohormonal axis,
such as ACE inhibitors or aldosterone antagonists.
See Online Data Supplement 19 for additional data on ARBs.
7.3.2.4. Beta Blockers: Recommendation
Class I
1. Use of 1 of the 3 beta blockers proven to reduce mortality (i.e., bisoprolol, carvedilol, and
sustained-release metoprolol succinate) is recommended for all patients with current or prior
symptoms of HFrEF, unless contraindicated, to reduce morbidity and mortality (346, 416-419,
448). (Level of Evidence: A)
Long-term treatment with beta blockers can lessen the symptoms of HF, improve the patient’s clinical status,
and enhance the patient’s overall sense of well-being (462-469). In addition, like ACE inhibitors, beta blockers
can reduce the risk of death and the combined risk of death or hospitalization (117, 447, 448, 470, 471). These
benefits of beta blockers were seen in patients with or without CAD and in patients with or without diabetes
mellitus, as well as in women and blacks. The favorable effects of beta blockers were also observed in patients
already taking ACE inhibitors.
Three beta blockers have been shown to be effective in reducing the risk of death in patients with
chronic HFrEF: bisoprolol and sustained-release metoprolol (succinate), which selectively block beta-1–
receptors; and carvedilol, which blocks alpha-1–, beta-1–, and beta-2–receptors. Positive findings with these 3
agents, however, should not be considered a beta-blocker class effect. Bucindolol lacked uniform effectiveness
across different populations, and short-acting metoprolol tartrate was less effective in HF clinical trials. Beta-1
selective blocker nebivolol demonstrated a modest reduction in the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or
cardiovascular hospitalization but did not affect mortality alone in an elderly population that included patients
with HFpEF (472).
7.3.2.4.1. Beta Blockers: Selection of Patients
Beta blockers should be prescribed to all patients with stable HFrEF unless they have a contraindication to their
use or are intolerant of these drugs. Because of its favorable effects on survival and disease progression, a
clinical trial−proven beta blocker should be initiated as soon as HFrEF is diagnosed. Even when symptoms are
mild or improve with other therapies, beta-blocker therapy is important and should not be delayed until
symptoms return or disease progression is documented. Therefore, even if patients have little disability and
Page 53
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
experience seemingly minimal symptomatic benefit, they should still be treated with a beta blocker to reduce the
risks of disease progression, clinical deterioration, and sudden death (117, 448, 469-471).
Patients need not take high doses of ACE inhibitors before initiation of beta-blocker therapy. In patients
taking a low dose of an ACE inhibitor, the addition of a beta blocker produces a greater improvement in
symptoms and reduction in the risk of death than does an increase in the dose of the ACE inhibitor, even to the
target doses used in clinical trials (445, 473). In patients with a current or recent history of fluid retention, beta
blockers should not be prescribed without diuretics, because diuretics are needed to maintain sodium and fluid
balance and prevent the exacerbation of fluid retention that can accompany the initiation of beta-blocker therapy
(474, 475). Beta blockers may be considered in patients who have reactive airway disease or asymptomatic
bradycardia but should be used cautiously in patients with persistent symptoms of either condition.
7.3.2.4.2. Beta Blockers: Initiation and Maintenance
Treatment with a beta blocker should be initiated at very low doses (Table 15), followed by gradual increments
in dose if lower doses have been well tolerated. Patients should be monitored closely for changes in vital signs
and symptoms during this uptitration period. Planned increments in the dose of a beta blocker should be delayed
until any adverse effects observed with lower doses have disappeared. When such a cautious approach was used,
most patients (approximately 85%) enrolled in clinical trials who received beta blockers were able to tolerate
short- and long-term treatment with these drugs and achieve the maximum planned trial dose (117, 447, 448,
470). Data show that beta blockers can be safely started before discharge even in patients hospitalized for HF,
provided they do not require intravenous inotropic therapy for HF (476). Clinicians should make every effort to
achieve the target doses of the beta blockers shown to be effective in major clinical trials. Even if symptoms do
not improve, long-term treatment should be maintained to reduce the risk of major clinical events. Abrupt
withdrawal of treatment with a beta blocker can lead to clinical deterioration and should be avoided (477).
7.3.2.4.3. Beta Blockers: Risks of Treatment
Initiation of treatment with a beta blocker may produce 4 types of adverse reactions that require attention and
management: fluid retention and worsening HF; fatigue; bradycardia or heart block; and hypotension. The
occurrence of fluid retention or worsening HF is not generally a reason for the permanent withdrawal of
treatment. Such patients generally respond favorably to intensification of conventional therapy, and once treated,
they remain excellent candidates for long-term treatment with a beta blocker. The slowing of heart rate and
cardiac conduction produced by beta blockers is generally asymptomatic and thus requires no treatment;
however, if the bradycardia is accompanied by dizziness or lightheadedness or if second- or third-degree heart
block occurs, clinicians should decrease the dose of the beta blocker. Clinicians may minimize the risk of
hypotension by administering the beta blocker and ACE inhibitor at different times during the day. Hypotensive
symptoms may also resolve after a decrease in the dose of diuretics in patients who are volume depleted. If
Page 54
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
hypotension is accompanied by other clinical evidence of hypoperfusion, beta-blocker therapy should be
decreased or discontinued pending further patient evaluation. The symptom of fatigue is multifactorial and is
perhaps the hardest symptom to address with confidence. Although fatigue may be related to beta blockers,
other causes of fatigue should be considered, including sleep apnea, overdiuresis, or depression.
See Online Data Supplement 20 for additional data on beta blockers.
7.3.2.5. Aldosterone Receptor Antagonists: Recommendations
Class I
1. Aldosterone receptor antagonists [or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists] are recommended in
patients with NYHA class II-IV and who have LVEF of 35% or less, unless contraindicated, to
reduce morbidity and mortality. Patients with NYHA class II should have a history of prior
cardiovascular hospitalization or elevated plasma natriuretic peptide levels to be considered for
aldosterone receptor antagonists. Creatinine should be 2.5 mg/dL or less in men or 2.0 mg/dL or
less in women (or estimated glomerular filtration rate >30 mL/min/1.73 m2), and potassium
should be less than 5.0 mEq/L. Careful monitoring of potassium, renal function, and diuretic
dosing should be performed at initiation and closely followed thereafter to minimize risk of
hyperkalemia and renal insufficiency (425, 426, 478). (Level of Evidence: A)
2. Aldosterone receptor antagonists are recommended to reduce morbidity and mortality following
an acute MI in patients who have LVEF of 40% or less who develop symptoms of HF or who have
a history of diabetes mellitus, unless contraindicated (446). (Level of Evidence: B)
Class III: Harm
1. Inappropriate use of aldosterone receptor antagonists is potentially harmful because of lifethreatening hyperkalemia or renal insufficiency when serum creatinine is more than 2.5 mg/dL in
men or more than 2.0 mg/dL in women (or estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73
m2), and/or potassium more than 5.0 mEq/L (479, 480). (Level of Evidence: B)
The landmark RALES trial (Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study) (425) showed a 30% reduction in allcause mortality as well as a reduced risk of SCD and HF hospitalizations with the use of spironolactone in
patients with chronic HFrEF and LVEF <35%. Eplerenone has been shown to reduce all-cause deaths,
cardiovascular deaths, or HF hospitalizations in a wider range of patients with HFrEF (426, 446).
7.3.2.5.1. Aldosterone Receptor Antagonists: Selection of Patients
Clinicians should strongly consider the addition of the aldosterone receptor antagonists spironolactone or
eplerenone for all patients with HFrEF who are already on ACE inhibitors (or ARBs) and beta blockers.
Although the entry criteria for the trials of aldosterone receptor antagonists excluded patients with a creatinine
>2.5 mg/dL, the majority of patients had much lower creatinine (95% of patients had creatinine ≤1.7 mg/dL)
(425, 426, 446). In contrast, one third of patients in EMPHASIS-HF (Eplerenone in Mild Patients
Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure) had an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <60
Page 55
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
mL/min/1.73m2 (426). Note also that the entry criteria for the EMPHASIS-HF trial were age of at least ≥55
years, NYHA class II symptoms, and an EF of no more than 30% (or, if >30% to 35%, a QRS duration of >130
ms on ECG). To minimize the risk of life-threatening hyperkalemia in euvolemic patients with HFrEF, patients
should have initial serum creatinine <2.5 mg/dL (or an estimated glomerular filtration rate >30 mL/min/1.73 m2)
without recent worsening and serum potassium <5.0 mEq/L without a history of severe hyperkalemia. Careful
patient selection and risk assessment with availability of close monitoring is essential in initiating the use of
aldosterone receptor antagonists.
7.3.2.5.2. Aldosterone Receptor Antagonists: Initiation and Maintenance
Spironolactone should be initiated at a dose of 12.5 to 25 mg daily, while eplerenone should be initiated at a
dose of 25 mg/d, increasing to 50 mg daily. For those with concerns of hyperkalemia or marginal renal function
(estimated glomerular filtration rate 30 to 49 mL/min/1.73 m2), an initial regimen of every-other-day dosing is
advised (Table 16). After initiation of aldosterone receptor antagonists, potassium supplementation should be
discontinued (or reduced and carefully monitored in those with a history of hypokalemia; Table 17), and patients
should be counseled to avoid foods high in potassium and NSAIDs. Potassium levels and renal function should
be rechecked within 2 to 3 days and again at 7 days after initiation of an aldosterone receptor antagonist.
Subsequent monitoring should be dictated by the general clinical stability of renal function and fluid status but
should occur at least monthly for the first 3 months and every 3 months thereafter. The addition or an increase in
dosage of ACE inhibitors or ARBs should trigger a new cycle of monitoring.
There are limited data to support or refute that spironolactone and eplerenone are interchangeable. The
perceived difference between eplerenone and spironolactone is the selectivity of aldosterone receptor
antagonism and not the effectiveness of blocking mineralocorticoid activity. In RALES, there was increased
incidence (10%) of gynecomastia or breast pain with use of spironolactone (a nonselective antagonist). The
incidence of these adverse events was <1% in EPHESUS (Eplerenone Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart
Failure Efficacy and Survival Study) and EMPHASIS-HF without any difference in adverse events between the
eplerenone and placebo (426, 446).
Table 16. Drug Dosing for Aldosterone Receptor Antagonists
Eplerenone
eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2)
≥50
30 to --49
≥50
25 mg once daily
25 mg once
every other day
12.5 to 25.0 mg once
daily
Initial dose
(only if K+ ≤5 mEq/L)
Spironolactone
Page 56
30 to 49
12.5 mg once
daily or every
other day
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Maintenance dose
(after 4 wk for K+ ≤5
mEq/L)*
50 mg once daily
25 mg once
daily
25 mg once or twice
daily
12.5 to 25.0 mg
once daily
*After dose initiation for K+, increase ≤6.0 mEq/L or worsening renal function, hold until K+ <5.0 mEq/L. Consider
restarting reduced dose after confirming resolution of hyperkalemia/renal insufficiency for at least 72 h.
eGFR indicates estimated glomerular filtration rate; and, K+, potassium.
Adapted from Butler et al. (481).
Table 17. Strategies to Minimize the Risk of Hyperkalemia in Patients Treated With Aldosterone
Antagonists
1.
Impaired renal function is a risk factor for hyperkalemia during treatment with aldosterone
antagonists. The risk of hyperkalemia increases progressively when serum creatinine is >1.6
mg/dL.* In elderly patients or others with low muscle mass in whom serum creatinine does not
accurately reflect glomerular filtration rate, determination that glomerular filtration rate or
creatinine clearance is >30 mL/min/1.73 m2 is recommended.
2.
Aldosterone antagonists would not ordinarily be initiated in patients with baseline serum
potassium >5.0 mEq/L.
3.
An initial dose of spironolactone of 12.5 mg or eplerenone 25 mg is typical, after which the dose
may be increased to spironolactone 25 mg or eplerenone 50 mg if appropriate.
4.
The risk of hyperkalemia is increased with concomitant use of higher doses of ACE inhibitors
(captopril ≥75 mg daily; enalapril or lisinopril ≥10 mg daily).
5.
In most circumstances, potassium supplements are discontinued or reduced when initiating
aldosterone antagonists.
6.
Close monitoring of serum potassium is required; potassium levels and renal function are most
typically checked in 3 d and at 1 wk after initiating therapy and at least monthly for the first 3 mo.
*Although the entry criteria for the trials of aldosterone antagonists included creatinine <2.5 mg/dL, the majority of patients
had much lower creatinine; in 1 trial (425), 95% of patients had creatinine ≤1.7 mg/dL.
ACE indicates angiotensin-converting enzyme.
7.3.2.5.3. Aldosterone Receptor Antagonists: Risks of Treatment
The major risk associated with use of aldosterone receptor antagonists is hyperkalemia due to inhibition of
potassium excretion, ranging from 2% to 5% in large clinical trials (425, 426, 446), to 24% to 36% in
population-based registries (479, 480). Routine triple combination of an ACE inhibitor, ARB, and aldosterone
receptor antagonist should be avoided.
The development of potassium levels >5.5 mEq/L (approximately 12% in EMPHASIS-HF (426))
should generally trigger discontinuation or dose reduction of the aldosterone receptor antagonist unless other
causes are identified. The development of worsening renal function should lead to careful evaluation of the
entire medical regimen and consideration for stopping the aldosterone receptor antagonist. Patients should be
instructed specifically to stop the aldosterone receptor antagonist during an episode of diarrhea or dehydration or
while loop diuretic therapy is interrupted.
Page 57
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
7.3.2.6. Hydralazine and Isosorbide Dinitrate: Recommendations
Class I
1. The combination of hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate is recommended to reduce morbidity and
mortality for patients self-described as African Americans with NYHA class III–IV HFrEF
receiving optimal therapy with ACE inhibitors and beta blockers, unless contraindicated (423,
424). (Level of Evidence: A)
Class IIa
1. A combination of hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate can be useful to reduce morbidity or
mortality in patients with current or prior symptomatic HFrEF who cannot be given an ACE
inhibitor or ARB because of drug intolerance, hypotension, or renal insufficiency, unless
contraindicated (449). (Level of Evidence: B)
In a large-scale trial that compared the vasodilator combination with placebo, the use of hydralazine and
isosorbide dinitrate reduced mortality but not hospitalizations in patients with HF treated with digoxin and
diuretics but not an ACE inhibitor or beta blocker (449). However, in 2 other trials that compared the vasodilator
combination with an ACE inhibitor, the ACE inhibitor produced more favorable effects on survival (412, 482).
A post hoc retrospective analysis of these vasodilator trials demonstrated particular efficacy of isosorbide
dinitrate and hydralazine in the African American cohort (423). In a subsequent trial, which was limited to
patients self-described as African American, the addition of a fixed-dose combination of hydralazine and
isosorbide dinitrate to standard therapy with an ACE inhibitor or ARB, a beta blocker, and an aldosterone
antagonist offered significant benefit (424).
7.3.2.6.1. Hydralazine and Isosorbide Dinitrate: Selection of Patients
The combination of hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate is recommended for African Americans with HFrEF
who remain symptomatic despite concomitant use of ACE inhibitors, beta blockers, and aldosterone antagonists.
Whether this benefit is evident in non−African Americans with HFrEF remains to be investigated. The
combination of hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate should not be used for the treatment of HFrEF in patients
who have no prior use of standard neurohumoral antagonist therapy and should not be substituted for ACE
inhibitor or ARB therapy in patients who are tolerating therapy without difficulty. Despite the lack of data with
the vasodilator combination in patients who are intolerant of ACE inhibitors or ARBs, the combined use of
hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate may be considered as a therapeutic option in such patients.
7.3.2.6.2. Hydralazine and Isosorbide Dinitrate: Initiation and Maintenance
Page 58
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
If the fixed-dose combination is available, the initial dose should be 1 tablet containing 37.5 mg of hydralazine
hydrochloride and 20 mg of isosorbide dinitrate 3 times daily. The dose can be increased to 2 tablets 3 times
daily for a total daily dose of 225 mg of hydralazine hydrochloride and 120 mg of isosorbide dinitrate. When the
2 drugs are used separately, both pills should be administered at least 3 times daily. Initial low doses of the
drugs given separately may be progressively increased to a goal similar to that achieved in the fixed-dose
combination trial (424).
7.3.2.6.3. Hydralazine and Isosorbide Dinitrate: Risks of Treatment
Adherence to this combination has generally been poor because of the large number of tablets required,
frequency of administration, and the high incidence of adverse reactions (412, 449). Frequent adverse effects
include headache, dizziness, and gastrointestinal complaints. Nevertheless, the benefit of these drugs can be
substantial and warrant a slower titration of the drugs to enhance tolerance of the therapy.
See Table 18 for a summary of the treatment benefit of GDMT in HFrEF.
Table 18. Medical Therapy for Stage C HFrEF: Magnitude of Benefit Demonstrated in RCTs
RR Reduction
in HF Hospitalizations
(%)
ACE inhibitor or ARB
17
26
31
Beta blocker
34
9
41
Aldosterone antagonist
30
6
35
Hydralazine/nitrate
43
7
33
ACE indicates angiotensin-converting enzyme; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blocker; GDMT, guideline-directed medical
therapy; HF, heart failure; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; NNT, number needed to treat; RCTs,
randomized controlled trials; and RR, relative risk.
Adapted with permission from Fonarow et al (483).
GDMT
RR Reduction in
Mortality (%)
NNT for Mortality Reduction
(Standardized to 36 mo)
7.3.2.7. Digoxin: Recommendation
Class IIa
1. Digoxin can be beneficial in patients with HFrEF, unless contraindicated, to decrease
hospitalizations for HF (484-491). (Level of Evidence: B)
Several placebo-controlled trials have shown that treatment with digoxin for 1 to 3 months can improve
symptoms, HRQOL, and exercise tolerance in patients with mild to moderate HF (485-491). These benefits have
been seen regardless of the underlying rhythm (normal sinus rhythm or AF), cause of HF (ischemic or
nonischemic cardiomyopathy), or concomitant therapy (with or without ACE inhibitors). In a long-term trial that
primarily enrolled patients with NYHA class II or III HF, treatment with digoxin for 2 to 5 years had no effect
on mortality but modestly reduced the combined risk of death and hospitalization (484).
Page 59
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
7.3.2.7.1. Digoxin: Selection of Patients
Clinicians may consider adding digoxin in patients with persistent symptoms of HFrEF during GDMT. Digoxin
may also be added to the initial regimen in patients with severe symptoms who have not yet responded
symptomatically during GDMT.
Alternatively, treatment with digoxin may be delayed until the patient’s response to GDMT has been
defined and may be used only in patients who remain symptomatic despite therapy with the neurohormonal
antagonists. If a patient is taking digoxin but not an ACE inhibitor or a beta blocker, treatment with digoxin
should not be withdrawn, but appropriate therapy with the neurohormonal antagonists should be instituted.
Digoxin is prescribed occasionally in patients with HF and AF, but beta blockers are usually more effective
when added to digoxin in controlling the ventricular response, particularly during exercise (492-495).
Patients should not be given digoxin if they have significant sinus or atrioventricular block unless the
block has been addressed with a permanent pacemaker. The drug should be used cautiously in patients taking
other drugs that can depress sinus or atrioventricular nodal function or affect digoxin levels (e.g., amiodarone or
a beta blocker), even though such patients usually tolerate digoxin without difficulty.
7.3.2.7.2. Digoxin: Initiation and Maintenance
Therapy with digoxin is commonly initiated and maintained at a dose of 0.125 to 0.25 mg daily. Low doses
(0.125 mg daily or every other day) should be used initially if the patient is >70 years of age, has impaired renal
function, or has a low lean body mass (496). Higher doses (e.g., digoxin 0.375 to 0.50 mg daily) are rarely used
or needed in the management of patients with HF. There is no reason to use loading doses of digoxin to initiate
therapy in patients with HF.
Doses of digoxin that achieve a plasma concentration of drug in the range of 0.5 to 0.9 ng/mL are
suggested, given the limited evidence currently available. There has been no prospective, randomized evaluation
of the relative efficacy or safety of different plasma concentrations of digoxin. Retrospective analysis of 2
studies of digoxin withdrawal found that prevention of worsening HF by digoxin at lower concentrations in
plasma (0.5 to 0.9 ng/mL) was as great as that achieved at higher concentrations (497, 498).
7.3.2.7.3. Digoxin: Risks of Treatment
When administered with attention to dose and factors that alter its metabolism, digoxin is well tolerated by most
patients with HF (499). The principal adverse reactions occur primarily when digoxin is administered in large
doses, especially in the elderly, but large doses are not necessary for clinical benefits (500-502). The major
adverse effects include cardiac arrhythmias (e.g., ectopic and re-entrant cardiac rhythms and heart block),
gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g., anorexia, nausea, and vomiting), and neurological complaints (e.g., visual
Page 60
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
disturbances, disorientation, and confusion). Overt digoxin toxicity is commonly associated with serum digoxin
levels >2 ng/mL.
However, toxicity may also occur with lower digoxin levels, especially if hypokalemia,
hypomagnesemia, or hypothyroidism coexists (503, 504). The concomitant use of clarithromycin, dronedarone,
erythromycin, amiodarone, itraconazole, cyclosporine, propafenone, verapamil, or quinidine can increase serum
digoxin concentrations and may increase the likelihood of digoxin toxicity (505-507). The dose of digoxin
should be reduced if treatment with these drugs is initiated. In addition, a low lean body mass and impaired renal
function can also elevate serum digoxin levels, which may explain the increased risk of digoxin toxicity in
elderly patients.
7.3.2.8. Other Drug Treatment
7.3.2.8.1. Anticoagulation: Recommendations
Class I
1. Patients with chronic HF with permanent/persistent/paroxysmal AF and an additional risk factor
for cardioembolic stroke (history of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, previous stroke or transient
ischemic attack, or ≥75 years of age) should receive chronic anticoagulant therapy* (508-514).
(Level of Evidence: A)
2. The selection of an anticoagulant agent (warfarin, dabigatran, apixaban, or rivaroxaban) for
permanent/persistent/paroxysmal AF should be individualized on the basis of risk factors, cost,
tolerability, patient preference, potential for drug interactions, and other clinical characteristics,
including time in the international normalized ratio therapeutic range if the patient has been
taking warfarin. (Level of Evidence: C)
Class IIa
1. Chronic anticoagulation is reasonable for patients with chronic HF who have
permanent/persistent/paroxysmal AF but are without an additional risk factor for cardioembolic
stroke* (509-511, 515-517). (Level of Evidence: B)
Class III: No Benefit
1. Anticoagulation is not recommended in patients with chronic HFrEF without AF, a prior
thromboembolic event, or a cardioembolic source (518-520). (Level of Evidence: B)
*In the absence of contraindications to anticoagulation.
Patients with chronic HFrEF are at an increased risk of thromboembolic events due to stasis of blood in dilated
hypokinetic cardiac chambers and in peripheral blood vessels (521, 522) and perhaps due to increased activity of
procoagulant factors (523). However, in large-scale studies, the risk of thromboembolism in clinically stable
patients has been low (1% to 3% per year), even in those with a very depressed EF and echocardiographic
evidence of intracardiac thrombi (524-528). These rates are sufficiently low to limit the detectable benefit of
anticoagulation in these patients.
Page 61
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
In several retrospective analyses, the risk of thromboembolic events was not lower in patients with HF
taking warfarin than in patients not treated with antithrombotic drugs (524, 526, 527). The use of warfarin was
associated with a reduction in major cardiovascular events and death in patients with HF in some studies but not
in others (518, 529, 530). An RCT that compared the outcome of patients with HFrEF assigned to aspirin,
warfarin, or clopidogrel was completed (519), but no therapy appeared to be superior. Another trial compared
aspirin with warfarin in patients with reduced LVEF, sinus rhythm, and no cardioembolic source and
demonstrated no difference in either the primary outcome of death, stroke, or intracerebral hemorrhage (520).
There was also no difference in the combined outcome of death, ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, MI,
or HF hospitalization. There was a significant increase in major bleeding with warfarin. Given that there is no
overall benefit of warfarin and an increased risk of bleeding, there is no compelling evidence to use warfarin or
aspirin in patients with HFrEF in the absence of a specific indication.
The efficacy of long-term warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with AF is well established.
However, the ACCF/AHA guidelines for chronic AF (6) recommend use of the CHADS2 [Congestive heart
failure, Hypertension, Age ≥75 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke/transient ischemic attack (doubled risk
weight)] score to assess patient risk for adverse outcomes before initiating anticoagulation therapy. More
recently, a revised score, CHADS2-VASc, has been suggested as more applicable to a wider range of patients
(531), but this revised score has not yet been fully studied in patients with HF. Regardless of whether patients
receive rhythm or rate control, anticoagulation is recommended for patients with HF and AF for stroke
prevention in the presence of at least 1 additional risk factor. For patients with HF and AF in the absence of
another cardioembolic risk factor, anticoagulation is reasonable.
Trials of newer oral anticoagulants have compared efficacy and safety with warfarin therapy rather than
placebo. Several new oral anticoagulants are now available, including the factor Xa inhibitors apixaban and
rivaroxaban and the direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran (508, 512-514). These drugs have few food and drug
interactions compared with warfarin and no need for routine coagulation monitoring or dose adjustment. The
fixed dosing together with fewer interactions may simplify patient management, particularly with the
polypharmacy commonly seen in HF. These drugs have a potential for an improved benefit–risk profile
compared with warfarin, which may increase their use in practice, especially in those at increased bleeding risk.
However, important adverse effects have been noted with these new anticoagulants, including gastrointestinal
distress, which may limit compliance. At present, there is no commercially available agent to reverse the effect
of these newer drugs. Trials comparing new anticoagulants with warfarin have enrolled >10,000 patients with
HF. As more detailed evaluations of the comparative benefits and risks of these newer agents in patients with
HF are still pending, the writing committee considered their use in patients with HF and nonvalvular AF as an
alternative to warfarin to be reasonable.
The benefit afforded by low-dose aspirin in patients with systolic HF but no previous MI or known
CAD (or specifically in patients proven free of CAD) remains unknown. A Cochrane review failed to find
Page 62
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
sufficient evidence to support its use (532). Retrospective and observational studies again had conflicting results
and used very different criteria to identify patients as nonischemic, with some demonstrating protection from
aspirin overall (532) or only in patients with more severe depression of systolic function (518), whereas others
found no benefit from aspirin (530). The high incidence of diabetes mellitus and hypertension in most HF
studies, combined with a failure to use objective methods to exclude CAD in enrolled patients, may leave this
question unanswered. Currently, data are insufficient to recommend aspirin for empiric primary prevention in
HF patients known to be free of atherosclerotic disease and without additional risk factors.
See Online Data Supplement 21 for additional data on anticoagulants.
7.3.2.8.2. Statins: Recommendation
Class III: No Benefit
1. Statins are not beneficial as adjunctive therapy when prescribed solely for the diagnosis of HF in
the absence of other indications for their use (533-538). (Level of Evidence: A)
Statin therapy has been broadly implicated in prevention of adverse cardiovascular events, including new-onset
HF. Originally designed to lower cholesterol in patients with cardiovascular disease, statins are increasingly
recognized for their favorable effects on inflammation, oxidative stress, and vascular performance. Several
observational and post hoc analyses from large clinical trials have implied that statin therapy may provide
clinical benefit to patients with HF (533-536). However, 2 large RCTs have demonstrated that rosuvastatin has
neutral effects on long-term outcomes in patients with chronic HFrEF when added to standard GDMT (537,
538). At present, statin therapy should not be prescribed primarily for the treatment of HF to improve clinical
outcomes.
See Online Data Supplement 22 for additional data on statin therapy.
7.3.2.8.3. Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Recommendation
Class IIa
1. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplementation is reasonable to use as adjunctive
therapy in patients with NYHA class II-IV symptoms and HFrEF or HFpEF, unless
contraindicated, to reduce mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations (539, 540). (Level of
Evidence B)
Supplementation with omega-3 PUFA has been evaluated as an adjunctive therapy for cardiovascular disease
and HF (541). Trials in primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease showed that omega-3 PUFA
supplementation results in a 10% to 20% risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events. The GISSI
(Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto miocardico ) Prevenzione trial demonstrated a
21% reduction in death among post-MI patients taking 1 g of omega-3 PUFA (850 to 882 mg of
Page 63
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA] as ethyl esters in the ratio of 1:1.2) (542). Post
hoc subgroup analysis revealed that this reduction in mortality and SCD was concentrated in the approximately
2,000 patients with reduced LVEF (539). The GISSI-HF investigators randomized 6,975 patients in NYHA
class II–IV chronic HF to 1 g daily of omega-3 PUFA (850 to 882 mg EPA/DHA) or matching placebo. Death
from any cause was reduced from 29% with placebo to 27% in those treated with omega-3 PUFA (540). The
outcome of death or admission to hospital for a cardiovascular event was also significantly reduced. In reported
studies, this therapy has been safe and very well tolerated (540-543). Further investigations are needed to better
define optimal dosing and formulation of omega-3 PUFA supplements. The use of omega-3 PUFA
supplementation is reasonable as adjunctive therapy in patients with chronic HF.
See Online Data Supplement 23 for additional data on omega-3 fatty acids.
7.3.2.9. Drugs of Unproven Value or That May Worsen HF: Recommendations
Class III: No Benefit
1. Nutritional supplements as treatment for HF are not recommended in patients with current or
prior symptoms of HFrEF (544, 545). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Hormonal therapies other than to correct deficiencies are not recommended for patients with
current or prior symptoms of HFrEF. (Level of Evidence: C)
Class III: Harm
1. Drugs known to adversely affect the clinical status of patients with current or prior symptoms of
HFrEF are potentially harmful and should be avoided or withdrawn whenever possible (e.g., most
antiarrhythmic drugs, most calcium channel blocking drugs (except amlodipine), NSAIDs, or
thiazolidinediones) (546-557). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Long-term use of infused positive inotropic drugs is potentially harmful for patients with HFrEF,
except as palliation for patients with end-stage disease who cannot be stabilized with standard
medical treatment (see recommendations for stage D). (Level of Evidence: C)
7.3.2.9.1. Nutritional Supplements and Hormonal Therapies
Patients with HF, particularly those treated with diuretics, may become deficient in vitamins and micronutrients.
Several nutritional supplements (e.g., coenzyme Q10, carnitine, taurine, and antioxidants) and hormonal
therapies (e.g., growth hormone or thyroid hormone) have been proposed for the treatment of HF (558-563).
Testosterone has also been evaluated for its beneficial effect in HF with modest albeit preliminary effects (564).
Aside from replenishment of documented deficiencies, published data have failed to demonstrate benefit for
routine vitamin, nutritional, or hormonal supplementation (565). In most data or other literature regarding
nutraceuticals, there are issues, including outcomes analyses, adverse effects, and drug-nutraceutical
interactions, that remain unresolved.
No clinical trials have demonstrated improved survival rates with use of nutritional or hormonal
therapy, with the exception of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation as previously noted. Some studies have
suggested a possible effect for coenzyme Q10 in reduced hospitalization rates, dyspnea, and edema in patients
Page 64
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
with HF, but these benefits have not been seen uniformly (566-569). Because of possible adverse effects and
drug interactions of nutritional supplements and their widespread use, clinicians caring for patients with HF
should routinely inquire about their use. Until more data are available, nutritional supplements or hormonal
therapies are not recommended for the treatment of HF.
7.3.2.9.2. Antiarrhythmic Agents
With atrial and ventricular arrhythmias contributing to the morbidity and mortality of HF, various classes of
antiarrhythmic agents have been repeatedly studied in large RCTs. Instead of conferring survival benefit,
however, nearly all antiarrhythmic agents increase mortality in the HF population (548-550). Most
antiarrhythmics have some negative inotropic effect and some, particularly the class I and class III
antiarrhythmic drugs, have proarrhythmic effects. Hence, class I sodium channel antagonists and the class III
potassium channel blockers d-sotalol and dronedarone should be avoided in patients with HF. Amiodarone and
dofetilide are the only antiarrhythmic agents to have neutral effects on mortality in clinical trials of patients
with HF and thus are the preferred drugs for treating arrhythmias in this patient group (570-573).
See Online Data Supplement 24 for additional data on antiarrhythmic agents.
7.3.2.9.3. Calcium Channel Blockers: Recommendation
Class III: No Benefit
1. Calcium channel blocking drugs are not recommended as routine treatment for patients with
HFrEF (551, 574, 575). (Level of Evidence: A)
By reducing peripheral vasoconstriction and LV afterload, calcium channel blockers were thought to have a
potential role in the management of chronic HF. However, first-generation dihydropyridine and
nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers also have myocardial depressant activity. Several clinical trials
have demonstrated either no clinical benefit or even worse outcomes in patients with HF treated with these
drugs (546, 547, 551-553). Despite their greater selectivity for calcium channels in vascular smooth muscle
cells, second-generation calcium channel blockers, dihydropyridine derivatives such as amlodipine and
felodipine, have failed to demonstrate any functional or survival benefit in patients with HF (575-579).
Amlodipine, however, may be considered in the management of hypertension or ischemic heart disease in
patients with HF because it is generally well tolerated and had neutral effects on morbidity and mortality in large
RCTs. In general, calcium channel blockers should be avoided in patients with HFrEF.
See Online Data Supplement 25 for additional data on calcium channel blockers.
Page 65
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
7.3.2.9.4. Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs
NSAIDs inhibit the synthesis of renal prostaglandins, which mediate vasodilation in the kidneys and directly
inhibit sodium resorption in the thick ascending loop of Henle and collecting tubule. Hence, NSAIDs can cause
sodium and water retention and blunt the effects of diuretics. Several observational cohort studies have revealed
increased morbidity and mortality in patients with HF using either nonselective or selective NSAIDs (554-556,
580-582).
See Online Data Supplement 26 for additional data on NSAIDs.
7.3.2.9.5. Thiazolidinediones
Thiazolidinediones increase insulin sensitivity by activating nuclear peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor
gamma. Expressed in virtually all tissues, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma also regulates
sodium reabsorption in the collecting ducts of the kidney. In clinical trials, thiazolidinediones have been
associated with increased incidence of HF events, even in those without any prior history of clinical HF (557,
583-588).
See Table 19 for a summary of recommendations from this section and Table 20 for strategies for achieving
optimal GDMT; see Online Data Supplement 27 for additional data on thiazolidinediones.
Table 19. Recommendations for Pharmacological Therapy for Management of Stage C HFrEF
Recommendation
COR
LOE
References
Diuretics
Diuretics are recommended in patients with HFrEF with fluid
I
C
N/A
retention
ACE inhibitors
(343, 412ACE inhibitors are recommended for all patients with HFrEF
I
A
414)
ARBs
ARBs are recommended in patients with HFrEF who are ACE
(108, 345,
I
A
inhibitor intolerant
415, 450)
ARBs are reasonable as alternatives to ACE inhibitors as first-line
IIa
A
(451-456)
therapy in HFrEF
Addition of an ARB may be considered in persistently
symptomatic patients with HFrEF on GDMT
Routine combined use of an ACE inhibitor, ARB, and aldosterone
antagonist is potentially harmful
Beta blockers
Use of 1 of the 3 beta blockers proven to reduce mortality is
recommended for all stable patients
Aldosterone receptor antagonists
Aldosterone receptor antagonists are recommended in patients
Page 66
IIb
A
(420, 457)
III: Harm
C
N/A
I
A
(346, 416-419,
448)
I
A
(425, 426,
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
with NYHA class II-IV who have LVEF ≤35%
Aldosterone receptor antagonists are recommended following an
acute MI who have LVEF ≤40% with symptoms of HF or DM
Inappropriate use of aldosterone receptor antagonists may be
harmful
Hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate
The combination of hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate is
recommended for African Americans with NYHA class III–IV
HFrEF on GDMT
A combination of hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate can be
useful in patients with HFrEF who cannot be given ACE inhibitors
or ARBs
Digoxin
Digoxin can be beneficial in patients with HFrEF
478)
I
B
(446)
III: Harm
B
(479, 480)
I
A
(423, 424)
IIa
B
(449)
IIa
B
(484-491)
I
A
(508-514)
I
C
N/A
IIa
B
(509-511,
515-517)
III: No
Benefit
B
(518-520)
III: No
Benefit
A
(533-538)
IIa
B
(539, 540)
B
(544, 545)
C
N/A
III: Harm
B
(546-557)
III: Harm
C
N/A
III: No
Benefit
A
(551, 574,
575)
Anticoagulation
Patients with chronic HF with permanent/persistent/paroxysmal
AF and an additional risk factor for cardioembolic stroke should
receive chronic anticoagulant therapy*
The selection of an anticoagulant agent should be individualized
Chronic anticoagulation is reasonable for patients with chronic HF
who have permanent/persistent/paroxysmal AF but are without an
additional risk factor for cardioembolic stroke*
Anticoagulation is not recommended in patients with chronic
HFrEF without AF, a prior thromboembolic event, or a
cardioembolic source
Statins
Statins are not beneficial as adjunctive therapy when prescribed
solely for HF
Omega-3 fatty acids
Omega-3 PUFA supplementation is reasonable to use as
adjunctive therapy in HFrEF or HFpEF patients
Other drugs
Nutritional supplements as treatment for HF are not recommended
in HFrEF
Hormonal therapies other than to correct deficiencies are not
recommended in HFrEF
Drugs known to adversely affect the clinical status of patients with
HFrEF are potentially harmful and should be avoided or
withdrawn
Long-term use of an infusion of a positive inotropic drug is not
recommended and may be harmful except as palliation
Calcium channel blockers
Calcium channel blocking drugs are not recommended as routine
treatment in HFrEF
III: No
Benefit
III: No
Benefit
*In the absence of contraindications to anticoagulation.
ACE indicates angiotensin-converting enzyme; AF, atrial fibrillation; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blocker; COR, Class of
Recommendation; DM, diabetes mellitus; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; HF, heart failure; HFpEF, heart
failure with preserved ejection fraction; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; LOE, Level of Evidence;
Page 67
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MI, myocardial infarction; N/A, not available; NYHA, New York Heart
Association; and PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids.
Table 20. Strategies for Achieving Optimal GDMT
1. Uptitrate in small increments to the recommended target dose or the highest tolerated dose for those medications listed
in Table 15 with an appreciation that some patients cannot tolerate the full recommended doses of all medications,
particularly patients with low baseline heart rate or blood pressure or with a tendency to postural symptoms.
2. Certain patients (e.g., the elderly, patients with chronic kidney disease) may require more frequent visits and
laboratory monitoring during dose titration and more gradual dose changes. However, such vulnerable patients may
accrue considerable benefits from GDMT. Inability to tolerate optimal doses of GDMT may change after diseasemodifying interventions such as CRT.
3. Monitor vital signs closely before and during uptitration, including postural changes in blood pressure or heart rate,
particularly in patients with orthostatic symptoms, bradycardia, and/or “low” systolic blood pressure (e.g., 80 to 100
mm Hg).
4. Alternate adjustments of different medication classes (especially ACE inhibitors/ARBs and beta blockers) listed in
Table 15. Patients with elevated or normal blood pressure and heart rate may tolerate faster incremental increases in
dosages.
5. Monitor renal function and electrolytes for rising creatinine and hyperkalemia, recognizing that an initial rise in
creatinine may be expected and does not necessarily require discontinuation of therapy; discuss tolerable levels of
creatinine above baseline with a nephrologist if necessary.
6. Patients may complain of symptoms of fatigue and weakness with dosage increases; in the absence of instability in
vital signs, reassure them that these symptoms are often transient and usually resolve within a few days of these
changes in therapy.
7. Discourage sudden spontaneous discontinuation of GDMT medications by the patient and/or other clinicians without
discussion with managing clinicians.
8. Carefully review doses of other medications for HF symptom control (e.g., diuretics, nitrates) during uptitration.
9. Consider temporary adjustments in dosages of GDMT during acute episodes of noncardiac illnesses (e.g., respiratory
infections, risk of dehydration, etc.).
10. Educate patients, family members, and other clinicians about the expected benefits of achieving GDMT, including an
understanding of the potential benefits of myocardial reverse remodeling, increased survival, and improved functional
status and HRQOL.
ACE indicates angiotensin-converting enzyme; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blocker; CRT, cardiac resynchronization
therapy; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; and HRQOL, health-related quality of life.
7.3.3. Pharmacological Treatment for Stage C HFpEF: Recommendations
See Table 21 for a summary of recommendations from this section.
Class I
1. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure should be controlled in patients with HFpEF in accordance
with published clinical practice guidelines to prevent morbidity (27, 91). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Diuretics should be used for relief of symptoms due to volume overload in patients with HFpEF.
(Level of Evidence: C)
Class IIa
1. Coronary revascularization is reasonable in patients with CAD in whom symptoms (angina) or
demonstrable myocardial ischemia is judged to be having an adverse effect on symptomatic
HFpEF despite GDMT. (Level of Evidence: C)
2. Management of AF according to published clinical practice guidelines in patients with HFpEF is
reasonable to improve symptomatic HF (Section 9.1). (Level of Evidence: C)
3. The use of beta-blocking agents, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs in patients with hypertension is
reasonable to control blood pressure in patients with HFpEF. (Level of Evidence: C)
Page 68
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Class IIb
1. The use of ARBs might be considered to decrease hospitalizations for patients with HFpEF (589).
(Level of Evidence: B)
Class III: No Benefit
1. Routine use of nutritional supplements is not recommended for patients with HFpEF. (Level of
Evidence: C)
Trials using comparable and efficacious agents for HFrEF have generally been disappointing (590). Thus, most
of the recommended therapies for HFpEF are directed at symptoms, especially comorbidities, and risk factors
that may worsen cardiovascular disease.
Blood pressure control concordant with existing hypertension guidelines remains the most important
recommendation in patients with HFpEF. Evidence from an RCT has shown that improved blood pressure
control reduces hospitalization for HF (591), decreases cardiovascular events, and reduces HF mortality in
patients without prevalent HF (311). In hypertensive patients with HFpEF, aggressive treatment (often with
several drugs with complementary mechanisms of action) is recommended. ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs are
often considered as first-line agents. Specific blood pressure targets in HFpEF have not been firmly established;
thus, the recommended targets are those used for general hypertensive populations.
CAD is common in patients with HFpEF (592); however, there are no studies to determine the impact of
revascularization on symptoms or outcomes specifically in patients with HFpEF. In general, contemporary
revascularization guidelines (10, 12) should be used in the care of patients with HFpEF and concomitant CAD.
Specific to this population, it might be reasonable to consider revascularization in patients for whom ischemia
appears to contribute to HF symptoms, although this determination can be difficult.
Theoretical mechanisms for the worsening of HF symptoms by AF among patients with HFpEF include
shortened diastolic filling time with tachycardia and the loss of atrial contribution to LV diastolic filling.
Conversely, chronotropic incompetence is also a concern. Slowing the heart rate is useful in tachycardia but not
in normal resting heart rate; a slow heart rate prolongs diastasis and worsens chronotropic incompetence.
Currently, there are no specific trials of rate versus rhythm control in HFpEF.
Table 21. Recommendations for Treatment of HFpEF
Recommendation
COR
Systolic and diastolic blood pressure should be controlled according to
published clinical practice guidelines
Diuretics should be used for relief of symptoms due to volume overload.
Coronary revascularization for patients with CAD in whom angina or
demonstrable myocardial ischemia is present despite GDMT
Management of AF according to published clinical practice guidelines for
HFpEF to improve symptomatic HF
Use of beta-blocking agents, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs for hypertension in
HFpEF
Page 69
I
LOE
B
(27, 91)
I
IIa
C
IIa
C
IIa
C
C
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
ARBs might be considered to decrease hospitalizations in HFpEF
Nutritional supplementation is not recommended in HFpEF
IIb
III: No
Benefit
B
(589)
C
ACE indicates angiotensin-converting enzyme; AF, atrial fibrillation; ARBs, angiotensin-receptor blockers; CAD, coronary
artery disease; COR, Class of Recommendation; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; HF, heart failure; HFpEF,
heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; and LOE, Level of Evidence.
7.3.4. Device Therapy for Stage C HFrEF: Recommendations
See Table 22 for a summary of recommendations from this section.
Class I
1. ICD therapy is recommended for primary prevention of SCD to reduce total mortality in selected
patients with nonischemic DCM or ischemic heart disease at least 40 days post-MI with LVEF of
35% or less and NYHA class II or III symptoms on chronic GDMT, who have reasonable
expectation of meaningful survival for more than 1 year (355, 593). (Level of Evidence: A)*
2. CRT is indicated for patients who have LVEF of 35% or less, sinus rhythm, left bundle-branch
block (LBBB) with a QRS duration of 150 ms or greater, and NYHA class II, III, or ambulatory
IV symptoms on GDMT. (Level of Evidence: A for NYHA class III/IV (38, 78, 116, 594); Level of
Evidence: B for NYHA class II (595, 596))
3. ICD therapy is recommended for primary prevention of SCD to reduce total mortality in selected
patients at least 40 days post-MI with LVEF of 30% or less, and NYHA class I symptoms while
receiving GDMT, who have reasonable expectation of meaningful survival for more than 1 year
(362, 597, 598). (Level of Evidence: B)*
Class IIa
1. CRT can be useful for patients who have LVEF of 35% or less, sinus rhythm, a non-LBBB
pattern with a QRS duration of 150 ms or greater, and NYHA class III/ambulatory class IV
symptoms on GDMT (78, 116, 594, 596). (Level of Evidence: A)
2. CRT can be useful for patients who have LVEF of 35% or less, sinus rhythm, LBBB with a QRS
duration of 120 to 149 ms, and NYHA class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms on GDMT (78,
116, 594-596, 599). (Level of Evidence: B)
3. CRT can be useful in patients with AF and LVEF of 35% or less on GDMT if a) the patient
requires ventricular pacing or otherwise meets CRT criteria and b) atrioventricular nodal
ablation or pharmacological rate control will allow near 100% ventricular pacing with CRT (600605). (Level of Evidence: B)
4. CRT can be useful for patients on GDMT who have LVEF of 35% or less, and are undergoing
placement of a new or replacement device with anticipated requirement for significant (>40%)
ventricular pacing (155, 602, 606, 607). (Level of Evidence: C)
Class IIb
1. The usefulness of implantation of an ICD is of uncertain benefit to prolong meaningful survival in
patients with a high risk of nonsudden death as predicted by frequent hospitalizations, advanced
frailty, or comorbidities such as systemic malignancy or severe renal dysfunction (608-611). (Level
of Evidence: B)*
2. CRT may be considered for patients who have LVEF of 35% or less, sinus rhythm, a non-LBBB
pattern with QRS duration of 120 to 149 ms, and NYHA class III/ambulatory class IV on GDMT
(596, 612). (Level of Evidence: B)
3. CRT may be considered for patients who have LVEF of 35% or less, sinus rhythm, a non-LBBB
pattern with a QRS duration of 150 ms or greater, and NYHA class II symptoms on GDMT (595,
596). (Level of Evidence: B)
Page 70
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
4. CRT may be considered for patients who have LVEF of 30% or less, ischemic etiology of HF,
sinus rhythm, LBBB with a QRS duration of 150 ms or greater, and NYHA class I symptoms on
GDMT (595, 596). (Level of Evidence: C)
Class III: No Benefit
1. CRT is not recommended for patients with NYHA class I or II symptoms and non-LBBB pattern
with QRS duration less than 150 ms (595, 596, 612). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. CRT is not indicated for patients whose comorbidities and/or frailty limit survival with good
functional capacity to less than 1 year (38). (Level of Evidence: C)
See Figure 2. Indications for CRT Therapy Algorithm.
*Counseling should be specific to each individual patient and should include documentation of a discussion about the
potential for sudden death and nonsudden death from HF or noncardiac conditions. Information should be provided about
the efficacy, safety, and potential complications of an ICD and the potential for defibrillation to be inactivated if desired in
the future, notably when a patient is approaching end of life. This will facilitate shared decision making between patients,
families, and the medical care team about ICDs (30).
7.3.4.1. Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator
Patients with reduced LVEF are at increased risk for ventricular tachyarrhythmias leading to SCD. Sudden death
in HFrEF has been substantially decreased by neurohormonal antagonists that alter disease progression and also
protect against arrhythmias. Nonetheless, patients with systolic dysfunction remain at increased risk for SCD
due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Patients who have had sustained ventricular tachycardia, ventricular
fibrillation, unexplained syncope, or cardiac arrest are at highest risk for recurrence. Indications for ICD therapy
as secondary prevention of SCD in these patients is also discussed in the ACCF/AHA/HRS device-based
therapy guideline (613).
The use of ICDs for primary prevention of SCD in patients with HFrEF without prior history of
arrhythmias or syncope has been evaluated in multiple RCTs. ICD therapy for primary prevention was
demonstrated to reduce all-cause mortality. For patients with LVEF <30% after remote MI, use of ICD therapy
led to a 31% decrease in mortality over 20 months, for an absolute decrease of 5.6% (362). For patients with
mild to moderate symptoms of HF with LVEF <35% due either to ischemic or nonischemic etiology, there was
a 23% decrease in mortality over a 5-year period, for an absolute decrease of 7.2% (593). For both these trials,
the survival benefit appeared after the first year. Other smaller trials were consistent with this degree of benefit,
except for patients within the first 40 days after acute MI, in whom SCD was decreased but there was an
increase in other events such that there was no net benefit for survival (598, 614). Both SCD and total mortality
are highest in patients with HFrEF with class IV symptoms, in whom ICDs are not expected to prolong
meaningful survival and are not indicated except in those for whom heart transplantation or MCS is anticipated.
The use of ICDs for primary prevention in patients with HFrEF should be considered only in the setting
of optimal GDMT and with a minimum of 3 to 6 months of appropriate medical therapy. A repeat assessment of
ventricular function is appropriate to assess any recovery of ventricular function on GDMT that would be above
Page 71
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
the threshold where an ICD is indicated. This therapy will often improve ventricular function to a range for
which the risk of sudden death is too low to warrant placement of an ICD. In addition, the trials of ICDs for
primary prevention of SCD studied patients who were already on GDMT.
ICDs are highly effective in preventing death from ventricular arrhythmias, but frequent shocks can
decrease HRQOL and lead to posttraumatic stress syndrome (615). Therapy with antiarrhythmic drugs and
catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia can decrease the number of ICD shocks given and can sometimes
improve ventricular function in cases of very frequent ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Refined device
programming can optimize pacing therapies to avert the need for shocks, minimize inappropriate shocks, and
avoid aggravation of HF by frequent ventricular pacing. Although there have been occasional recalls of device
generators, these are exceedingly rare in comparison to complications related to intracardiac device leads, such
as fracture and infection.
ICDs are indicated only in patients with a reasonable expectation of survival with good functional status
beyond a year, but the range of uncertainty remains wide. The complex decision about the relative risks and
benefits of ICDs for primary prevention of SCD must be individualized for each patient. Unlike other therapies
that can prolong life with HF, the ICD does not modify the disease except in conjunction with CRT. Patients
with multiple comorbidities have a higher rate of implant complications and higher competing risks of death
from noncardiac causes (616). Older patients, who are at a higher risk of nonsudden death, are often
underrepresented in the pivotal trials where the average patient is <65 years of age (617). The major trials for
secondary prevention of SCD showed no benefit in patients >75 years of age (618), and a meta-analysis of
primary prevention of SCD also suggested lesser effectiveness of ICDs (619). Populations of patients with
multiple HF hospitalizations, particularly in the setting of chronic kidney disease, have a median survival rate of
<2 years, during which the benefit of the ICD may not be realized (608). There is widespread recognition of the
need for further research to identify patients most and least likely to benefit from ICDs for primary prevention of
SCD in HF. Similar considerations apply to the decision to replace the device generator.
Consideration of ICD implantation is highly appropriate for shared decision making (30). The risks and
benefits carry different relative values depending on patient goals and preferences. Discussion should include
the potential for SCD and nonsudden death from HF or noncardiac conditions. Information should be provided
in a format that patients can understand about the estimated efficacy, safety, and potential complications of an
ICD and the ease with which defibrillation can be inactivated if no longer desired (620). As the prevalence of
implantable devices increases, it is essential that clearly defined processes be in place to support patients and
families when decisions about deactivation arise (621).
7.3.4.2. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
In approximately one third of patients, HF progression is accompanied by substantial prolongation of the QRS
interval, which is associated with worse outcome (622). Multisite ventricular pacing (termed CRT or
Page 72
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
biventricular pacing) can improve ventricular contractile function, diminish secondary mitral regurgitation,
reverse ventricular remodeling, and sustain improvement in LVEF. Increased blood pressure with CRT can
allow increased titration of neurohormonal antagonist medications that may further contribute to improvement.
Benefits were proven initially in trials of patients with NYHA class III or ambulatory class IV HF symptoms
and QRS duration of >120 to 130 ms. These results have included a decrease of approximately 30% in
rehospitalization and reductions in all-cause mortality in the range of 24% to 36%. Improvement in survival is
evident as early as the first 3 months of therapy. Functional improvements have been demonstrated on average
as a 1 to 2 mL/kg/min increase in peak oxygen consumption, 50- to 70-meter increase in 6-minute walk
distance, and a reduction of 10 points or more in the 0- to 105-point scale of the Minnesota Living With Heart
Failure Questionnaire, all considered clinically significant. These results include patients with a wide range of
QRS duration and, in most cases, sinus rhythm (78, 116, 594, 623).
Although it is still not possible to predict with confidence which patients will improve with CRT,
further experiences have provided some clarification. Benefit appears confined largely to patients with a QRS
duration of at least 150 ms and LBBB pattern (624-628). The weight of the evidence has been accumulated from
patients with sinus rhythm, with meta-analyses indicating substantially less clinical benefit in patients with
permanent AF (604, 605). Because effective CRT requires a high rate of ventricular pacing (629), the benefit for
patients with AF is most evident in patients who have undergone atrioventricular nodal ablation, which ensures
obligate ventricular pacing (601-603).
In general, most data derive from patients with class III symptoms. Patients labeled as having class IV
symptoms account for a small minority of patients enrolled. Furthermore, these patients, characterized as
“ambulatory” NYHA class IV, are not refractory due to fluid retention, frequently hospitalized for HF, or
dependent on continuous intravenous inotropic therapy. CRT should not be considered as “rescue” therapy for
stage D HF. In addition, patients with significant noncardiac limitations are unlikely to derive major benefit
from CRT.
Since publication of the 2009 HF guideline (38), new evidence supports extension of CRT to patients
with milder symptoms. LV remodeling was consistently reversed or halted, with benefit also in reduction of HF
hospitalizations (595, 596, 599). In this population with low 1-year mortality, reduction of HF hospitalization
dominated the composite primary endpoints, but a mortality benefit was subsequently observed in a 2-year
extended follow-up study (630) and in a meta-analysis of 5 trials of CRT in mild HF that included 4,213 patients
with class II symptoms (631). Overall benefits in class II HF were noted only in patients with QRS >150 ms and
LBBB, with an adverse impact with shorter QRS duration or non-LBBB.
The entry criterion for LVEF in CRT trials has ranged from <30% to <40%. The trials with class III-IV
symptoms included patients with LVEF <35% (78, 116, 594). The 2 individual trials showing improvement in
mortality with class II HF included patients with LVEF <30% (632, 633). Trials demonstrating significant
improvement in LV size and EF have included patients with LVEF <35% (115) and LVEF <40% (599), which
Page 73
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
also showed reduction in the secondary endpoint of time to hospitalization and a reduction in the composite of
clinical HF events comparable to that of all of the CRT trials (624). The congruence of evidence from the
totality of CRT trials with regard to remodeling and HF events supports a common threshold of 35% for benefit
from CRT in patients with class II, III, and IV HF symptoms. For patients with class II HF, all but 1 of the trials
tested CRT in combination with an ICD, whereas there is evidence for benefit with both CRT-defibrillator and
CRT alone in patients with class III-IV symptoms (78, 116).
Although the weight of evidence is substantial for patients with class II symptoms, these CRT trials
have included only 372 patients with class I symptoms, most with concomitant ICD for the postinfarction
indication (595, 599). Considering the risk−benefit ratio for class I, more concern is raised by the early adverse
events, which in 1 trial occurred in 13% of patients with CRT-ICD compared with 6.7% in patients with ICD
only (596). On the basis of limited data from MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation
Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy), CRT-ICD may be considered for patients with class I symptoms >40
days after MI, LVEF <30%, sinus rhythm, LBBB, and QRS >150 ms (595).
These indications for CRT all include expectation for ongoing GDMT and diuretic therapy as needed
for fluid retention. In addition, regular monitoring is required after device implantation because adjustment of
HF therapies and reprogramming of device intervals may be required. The trials establishing the benefit of these
interventions were conducted in centers offering expertise in both implantation and follow-up.
Recommendations for CRT are made with the expectation that they will be performed in centers with expertise
and outcome comparable to that of the trials that provide the bases of evidence. The benefit−risk ratio for this
intervention would be anticipated to be diminished for patients who do not have access to these specialized care
settings or who are nonadherent.
Page 74
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Figure 2. Indications for CRT Therapy Algorithm.
CRT indicates cardiac resynchronization therapy; CRT-D, cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; HF, heart failure; ICD,
implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; LBBB, left bundle-branch block; LV, left ventricular; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MI, myocardial infarction; and NYHA, New
York Heart Association.
Page 75
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Table 22. Recommendations for Device Therapy for Management of Stage C HF
Recommendation
COR
LOE
ICD therapy is recommended for primary prevention of
SCD in selected patients with HFrEF at least 40 d postI
A
MI with LVEF ≤35% and NYHA class II or III
symptoms on chronic GDMT, who are expected to live
>1 y*
CRT is indicated for patients who have LVEF ≤35%,
A
(NYHA class III/IV)
sinus rhythm, LBBB with a QRS ≥150 ms, and NYHA
I
class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms on GDMT
B
(NYHA class II)
ICD therapy is recommended for primary prevention of
SCD in selected patients with HFrEF at least 40 d postMI with LVEF ≤30% and NYHA class I symptoms while
receiving GDMT, who are expected to live >1 y*
CRT can be useful for patients who have LVEF ≤35%,
sinus rhythm, a non-LBBB pattern with QRS ≥150 ms,
and NYHA class III/ambulatory class IV symptoms on
GDMT
CRT can be useful for patients who have LVEF ≤35%,
sinus rhythm, LBBB with a QRS 120 to 149 ms, and
NYHA class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms on
GDMT
CRT can be useful in patients with AF and LVEF ≤35%
on GDMT if a) the patient requires ventricular pacing or
otherwise meets CRT criteria and b) AV nodal ablation
or rate control allows near 100% ventricular pacing with
CRT
CRT can be useful for patients on GDMT who have
LVEF ≤35% and are undergoing new or replacement
device with anticipated ventricular pacing (>40%.
An ICD is of uncertain benefit to prolong meaningful
survival in patients with a high risk of nonsudden death
such as frequent hospitalizations, frailty, or severe
comorbidities*
CRT may be considered for patients who have LVEF
≤35%, sinus rhythm, a non-LBBB pattern with a QRS
duration of 120 to 149 ms, and NYHA class
III/ambulatory class IV on GDMT
CRT may be considered for patients who have LVEF
≤35%, sinus rhythm, a non-LBBB pattern with QRS
≥150 ms, and NYHA class II symptoms on GDMT
CRT may be considered for patients who have LVEF
≤30%, ischemic etiology of HF, sinus rhythm, LBBB
with QRS ≥150 ms, and NYHA class I symptoms on
GDMT
CRT is not recommended for patients with NYHA class I
or II symptoms and non-LBBB pattern with QRS <150
ms
CRT is not indicated for patients whose comorbidities
and/or frailty limit survival to <1 y
Page 76
References
(355, 593)
(78, 116, 594,
634)
(595, 596)
I
B
(362, 597, 598)
IIa
A
(78, 116, 594,
596)
B
(78, 116, 594-596,
599)
IIa
B
(600-605)
IIa
C
(155, 602, 606,
607)
B
(608-611)
IIb
B
(596, 612)
IIb
B
(595, 596)
IIb
C
(595, 596)
III: No
Benefit
B
(595, 596, 612)
III: No
Benefit
C
(38)
IIa
IIb
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
*Counseling should be specific to each individual patient and should include documentation of a discussion about the
potential for sudden death and nonsudden death from HF or noncardiac conditions. Information should be provided about
the efficacy, safety, and potential complications of an ICD and the potential for defibrillation to be inactivated if desired in
the future, notably when a patient is approaching end of life. This will facilitate shared decision making between patients,
families, and the medical care team about ICDs (30).
AF indicates atrial fibrillation; AV, atrioventricular; COR, Class of Recommendation; CRT, cardiac resynchronization
therapy; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; HF, heart failure; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction;
ICD, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; LBBB, left bundle-branch block; LOE, Level of Evidence; LVEF, left
ventricular ejection fraction; MI, myocardial infarction; NYHA, New York Heart Association; and SCD, sudden cardiac
death.
See Online Data Supplements 28 and 29 for additional data on device therapy and CRT.
7.4. Stage D
7.4.1. Definition of Advanced HF
A subset of patients with chronic HF will continue to progress and develop persistently severe symptoms despite
maximum GDMT. Various terminologies have been used to describe this group of patients who are classified
with ACCF/AHA stage D HF, including “advanced HF,” “end-stage HF,” and “refractory HF.” In the 2009
ACCF/AHA HF guideline, stage D was defined as “patients with truly refractory HF who might be eligible for
specialized, advanced treatment strategies, such as MCS, procedures to facilitate fluid removal, continuous
inotropic infusions, or cardiac transplantation or other innovative or experimental surgical procedures, or for
end-of-life care, such as hospice” (38). The European Society of Cardiology has developed a definition of
advanced HF with objective criteria that can be useful (32) (Table 23). There are clinical clues that may assist
clinicians in identifying patients who are progressing toward advanced HF (Table 24). The Interagency Registry
for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) has developed 7 profiles that further stratify
patients with advanced HF (Table 25) (635).
7.4.2. Important Considerations in Determining If the Patient Is Refractory
Patients considered to have stage D HF should be thoroughly evaluated to ascertain that the diagnosis is correct
and that there are no remediable etiologies or alternative explanations for advanced symptoms. For example, it is
important to determine that HF and not a concomitant pulmonary disorder is the basis of dyspnea. Similarly, in
those with presumed cardiac cachexia, other causes of weight loss should be ruled out. Likewise, other
reversible factors such as thyroid disorders should be treated. Severely symptomatic patients presenting with a
new diagnosis of HF can often improve substantially if they are initially stabilized. Patients should also be
evaluated for nonadherence to medications (636-639), sodium restriction (640), and/or daily weight monitoring
(641). Finally, a careful review of prior medical management should be conducted to verify that all evidencebased therapies likely to improve clinical status have been considered.
Table 23. ESC Definition of Advanced HF
Page 77
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
1.
Severe symptoms of HF with dyspnea and/or fatigue at rest or with minimal exertion (NYHA class III or IV)
2.
Episodes of fluid retention (pulmonary and/or systemic congestion, peripheral edema) and/or reduced cardiac output
at rest (peripheral hypoperfusion)
3.
Objective evidence of severe cardiac dysfunction shown by at least 1 of the following:
a. LVEF <30%
b. Pseudonormal or restrictive mitral inflow pattern
c. Mean PCWP >16 mm Hg and/or RAP >12 mm Hg by PA catheterization
d. High BNP or NT-proBNP plasma levels in the absence of noncardiac causes
4.
Severe impairment of functional capacity shown by 1 of the following:
a. Inability to exercise
b. 6-Minute walk distance ≤300 m
c. Peak VO2 <12 to 14 mL/kg/min
5.
History of ≥1 HF hospitalization in past 6 mo
6.
Presence of all the previous features despite “attempts to optimize” therapy, including diuretics and GDMT, unless
these are poorly tolerated or contraindicated, and CRT when indicated
BNP indicates B-type natriuretic peptide; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; ESC, European Society of Cardiology;
GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; HF, heart failure; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NT-proBNP, Nterminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PA, pulmonary artery; PWCP, pulmonary
capillary wedge pressure; and RAP, right atrial pressure.
Adapted from Metra et al (32).
Table 24. Clinical Events and Findings Useful for Identifying Patients With Advanced HF
Repeated (≥2) hospitalizations or ED visits for HF in the past year
Progressive deterioration in renal function (e.g., rise in BUN and creatinine)
Weight loss without other cause (e.g., cardiac cachexia)
Intolerance to ACE inhibitors due to hypotension and/or worsening renal function
Intolerance to beta blockers due to worsening HF or hypotension
Frequent systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg
Persistent dyspnea with dressing or bathing requiring rest
Inability to walk 1 block on the level ground due to dyspnea or fatigue
Recent need to escalate diuretics to maintain volume status, often reaching daily furosemide equivalent dose >160 mg/d
and/or use of supplemental metolazone therapy
Progressive decline in serum sodium, usually to <133 mEq/L
Frequent ICD shocks
ACE indicates angiotensin-converting enzyme; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; ED, emergency department; HF, heart failure;
and ICD, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.
Adapted from Russell et al (642).
Table 25. INTERMACS Profiles
Profile*
Profile Description
Features
Page 78
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Life-threatening hypotension and rapidly escalating inotropic/pressor
support, with critical organ hypoperfusion often confirmed by worsening
acidosis and lactate levels.
“Dependent” on inotropic support but nonetheless shows signs of continuing
deterioration in nutrition, renal function, fluid retention, or other major status
Progressive decline
indicator. Can also apply to a patient with refractory volume overload,
2
(“Sliding fast” on inotropes) perhaps with evidence of impaired perfusion, in whom inotropic infusions
cannot be maintained due to tachyarrhythmias, clinical ischemia, or other
intolerance.
Clinically stable on mild-moderate doses of intravenous inotropes (or has a
temporary circulatory support device) after repeated documentation of
3
Stable but inotrope dependent
failure to wean without symptomatic hypotension, worsening symptoms, or
progressive organ dysfunction (usually renal).
Patient who is at home on oral therapy but frequently has symptoms of
congestion at rest or with activities of daily living (dressing or bathing). He
Resting symptoms on oral
4
or she may have orthopnea, shortness of breath during dressing or bathing,
therapy at home
gastrointestinal symptoms (abdominal discomfort, nausea, poor appetite),
disabling ascites, or severe lower-extremity edema.
Exertion intolerant
Patient who is comfortable at rest but unable to engage in any activity, living
5
(“housebound”)
predominantly within the house or housebound.
Patient who is comfortable at rest without evidence of fluid overload but
who is able to do some mild activity. Activities of daily living are
Exertion limited
6
comfortable and minor activities outside the home such as visiting friends or
(“walking wounded”)
going to a restaurant can be performed, but fatigue results within a few
minutes or with any meaningful physical exertion.
Patient who is clinically stable with a reasonable level of comfortable
activity, despite a history of previous decompensation that is not recent. This
7
Advanced NYHA class III
patient is usually able to walk more than a block. Any decompensation
requiring intravenous diuretics or hospitalization within the previous month
should make this person a Patient Profile 6 or lower.
*Modifier options: Profiles 3-6 can be modified with the designation FF (frequent flyer) for patients with recurrent
decompensations leading to frequent (generally at least 2 in last 3 mo or 3 in last 6 mo) emergency department visits or
hospitalizations for intravenous diuretics, ultrafiltration, or brief inotropic therapy. Profile 3 can be modified in this fashion
if the patient is usually at home. If a Profile 7 patient meets the definition of FF, the patient should be moved to Profile 6 or
worse. Other modifier options include A (arrhythmia), which should be used in the presence of recurrent ventricular
tachyarrhythmias contributing to the overall clinical course (e.g., frequent ICD shocks or requirement of external
defibrillation, usually more than twice weekly); or TCS (temporary circulatory support) for hospitalized patients profiles 13 (635).
ICD indicates implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; INTERMACS, Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted
Circulatory Support; and NYHA, New York Heart Association.
Adapted from Stevenson et al (643).
Critical cardiogenic shock
(“Crash and burn”)
1
See Online Data Supplements 30 and 31 for additional data on therapiesimportant considerations and
sildenafil.
7.4.3. Water Restriction: Recommendation
Class IIa
1. Fluid restriction (1.5 to 2 L/d) is reasonable in stage D, especially in patients with hyponatremia,
to reduce congestive symptoms. (Level of Evidence: C)
Recommendations for fluid restriction in HF are largely driven by clinical experience. Sodium and fluid balance
recommendations are best implemented in the context of weight and symptom monitoring programs. Routine
Page 79
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
strict fluid restriction in all patients with HF regardless of symptoms or other considerations does not appear to
result in significant benefit (644). Limiting fluid intake to around 2 L/d is usually adequate for most hospitalized
patients who are not diuretic resistant or significantly hyponatremic. In 1 study, patients on a similar sodium and
diuretic regimen showed higher readmission rates with higher fluid intake, suggesting that fluid intake affects
HF outcomes (385). Strict fluid restriction may best be used in patients who are either refractory to diuretics or
have hyponatremia. Fluid restriction, especially in conjunction with sodium restriction, enhances volume
management with diuretics. Fluid restriction is important to manage hyponatremia, which is relatively common
with advanced HF and portends a poor prognosis (645, 646). Fluid restriction may improve serum sodium
concentration; however, it is difficult to achieve and maintain. In hot or low-humidity climates, excessive fluid
restriction predisposes patients with advanced HF to the risk of heat stroke. Hyponatremia in HF is primarily
due to an inability to excrete free water. Norepinephrine and angiotensin II activation result in decreased sodium
delivery to the distal tubule, whereas arginine vasopressin increases water absorption from the distal tubule. In
addition, angiotensin II also promotes thirst. Thus, sodium and fluid restriction in advanced patients with HF is
important.
7.4.4. Inotropic Support: Recommendations
Class I
1. Until definitive therapy (e.g., coronary revascularization, MCS, heart transplantation) or
resolution of the acute precipitating problem, patients with cardiogenic shock should receive
temporary intravenous inotropic support to maintain systemic perfusion and preserve end-organ
performance. (Level of Evidence: C)
Class IIa
1. Continuous intravenous inotropic support is reasonable as “bridge therapy” in patients with stage
D refractory to GDMT and device therapy who are eligible for and awaiting MCS or cardiac
transplantation (647, 648). (Level of Evidence: B)
Class IIb
1. Short-term, continuous intravenous inotropic support may be reasonable in those hospitalized
patients presenting with documented severe systolic dysfunction who present with low blood
pressure and significantly depressed cardiac output to maintain systemic perfusion and preserve
end-organ performance (592, 649, 650). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Long-term, continuous intravenous inotropic support may be considered as palliative therapy for
symptom control in select patients with stage D despite optimal GDMT and device therapy who
are not eligible for either MCS or cardiac transplantation (651-653). (Level of Evidence: B)
Class III: Harm
1. Long-term use of either continuous or intermittent, intravenous parenteral positive inotropic
agents, in the absence of specific indications or for reasons other than palliative care, is potentially
harmful in the patient with HF (416, 654-659). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Use of parenteral inotropic agents in hospitalized patients without documented severe systolic
dysfunction, low blood pressure, or impaired perfusion, and evidence of significantly depressed
cardiac output, with or without congestion, is potentially harmful (592, 649, 650). (Level of
Evidence: B)
Page 80
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Despite improving hemodynamic compromise, positive inotropic agents have not demonstrated improved
outcomes in patients with HF in either the hospital or outpatient setting (416, 654-658). Regardless of their
mechanism of action (e.g., inhibition of phosphodiesterase, stimulation of adrenergic or dopaminergic receptors,
calcium sensitization), chronic oral inotrope treatment increased mortality, mostly related to arrhythmic events.
Parenteral inotropes, however, remain as an option to help the subset of patients with HF who are refractory to
other therapies and are suffering consequences from end-organ hypoperfusion. Inotropes should be considered
only in such patients with systolic dysfunction who have low cardiac index and evidence of systemic
hypoperfusion and/or congestion (Table 26). To minimize adverse effects, lower doses are preferred. Similarly,
the ongoing need for inotropic support and the possibility of discontinuation should be regularly assessed.
See Online Data Supplements 32 and 33 for additional data on inotropes.
Table 26. Intravenous Inotropic Agents Used in Management of HF
Inotropic
Agent
Dose (mcg/kg)
Infusion
Bolus
(/min)
Drug
Kinetics and
Metabolism
Special
Effects
CO
HR
SVR
PVR
t½: 2 to 20
min
R,H,P
↑
↑
↔
↔
↑
↑
↑
↔
t½: 2 to 3 min
H
↑
↑
↓
↔
↑
↑
↔
↔
t½: 2.5 h
H
↑
↑
↓
↓
Adverse Effects
Considerations
Adrenergic agonists
N/A
5 to 10
N/A
10 to 15
N/A
2.5 to 5.0
N/A
5 to 20
N/R
0.125 to
0.75
Dopamine
Dobutamine
T, HA, N, tissue
necrosis
Caution: MAO-I
↑/↓BP, HA, T, N, F,
hypersensitivity
Caution: MAO-I;
CI: sulfite allergy
T, ↓BP
Renal dosing,
monitor LFTs
PDE inhibitor
Milrinone
t ½ Indicates elimination half-life; BP, blood pressure; CI, contraindication; CO, cardiac output; F, fever; H, hepatic; HA, headache; HF,
heart failure; HR, heart rate; LFT, liver function test; MAO-I, monoamine oxidase inhibitor; N, nausea; N/A, not applicable; N/R, not
recommended; P, plasma; PDE, phosphodiesterase; PVR, pulmonary vascular resistance; R, renal; SVR, systemic vascular resistance; and
T, tachyarrhythmias.
7.4.5. Mechanical Circulatory Support: Recommendations
Class IIa
1. MCS is beneficial in carefully selected* patients with stage D HFrEF in whom definitive
management (e.g., cardiac transplantation) or cardiac recovery is anticipated or planned (660667). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Nondurable MCS, including the use of percutaneous and extracorporeal ventricular assist devices
(VADs), is reasonable as a “bridge to recovery” or “bridge to decision” for carefully selected*
patients with HFrEF with acute, profound hemodynamic compromise (668-671). (Level of
Evidence: B)
3. Durable MCS is reasonable to prolong survival for carefully selected* patients with stage D
HFrEF (672-675). (Level of Evidence: B)
Page 81
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
*Although optimal patient selection for MCS remains an active area of investigation, general indications for referral for
MCS therapy include patients with LVEF <25% and NYHA class III-IV functional status despite GDMT, including, when
indicated, CRT, with either high predicted 1- to 2-y mortality (e.g., as suggested by markedly reduced peak oxygen
consumption, clinical prognostic scores) or dependence on continuous parenteral inotropic support. Patient selection
requires a multidisciplinary team of experienced advanced HF and transplantation cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons,
nurses, and, ideally, social workers and palliative care clinicians.
MCS has emerged as a viable therapeutic option for patients with advanced stage D HFrEF refractory to optimal
GDMT and cardiac device intervention. Since its initial use 50 years ago for postcardiotomy shock (676), the
implantable VAD continues to evolve.
Designed to assist the native heart, VADs are differentiated by the implant location (intracorporeal
versus extracorporeal), approach (percutaneous versus surgical), flow characteristic (pulsatile versus
continuous), pump mechanism (volume displacement, axial, centrifugal), and the ventricle(s) supported (left,
right, biventricular). VADs are effective in both the short-term (hours to days) management of acute
decompensated, hemodynamically unstable HFrEF that is refractory to inotropic support, and the long-term
(months to years) management of stage D chronic HFrEF. Nondurable, or temporary, MCS provides an
opportunity for decisions about the appropriateness of transition to definitive management such as cardiac
surgery or durable, that is, permanent, MCS or, in the case of improvement and recovery, suitability for device
removal. Nondurable MCS thereby may be helpful as either a bridge to decision or a bridge to recovery.
More common scenarios for MCS, however, are long-term strategies, including 1) bridge to
transplantation, 2) bridge to candidacy, and 3) destination therapy. Bridge to transport and destination therapy
have the strongest evidence base with respect to survival, functional capacity, and HRQOL benefits.
Data from INTERMACS provides valuable information on risk factors and outcomes for patients
undergoing MCS. The greatest risk factors for death among patients undergoing BTT include acuity and severity
of clinical condition and evidence of right ventricular failure (677). MCS may also be used as a bridge to
candidacy. Retrospective studies have shown reduction in pulmonary pressures with MCS therapy in patients
with HF considered to have “fixed” pulmonary hypertension (661-663). Thus, patients who may be transplantineligible due to irreversible severe pulmonary hypertension may become eligible with MCS support over time.
Other bridge-to-candidacy indications may include obesity and tobacco use in patients who are otherwise
candidates for cardiac transplantation. There is ongoing interest in understanding how MCS facilitates LV
reverse remodeling. Current scientific and translational research in the area aims to identify clinical, cellular,
molecular, and genomic markers of cardiac recovery in the patient with VAD (678, 679).
See Online Data Supplements 34 and 35 for additional data on MCS and left VADs.
7.4.6. Cardiac Transplantation: Recommendation
Class I
Page 82
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
1. Evaluation for cardiac transplantation is indicated for carefully selected patients with stage D HF
despite GDMT, device, and surgical management (680). (Level of Evidence: C)
Cardiac transplantation is considered the gold standard for the treatment of refractory end-stage HF. Since the
first successful cardiac transplantation in 1967, advances in immunosuppressive therapy have vastly improved
the long-term survival of transplant recipients with a 1-, 3-, and 5-year posttransplant survival rate of 87.8%,
78.5%, and 71.7% in adults, respectively (681). Similarly, cardiac transplantation has been shown to improve
functional status and HRQOL (682-688). The greatest survival benefit is seen in those patients who are at
highest risk of death from advanced HF (689). Cardiopulmonary exercise testing helps refine candidate selection
(690-696). Data suggest acceptable posttransplant outcomes in patients with reversible pulmonary hypertension
(697), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (698), peripartum cardiomyopathy (699), restrictive cardiomyopathy (700,
701), and muscular dystrophy (702). Selected patients with stage D HF and poor prognosis should be referred to
a cardiac transplantation center for evaluation and transplant consideration. Determination of HF prognosis is
addressed in Sections 6.1.2 and 7.4.2. The listing criteria and evaluation and management of patients undergoing
cardiac transplantation are described in detail by the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation
(680).
See Table 27 for a summary of recommendations from this section, Figure 3 for the stages of HF development;
and online Data Supplement 36 for additional data on transplantation.
Table 27. Recommendations for Inotropic Support, MCS, and Cardiac Transplantation
Recommendation
COR
LOE
References
Inotropic support
Cardiogenic shock pending definitive therapy or resolution
I
C
N/A
BTT or MCS in stage D refractory to GDMT
IIa
B
(647, 648)
Short-term support for threatened end-organ dysfunction in
hospitalized patients with stage D and severe HFrEF
Long-term support with continuous infusion palliative therapy
in select stage D HF
Routine intravenous use, either continuous or intermittent, is
potentially harmful in stage D HF
Short-term intravenous use in hospitalized patients without
evidence of shock or threatened end-organ performance is
potentially harmful
MCS
MCS is beneficial in carefully selected* patients with stage D
HF in whom definitive management (e.g., cardiac
transplantation) is anticipated or planned
Nondurable MCS is reasonable as a “bridge to recovery” or
“bridge to decision” for carefully selected* patients with HF
and acute profound disease
Durable MCS is reasonable to prolong survival for carefully
Page 83
IIb
B
(592, 649,
650)
IIb
B
(651-653)
III: Harm
B
(416, 654659)
III: Harm
B
(592, 649,
650)
IIa
B
(660-667)
IIa
B
(668-671)
IIa
B
(672-675)
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
selected* patients with stage D HFrEF
Cardiac transplantation
Evaluation for cardiac transplantation is indicated for carefully
selected patients with stage D HF despite GDMT, device, and
surgical management
I
C
(680)
*Although optimal patient selection for MCS remains an active area of investigation, general indications for referral for
MCS therapy include patients with LVEF <25% and NYHA class III-IV functional status despite GDMT, including, when
indicated, CRT, with either high predicted 1- to 2-y mortality (as suggested by markedly reduced peak oxygen
consumption, clinical prognostic scores, etc.) or dependence on continuous parenteral inotropic support. Patient selection
requires a multidisciplinary team of experienced advanced HF and transplantation cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons,
nurses, and, ideally, social workers and palliative care clinicians.
BTT indicates bridge to transplant; COR, Class of Recommendation; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; EF, ejection
fraction; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; HF, heart failure; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction;
LOE, Level of Evidence; MCS, mechanical circulatory support; and NYHA, New York Heart Association.
Figure 3. Stages in the development of HF and recommended therapy by stage.
ACEI indicates angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; AF, atrial fibrillation; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blocker; CAD,
coronary artery disease; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; DM, diabetes mellitus; EF, ejection fraction; GDMT,
guideline-directed medical therapy; HF, heart failure; HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; HFrEF, heart
failure with reduced ejection fraction; HRQOL, health-related quality of life; HTN, hypertension; ICD, implantable
cardioverter-defibrillator; LV, left ventricular; LVH, left ventricular hypertrophy; MCS, mechanical circulatory support;
and MI, myocardial infarction.
Adapted from Hunt et al (38).
Page 84
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
8. The Hospitalized Patient
8.1. Classification of Acute Decompensated HF
Hospitalization for HF is a growing and major public health issue (703). Presently, HF is the leading cause of
hospitalization among patients >65 years of age (51); the largest percentage of expenditures related to HF are
directly attributable to hospital costs. Moreover, in addition to costs, hospitalization for acutely decompensated
HF represents a sentinel prognostic event in the course of many patients with HF, with a high risk for recurrent
hospitalization (e.g., 50% at 6 months) and a 1-year mortality rate of approximately 30% (211, 704). The AHA
has published a scientific statement about this condition (705).
There is no widely accepted nomenclature for HF syndromes requiring hospitalization. Patients are
described as having “acute HF,” “acute HF syndromes,” or “acute(ly) decompensated HF”; while the third has
gained greatest acceptance, it too has limitations, for it does not make the important distinction between those
with a de novo presentation of HF from those with worsening of previously chronic stable HF.
Data from HF registries have clarified the profile of patients with HF requiring hospitalization (107,
704, 706, 707). Characteristically, such patients are elderly or near elderly, equally male or female, and typically
have a history of hypertension, as well as other medical comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease,
hyponatremia, hematologic abnormalities, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (107, 706, 708-713). A
relatively equal percentage of patients with acutely decompensated HF have impaired versus preserved LV
systolic function (707, 714, 715); clinically, patients with preserved systolic function are older, more likely to be
female, to have significant hypertension, and to have less CAD. The overall morbidity and mortality for both
groups is high.
Hospitalized patients with HF can be classified into important subgroups. These include patients with
acute coronary ischemia, accelerated hypertension and acutely decompensated HF, shock, and acutely
worsening right HF. Patients who develop HF decompensation after surgical procedures also bear mention. Each
of these various categories of HF has specific etiologic factors leading to decompensation, presentation,
management, and outcomes.
Noninvasive modalities can be used to classify the patient with hospitalized HF. The history and
physical examination allows estimation of a patient’s hemodynamic status, that is, the degree of congestion
(“dry” versus “wet”), as well as the adequacy of their peripheral perfusion (“warm” versus “cold”) (716) (Figure
4). Chest radiography is variably sensitive for the presence of interstitial or alveolar edema, even in the presence
of elevated filling pressures. Thus, a normal chest radiograph does not exclude acutely decompensated HF
(717). The utility of natriuretic peptides in patients with acutely decompensated HF has been described in detail
in Section 6.3.1. Both BNP and NT-proBNP are useful for the identification or exclusion of acutely
decompensated HF in dyspneic patients (247, 249, 250, 718, 719), particularly in the context of uncertain
diagnosis (720-722). Other options for diagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected acutely decompensated
Page 85
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
HF, such as acoustic cardiography (723), bioimpedance vector monitoring (724), or noninvasive cardiac output
monitoring (725) are not yet validated.
Figure 4. Classification of patients presenting with acutely decompensated HF.
Adapted with permission from Nohria et al (716).
8.2. Precipitating Causes of Decompensated HF: Recommendations
Class I
1. ACS precipitating acute HF decompensation should be promptly identified by ECG and serum
biomarkers, including cardiac troponin testing, and treated optimally as appropriate to the
overall condition and prognosis of the patient. (Level of Evidence: C)
2. Common precipitating factors for acute HF should be considered during initial evaluation, as
recognition of these conditions is critical to guide appropriate therapy. (Level of Evidence: C)
ACS is an important cause of worsening or new-onset HF (726). Although acute ST-segment elevation
myocardial infarction can be readily apparent on an ECG, other ACS cases may be more challenging to
diagnose. Complicating the clinical scenario is that many patients with acute HF, with or without CAD,
have serum troponin levels that are elevated (727).
However, many other patients may have low levels of detectable troponins not meeting criteria for an
acute ischemic event (278, 728). Registry data have suggested that the use of coronary angiography is low
for patients hospitalized with decompensated HF, and opportunities to diagnose important CAD may be
missed (729). For the patient with newly discovered HF, clinicians should always consider the possibility
that CAD is an underlying cause of HF (726).
Besides ACS, several other precipitating causes of acute HF decompensation must be carefully
assessed to inform appropriate treatment, optimize outcomes, and prevent future acute events in patients
with HF (730). See list below.
Page 86
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Common Factors That Precipitate Acute Decompensated HF
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Nonadherence with medication regimen, sodium and/or fluid restriction
Acute myocardial ischemia
Uncorrected high blood pressure
AF and other arrhythmias
Recent addition of negative inotropic drugs (e.g., verapamil, nifedipine, diltiazem, beta blockers)
Pulmonary embolus
Initiation of drugs that increase salt retention (e.g., steroids, thiazolidinediones, NSAIDs)
Excessive alcohol or illicit drug use
Endocrine abnormalities (e.g., diabetes mellitus, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism)
Concurrent infections (e.g., pneumonia, viral illnesses)
Additional acute cardiovascular disorders (e.g., valve disease endocarditis, myopericarditis, aortic
dissection)
Hypertension is an important contributor to acute HF, particularly among blacks, women, and those
with HFpEF (731). In the ADHERE registry, almost 50% of patients admitted with HF had blood pressure
>140/90 mm Hg (107). Abrupt discontinuation of antihypertensive therapy may precipitate worsening HF.
The prevalence of AF in patients with acute HF is >30% (731). Infection increases metabolic demands in
general. Pulmonary infections, which are common in patients with HF, may add hypoxia to the increased
metabolic demands and is associated with worse outcomes (730). The sepsis syndrome is associated with
reversible myocardial depression that is likely mediated by cytokine release (732). Patients with HF are
hypercoagulable, and the possibility of pulmonary embolus as an etiology of acute decompensation should
be considered. Deterioration of renal function can be both a consequence and contributor to
decompensated HF. Restoration of normal thyroid function in those with hypothyroidism or
hyperthyroidism may reverse abnormal cardiovascular function (733). In patients treated with amiodarone,
thyroid disturbances should be suspected.
Excessive sodium and fluid intake may precipitate acute HF (379, 384). Medication nonadherence for
financial or other reasons is a major cause of hospital admission (734). Several drugs may precipitate acute
HF (e.g., calcium channel blockers, antiarrhythmic agents, glucocorticoids, NSAIDs and cyclooxygenase-2
inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, and over-the-counter agents like pseudoephedrine). Finally, excessive
alcohol intake and use of illicit drugs, such as cocaine and methamphetamine, also need to be investigated
as potential causes of HF decompensation.
See Online Data Supplement 37 for additional data on comorbidities in the hospitalized patient.
8.3. Maintenance of GDMT During Hospitalization: Recommendations
Class I
Page 87
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
1. In patients with HFrEF experiencing a symptomatic exacerbation of HF requiring hospitalization
during chronic maintenance treatment with GDMT, it is recommended that GDMT be continued
in the absence of hemodynamic instability or contraindications (195, 735, 736). (Level of Evidence:
B)
2. Initiation of beta-blocker therapy is recommended after optimization of volume status and
successful discontinuation of intravenous diuretics, vasodilators, and inotropic agents. Betablocker therapy should be initiated at a low dose and only in stable patients. Caution should be
used when initiating beta blockers in patients who have required inotropes during their hospital
course (195, 735, 736). (Level of Evidence: B)
The patient’s maintenance HF medications should be carefully reviewed on admission, and it should be decided
whether adjustments should be made as a result of the hospitalization. In the majority of patients with HFrEF
who are admitted to the hospital, oral HF therapy should be continued, or even uptitrated, during hospitalization.
It has been demonstrated that continuation of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and beta blockers for most patients is
well tolerated and results in better outcomes (195, 735, 736). Withholding of, or reduction in, beta-blocker
therapy should be considered only in patients hospitalized after recent initiation or increase in beta-blocker
therapy or with marked volume overload or marginal/low cardiac output. Patients admitted with significant
worsening of renal function should be considered for a reduction in, or temporary discontinuation of ACE
inhibitors, ARBs, and/or aldosterone antagonists until renal function improves. Although it is important to
ensure that evidence-based medications are instituted before hospital discharge, it is equally critical to reassess
medications on admission and adjust their administration in light of the worsening HF.
8.4. Diuretics in Hospitalized Patients: Recommendations
Class I
1. Patients with HF admitted with evidence of significant fluid overload should be promptly treated
with intravenous loop diuretics to reduce morbidity (737, 738). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. If patients are already receiving loop diuretic therapy, the initial intravenous dose should equal or
exceed their chronic oral daily dose and should be given as either intermittent boluses or
continuous infusion. Urine output and signs and symptoms of congestion should be serially
assessed, and the diuretic dose should be adjusted accordingly to relieve symptoms, reduce
volume excess, and avoid hypotension (739). (Level of Evidence: B)
3. The effect of HF treatment should be monitored with careful measurement of fluid intake and
output, vital signs, body weight that is determined at the same time each day, and clinical signs
and symptoms of systemic perfusion and congestion. Daily serum electrolytes, urea nitrogen, and
creatinine concentrations should be measured during the use of intravenous diuretics or active
titration of HF medications. (Level of Evidence: C)
Class IIa
1. When diuresis is inadequate to relieve symptoms, it is reasonable to intensify the diuretic regimen
using either:
a. higher doses of intravenous loop diuretics (38, 739). (Level of Evidence: B);
b. addition of a second (e.g., thiazide) diuretic (740-743). (Level of Evidence: B).
Class IIb
Page 88
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
1. Low-dose dopamine infusion may be considered in addition to loop diuretic therapy to improve
diuresis and better preserve renal function and renal blood flow (744, 745). (Level of Evidence: B)
Patients with significant fluid overload should be initially treated with loop diuretics given intravenously during
hospitalization. Therapy should begin in the emergency department without delay, as early therapy has been
associated with better outcomes (737, 738). Patients should be carefully monitored, including serial evaluation
of volume status and systemic perfusion. Monitoring of daily weight, supine and standing vital signs, and fluid
input and output is necessary for daily management. Assessment of daily electrolytes and renal function should
be performed while intravenous diuretics are administered or HF medications are actively titrated. Intravenous
loop diuretics have the potential to reduce glomerular filtration rate, further worsen neurohumoral activation,
and produce electrolyte disturbances. Thus, although the use of diuretics may relieve symptoms, their impact on
mortality has not been well studied. Diuretics should be administered at doses sufficient to achieve optimal
volume status and relieve congestion without inducing an excessively rapid reduction in intravascular volume,
which could result in hypotension, renal dysfunction, or both. Because loop diuretics have a relatively short
half-life, sodium reabsorption in the tubules will occur once the tubular concentration of the diuretics declines.
Therefore, limiting sodium intake and dosing the diuretic continuously or multiple times per day will enhance
diuretic effectiveness (434, 737, 746-748).
Some patients may present with moderate to severe renal dysfunction such that the diuretic response
may be blunted, necessitating higher initial diuretic doses. In many cases, reduction of fluid overload may
improve congestion and improve renal function, particularly if significant venous congestion is reduced (749).
Clinical experience suggests it is difficult to determine whether congestion has been adequately treated in many
patients, and registry data have confirmed that patients are frequently discharged after a net weight loss of only a
few pounds. Although patients may rapidly improve symptomatically, they may remain congested or
hemodynamically compromised. Routine use of serial natriuretic peptide measurement or Swan-Ganz catheter
has not been conclusively shown to improve outcomes among these patients. Nevertheless, careful evaluation of
all physical findings, laboratory parameters, weight change, and net fluid change should be considered before
discharge.
When a patient does not respond to initial intravenous diuretics, several options may be considered.
Efforts should be made to make certain that congestion persists and that another hemodynamic profile or
alternate disease process is not evident. If there is doubt about the fluid status, consideration should be given for
assessment of filling pressures and cardiac output using right-heart catheterization. If volume overload is
confirmed, the dose of the loop diuretic should be increased to ensure that adequate drug levels reach the kidney.
Adding a second diuretic, typically a thiazide, can improve diuretic responsiveness (435, 442, 443).
Theoretically, continuous diuretic infusion may enhance diuresis because continuous diuretic delivery to the
nephron avoids rebound sodium and fluid reabsorption (440, 441, 750, 751). However, the DOSE (Diuretic
Optimization Strategies Evaluation) trial did not find any significant difference between continuous infusion
Page 89
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
versus intermittent bolus strategies for symptoms, diuresis, or outcomes (739). It is reasonable to try an alternate
approach of using either bolus or continuous infusion therapy different from the initial strategy among patients
who are resistant to diuresis. Finally, some data suggest that low-dose dopamine infusion in addition to loop
diuretics may improve diuresis and better preserve renal function, although ongoing trials will provide further
data on this effect (744).
See Online Data Supplement 17 for additional data on diuretics.
8.5. Renal Replacement Therapy—Ultrafiltration: Recommendations
Class IIb
1. Ultrafiltration may be considered for patients with obvious volume overload to alleviate
congestive symptoms and fluid weight (752). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Ultrafiltration may be considered for patients with refractory congestion not responding to
medical therapy. (Level of Evidence: C)
If all diuretic strategies are unsuccessful, ultrafiltration may be considered. Ultrafiltration moves water and
small- to medium-weight solutes across a semipermeable membrane to reduce volume overload. Because the
electrolyte concentration is similar to plasma, relatively more sodium can be removed than by diuretics (753755). Initial studies supporting use of ultrafiltration in HF were small but provided safety and efficacy data in
acute HF (755-757). Use of ultrafiltration in HF has been shown to reduce neurohormone levels and increase
diuretic responsiveness. In a larger trial of 200 unselected patients with acute HF, ultrafiltration did reduce
weight compared with bolus or continuous diuretics at 48 hours, had similar effects on the dyspnea score
compared with diuretics, and improved readmission rate at 90 days (752). A randomized acute HF trial in
patients with cardiorenal syndrome and persistent congestion has failed to demonstrate a significant advantage
of ultrafiltration over bolus diuretic therapy (758, 759). Cost, the need for veno-venous access, provider
experience, and nursing support remain concerns about the routine use of ultrafiltration. Consultation with a
nephrologist is appropriate before initiating ultrafiltration, especially in circumstances where the nonnephrology provider does not have sufficient experience with ultrafiltration.
See Online Data Supplements 17 and 38 for additional data on diuretics versus ultrafiltration in acute
decompensated HF and worsening renal function and mortality.
8.6. Parenteral Therapy in Hospitalized HF: Recommendation
Class IIb
1. If symptomatic hypotension is absent, intravenous nitroglycerin, nitroprusside, or nesiritide may
be considered an adjuvant to diuretic therapy for relief of dyspnea in patients admitted with
acutely decompensated HF (760-763). (Level of Evidence: A)
The different vasodilators include 1) intravenous nitroglycerin, 2) sodium nitroprusside, and 3) nesiritide.
Page 90
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Intravenous nitroglycerin acts primarily through venodilation, lowers preload, and may help to rapidly
reduce pulmonary congestion (764, 765). Patients with HF and hypertension, coronary ischemia, or significant
mitral regurgitation are often cited as ideal candidates for the use of intravenous nitroglycerin. However,
tachyphylaxis to nitroglycerin may develop within 24 hours, and up to 20% of those with HF may develop
resistance to even high doses (766-768).
Sodium nitroprusside is a balanced preload-reducing venodilator and afterload-reducing arteriodilator
that also dilates the pulmonary vasculature (769). Data demonstrating efficacy are limited, and invasive
hemodynamic blood pressure monitoring (such as an arterial line) is typically required; in such cases, blood
pressure and volume status should be monitored frequently. Nitroprusside has the potential for producing
marked hypotension and is usually used in the intensive care setting as well; longer infusions of the drug have
been rarely associated with thiocyanate toxicity, particularly in the setting of renal insufficiency. Nitroprusside
is potentially of value in severely congested patients with hypertension or severe mitral valve regurgitation
complicating LV dysfunction.
Nesiritide (human BNP) reduces LV filling pressure but has variable effects on cardiac output, urinary
output, and sodium excretion. An initial study demonstrated that the severity of dyspnea is reduced more rapidly
compared with diuretics alone (760). A large randomized trial in patients with acute decompensated HF
demonstrated nesiritide had no impact on mortality, rehospitalization, or renal function, a small but statistically
significant impact on dyspnea, and an increased risk of hypotension (762). Because nesiritide has a longer
effective half-life than nitroglycerin or nitroprusside, adverse effects such as hypotension may persist longer.
Overall, presently there are no data that suggest that intravenous vasodilators improve outcomes in the patient
hospitalized with HF; as such, use of intravenous vasodilators is limited to the relief of dyspnea in the
hospitalized HF patient with intact blood pressure. Administration of intravenous vasodilators in patients with
HFpEF should be done with caution because these patients are typically more volume sensitive.
The use of inotropic support as indicated for hospitalized HF with shock or impending shock and/or
end-organ perfusion limitations is addressed in Section 7.4.4. See Table 26 for drug therapies and Online Data
Supplements 32 and 33 for additional information on inotropic support.
See Online Data Supplement 39 for additional data on nesiritide.
8.7. Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients: Recommendation
Class I
1. A patient admitted to the hospital with decompensated HF should receive venous
thromboembolism prophylaxis with an anticoagulant medication if the risk−
−benefit ratio is
favorable (770-775). (Level of Evidence: B)
Page 91
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
HF has long been recognized as affording additional risk for venous thromboembolic disease, associated with a
number of pathophysiologic changes, including reduced cardiac output, increased systemic venous pressure, and
chemical changes promoting blood clotting. When patients are hospitalized for decompensated HF or when
patients with chronic stable HF are hospitalized for other reasons, they are at increased risk for venous
thromboembolic disease, although accurate numerical estimates are lacking in the literature.
Most early data on the effectiveness of different anticoagulant regimens to reduce the incidence of
venous thromboembolic disease in hospitalized patients were either observational, retrospective reports (776,
777) or prospective studies using a variety of drugs and differing definitions of therapeutic effect and endpoints
(774, 778-780), making summary conclusions difficult. Early studies involved patients with far longer hospital
lengths of stay than occur presently and were performed well before present standard-of-care treatments and
diagnostic tests were available (774, 778-780). Newer trials using presently available antithrombotic drugs often
were not limited to patients with HF but included those with other acute illnesses, severe respiratory diseases, or
simply a broad spectrum of hospitalized medical patients (771-774, 781). In most studies, patients were
categorized as having HF by admitting diagnosis, clinical signs, or functional class, whereas only 1 study (782)
provided LVEF data on enrolled study patients. All included trials tried to exclude patients perceived to have an
elevated risk of bleeding complications or with an elevated risk of toxicity from the specific agent tested (e.g.,
enoxaparin in patients with compromised renal function). Patients with HF typically made up a minority of the
study cohort, and significance of results were not always reported by the authors, making ACCF/AHA class I
recommendations difficult to support using this guideline methodology. In some trials, concurrent aspirin was
allowed but not controlled for as a confounding variable (772, 783).
For patients admitted specifically for decompensated HF and with adequate renal function (serum
creatinine <2.0 mg/dL), randomized trials suggest that enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously once daily (770, 773,
774, 783) or unfractionated heparin 5,000 units subcutaneously every 8 hours (771) will reduce radiographically
demonstrable venous thrombosis. Effects on mortality or clinically significant pulmonary embolism rates are
unclear. Lower doses of enoxaparin do not appear superior to placebo (770, 773), whereas continuing weightbased enoxaparin therapy up to 3 months after hospital discharge does not appear to provide additional benefit
(782).
A single prospective study failed to demonstrate certoparin to be noninferior to unfractionated heparin
(783), whereas retrospective analysis of a prospective trial of dalteparin was underpowered to determine benefit
in its HF cohort (776). Fondaparinux failed to show significant difference from placebo in an RCT that included
a subgroup of 160 patients with HF (781).
No adequate trials have evaluated anticoagulant benefit in patients with chronic but stable HF admitted
to the hospital for other reasons. However, the MEDENOX (Medical Patients with Enoxaparin) trial suggested
that the benefit of enoxaparin may extend to this population (770, 773, 774).
Page 92
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
A systematic review (784) failed to demonstrate prophylactic efficacy of graded compression stockings
in general medical patients, but significant cutaneous complications were associated with their use. No studies
were performed exclusively on patients with HF. Two RCTs in patients with stroke found no efficacy of these
devices (785, 786).
See Online Data Supplement 20 for additional data on anticoagulation.
8.8. Arginine Vasopressin Antagonists: Recommendation
Class IIb
1. In patients hospitalized with volume overload, including HF, who have persistent severe
hyponatremia and are at risk for or having active cognitive symptoms despite water restriction
and maximization of GDMT, vasopressin antagonists may be considered in the short term to
improve serum sodium concentration in hypervolemic, hyponatremic states with either a V2
receptor selective or a nonselective vasopressin antagonist (787, 788). (Level of Evidence: B)
Even mild hyponatremia may be associated with neurocognitive problems, including falls and attention deficits
(789). Treatment of hypervolemic hyponatremia with a V2-selective vasopressin antagonist (tolvaptan) was
associated with a significant improvement in the mental component of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form
General Health Survey (788). Hyponatremia may be treated with water restriction and maximization of GDMT
that modulate angiotensin II, leading to improved renal perfusion and decreased thirst. Alternative causes of
hyponatremia (e.g., syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone, hypothyroidism, and hypoaldosteronism)
should be assessed. Vasopressin antagonists improve serum sodium in hypervolemic, hyponatremic states (787,
788); however, longer-term therapy with a V2-selective vasopressin antagonist did not improve mortality in
patients with HF (790, 791). Currently, 2 vasopressin antagonists are available for clinical use: conivaptan and
tolvaptan. It may be reasonable to use a nonselective vasopressin antagonist to treat hyponatremia in patients
with HF with cognitive symptoms due to hyponatremia. However, the long-term safety and benefit of this
approach remains unknown. A summary of the recommendations for the hospitalized patient appears in Table
28.
Table 28. Recommendations for Therapies in the Hospitalized HF Patient
Recommendation
HF patients hospitalized with fluid overload should be treated with
intravenous diuretics
HF patients receiving loop diuretic therapy should receive an initial
parenteral dose greater than or equal to their chronic oral daily dose;
then should be serially adjusted
HFrEF patients requiring HF hospitalization on GDMT should
continue GDMT unless hemodynamic instability or contraindicated
Initiation of beta-blocker therapy at a low dose is recommended after
optimization of volume status and discontinuation of intravenous
Page 93
COR
LOE
References
I
B
(737, 738)
I
B
(739)
I
B
I
B
(195, 735,
736)
(195, 735,
736)
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
agents
Thrombosis/thromboembolism prophylaxis is recommended for
patients hospitalized with HF
Serum electrolytes, urea nitrogen, and creatinine should be measured
during titration of HF medications, including diuretics
When diuresis is inadequate, it is reasonable to
a) give higher doses of intravenous loop diuretics; or
b) add a second diuretic (e.g., thiazide)
Low-dose dopamine infusion may be considered with loop diuretics to
improve diuresis
Ultrafiltration may be considered for patients with obvious volume
overload
Ultrafiltration may be considered for patients with refractory
congestion
Intravenous nitroglycerin, nitroprusside, or nesiritide may be
considered an adjuvant to diuretic therapy for stable patients with HF
In patients hospitalized with volume overload and severe
hyponatremia, vasopressin antagonists may be considered
I
B
(21, 770-774)
I
C
N/A
B
(38, 739)
B
(740-743)
IIb
B
(744, 745)
IIb
B
(752)
IIb
C
N/A
IIb
A
(760-763)
IIb
B
(787, 788)
IIa
COR indicates Class of Recommendation; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; HF, heart failure; HFrEF, heart
failure with reduced ejection fraction; LOE, Level of Evidence; and N/A, not available.
8.9. Inpatient and Transitions of Care: Recommendations
See Table 29 for a summary of recommendations from this section.
Class I
1. The use of performance improvement systems and/or evidence-based systems of care is
recommended in the hospital and early postdischarge outpatient setting to identify appropriate
HF patients for GDMT, provide clinicians with useful reminders to advance GDMT, and assess
the clinical response (82, 365, 706, 792-796). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Throughout the hospitalization as appropriate, before hospital discharge, at the first
postdischarge visit, and in subsequent follow-up visits, the following should be addressed (204,
795, 797-799). (Level of Evidence: B):
a. initiation of GDMT if not previously established and not contraindicated;
b. precipitant causes of HF, barriers to optimal care transitions, and limitations in
postdischarge support;
c. assessment of volume status and supine/upright hypotension with adjustment of HF therapy
as appropriate;
d. titration and optimization of chronic oral HF therapy;
e. assessment of renal function and electrolytes where appropriate;
f. assessment and management of comorbid conditions;
g. reinforcement of HF education, self-care, emergency plans, and need for adherence; and
h. consideration for palliative care or hospice care in selected patients.
3. Multidisciplinary HF disease-management programs are recommended for patients at high risk
for hospital readmission, to facilitate the implementation of GDMT, to address different barriers
to behavioral change, and to reduce the risk of subsequent rehospitalization for HF (82, 800-802).
(Level of Evidence: B)
Class IIa
1. Scheduling an early follow-up visit (within 7 to 14 days) and early telephone follow-up (within 3
days) of hospital discharge is reasonable (101, 803). (Level of Evidence: B)
Page 94
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
2. Use of clinical risk-prediction tools and/or biomarkers to identify patients at higher risk for
postdischarge clinical events is reasonable (215). (Level of Evidence: B)
Decisions about pharmacological therapies delivered during hospitalization likely can impact postdischarge
outcome. Continuation or initiation of HF GDMT prior to hospital discharge is associated with substantially
improved clinical outcomes for patients with HFrEF. However, caution should be used when initiating beta
blockers in patients who have required inotropes during their hospital course or when initiating ACE inhibitors,
ARBs, or aldosterone antagonists in those patients who have experienced marked azotemia or are at risk for
hyperkalemia. The patient should be transitioned to oral diuretic therapy to verify its effectiveness. Similarly,
optimal volume status should be achieved. blood pressure should be adequately controlled, and, in patients with
AF, ventricular response should also be well controlled. The hospitalization is a “teachable moment” to
reinforce patient and family education and develop a plan of care, which should be communicated to the
appropriate healthcare team.
Safety for patients hospitalized with HF is crucial. System changes necessary to achieve safer care
include the adoption by all US hospitals of a standardized set of 30 “Safe Practices” endorsed by the National
Quality Forum (804) and National Patient Safety Goals espoused by The Joint Commission (805). Improved
communication between clinicians and nurses, medication reconciliation, carefully planned transitions between
care settings, and consistent documentation are examples of patient safety standards that should be ensured for
patients with HF discharged from the hospital.
The prognosis of patients hospitalized with HF, and especially those with serial readmissions, is
suboptimal. Hence, appropriate levels of symptomatic relief, support, and palliative care for patients with
chronic HF should be addressed as an ongoing key component of the plan of care, especially when patients are
hospitalized with acute decompensation (806). The appropriateness of discussion about advanced therapy or
end-of-life preferences is reviewed in Section 11.
For patients with HF, the transition from inpatient to outpatient care can be an especially vulnerable
period because of the progressive nature of the disease state, complex medical regimens, the large number of
comorbid conditions, and the multiple clinicians who may be involved. Patient education and written discharge
instructions or educational material given to the patient, family members, and/or caregiver during the hospital
stay or at discharge to home are essential components of transition care. These should address all of the
following: activity level, diet, discharge medications, follow-up appointment, weight monitoring, and what to do
if symptoms worsen (297). Thorough discharge planning that includes special emphasis on ensuring adherence
to an evidence-based medication regimen (795) is associated with improved patient outcomes (792, 797, 807).
More intensive delivery of discharge instructions, coupled tightly with subsequent well-coordinated follow-up
care for patients hospitalized with HF, has produced positive results in several studies (82, 793, 800). The
addition of a 1-hour, nurse educator–delivered teaching session at the time of hospital discharge, using
standardized instructions, resulted in improved clinical outcomes, increased self-care and treatment adherence,
Page 95
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
and reduced cost of care. Patients receiving the education intervention also had a lower risk of rehospitalization
or death and lower costs of care (365). There are ongoing efforts to further develop evidence-based interventions
in this population.
Transitional care extends beyond patient education. Care information, especially changes in orders and
new diagnostic information, must be transmitted in a timely and clearly understandable form to all of the
patient’s clinicians who will be delivering follow-up care. Other important components of transitional care
include preparation of the patient and caregiver for what to expect at the next site of care, reconciliation of
medications, follow-up plans for outstanding tests, and discussions about monitoring signs and symptoms of
worsening conditions. Early outpatient follow-up, a central element of transitional care, varies significantly
across US hospitals. Early postdischarge follow-up may help minimize gaps in understanding of changes to the
care plan or knowledge of test results and has been associated with a lower risk of subsequent rehospitalization
(803). A follow-up visit within 7 to 14 days and/or a telephone follow-up within 3 days of hospital discharge
are reasonable goals of care.
Table 29. Recommendations for Hospital Discharge
Recommendation or Indication
Performance improvement systems in the hospital and early
postdischarge outpatient setting to identify HF for GDMT
Before hospital discharge, at the first postdischarge visit, and in
subsequent follow-up visits, the following should be addressed:
a. initiation of GDMT if not done or contraindicated;
b. causes of HF, barriers to care, and limitations in support;
c. assessment of volume status and blood pressure with
adjustment of HF therapy;
d. optimization of chronic oral HF therapy;
e. renal function and electrolytes;
f. management of comorbid conditions;
g. HF education, self-care, emergency plans, and adherence; and
h. palliative or hospice care
Multidisciplinary HF disease-management programs for patients at
high risk for hospital readmission are recommended
A follow-up visit within 7 to 14 d and/or a telephone follow-up
within 3 d of hospital discharge is reasonable
Use of clinical risk-prediction tools and/or biomarkers to identify
higher-risk patients is reasonable
COR
LOE
References
I
B
(82, 365, 706,
792-796)
I
B
(204, 795,
797-799)
I
B
(82, 800-802)
IIa
B
(101, 803)
IIa
B
(215)
COR indicates Class of Recommendation; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; HF, heart failure; and LOE, Level
of Evidence.
See Online Data Supplement 40 for additional data on oral medications for the hospitalized patient.
9. Important Comorbidities in HF
9.1. Atrial Fibrillation*
Page 96
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Patients with HF are more likely than the general population to develop AF (808). There is a direct
relationship between the NYHA class and prevalence of AF in patients with HF progressing from 4% in those
who are NYHA class I to 40% in those who are NYHA class IV (809). AF is also a strong independent risk
factor for subsequent development of HF (808, 810). In addition to those with HFrEF, patients with HFpEF are
also at greater risk for AF (811). HF and AF can interact to promote their perpetuation and worsening through
mechanisms such as rate-dependent worsening of cardiac function, fibrosis, and activation of neurohumoral
vasoconstrictors. AF can worsen symptoms in patients with HF, and, conversely, worsened HF can promote a
rapid ventricular response in AF.
Similar to other patient populations, for those with AF and HF, the main goals of therapy are prevention of
thromboembolism and symptom control. Most patients with AF and HF would be expected to be candidates for
systemic anticoagulation unless otherwise contraindicated. General principles of management include correction
of underlying causes of AF and HF as well as optimization of HF management (Table 30). As in other patient
populations, the issue of rate control versus rhythm control has been investigated. For patients who develop HF
as a result of AF, a rhythm control strategy should be pursued. It is important to recognize that AF with a rapid
ventricular response is one of the few potentially reversible causes of HF. Because of this, a patient who
presents with newly detected HF in the presence of AF with a rapid ventricular response should be presumed to
have a rate-related cardiomyopathy until proved otherwise. In this situation, 2 strategies can be considered. One
is rate control of the patient’s AF and see if HF and EF improve. The other is to try to restore and maintain sinus
rhythm. In this situation, it is common practice to initiate amiodarone and then arrange for cardioversion 1
month later. Amiodarone has the advantage of being both an effective rate-control medication and the most
effective antiarrhythmic medication with a lower risk of proarrhythmic effect.
In patients with HF who develop AF, a rhythm-control strategy has not been shown to be superior to a ratecontrol strategy (812). If rhythm control is chosen, limited data suggest that AF catheter ablation in HF patients
may lead to improvement in LV function and quality of life but is less likely to be effective than in patients with
intact cardiac function (813, 814). Because of their favorable effect on morbidity and mortality in patients with
systolic HF, beta-adrenergic blockers are the preferred agents for achieving rate control unless otherwise
contraindicated. Digoxin may be an effective adjunct to a beta blocker. The nondihydropyridine calcium
antagonists, such as diltiazem, should be used with caution in those with depressed EF because of their negative
inotropic effect. For those with HFpEF, nondihydropyridine calcium antagonists can be effective for achieving
rate control but may be more effective when used in combination with digoxin. For those for whom a ratecontrol strategy is chosen, when rate control cannot be achieved either because of drug inefficacy or intolerance,
atrioventricular node ablation and CRT device placement can be useful (78, 116, 595, 596). See Figures 5 and 6
for AF treatment algorithms.
Page 97
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
*The “ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation” and the 2 subsequent
focused updates from 2011 (815-817) are considered policy at the time of publication of the present HF Guideline;
however, a fully revised AF guideline, which will include updated recommendations on AF, is in development, with
publication expected in 2013 or 2014.
See Online Data Supplement 41 for additional data on AF.
Table 30. Clinical Evaluation in Patients With AF
Minimum evaluation
• Presence and nature of symptoms associated with AF
• Clinical type of AF (paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent)
• Onset of first symptomatic attack or date of discovery of AF
1. History and physical examination, to
define
• Frequency, duration, precipitating factors, and modes of termination of AF
• Response to any pharmacological agents that have been administered
• Presence of any underlying heart disease or other reversible conditions
(e.g., hyperthyroidism or alcohol consumption)
• Rhythm (verify AF)
• LV hypertrophy
• P-wave duration and morphology or fibrillatory waves
• Preexcitation
2. ECG, to identify
• Bundle-branch block
• Prior MI
• Other atrial arrhythmias
• To measure and follow the R-R, QRS, and QT intervals in conjunction
with antiarrhythmic drug therapy
• Valvular heart disease
• LA and RA size
• LV and RV size and function
3. Transthoracic echocardiogram, to
identify
• Peak RV pressure (pulmonary hypertension)
• LV hypertrophy
• LA thrombus (low sensitivity)
• Pericardial disease
4. Blood tests of thyroid, renal, and
hepatic function
• For a first episode of AF, when the ventricular rate is difficult to control
Additional testing (one or several tests may be necessary)
1. 6-Minute walk test
• If the adequacy of rate control is in question
Page 98
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
• If the adequacy of rate control is in question (permanent AF)
2. Exercise testing
• To reproduce exercise-induced AF
• To exclude ischemia before treatment of selected patients with a type IC
antiarrhythmic drug
3. Holter monitoring or event recording
4. Transesophageal echocardiography
• If diagnosis of the type of arrhythmia is in question
• As a means of evaluating rate control
• To identify LA thrombus (in the LA appendage)
• To guide cardioversion
• To clarify the mechanism of wide-QRS-complex tachycardia
5. Electrophysiological study
• To identify a predisposing arrhythmia such as atrial flutter or paroxysmal
supraventricular tachycardia
• To seek sites for curative ablation or AV conduction block/modification
• Lung parenchyma, when clinical findings suggest an abnormality
6. Chest radiograph, to evaluate
• Pulmonary vasculature, when clinical findings suggest an abnormality
Type IC refers to the Vaughan Williams classification of antiarrhythmic drugs.
AF indicates atrial fibrillation; AV, atrioventricular; ECG, electrocardiogram; LA, left atrial; LV, left ventricular; MI,
myocardial infarction; RA, right atrial; and RV, right ventricular.
Reproduced from Fuster et al (6).
Figure 5. Pharmacological management of patients with newly discovered AF.
Page 99
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Pharmacologic management of the patient with newly
discovered AF
Paroxysmal
No therapy needed unless
significant symptoms (e.g.,
hypotension, HF, angina pectoris)
Persistent
Accept permanent AF
Anticoagulation as needed
Anticoagulation
and rate control
as needed
Rate control and
anticoagulation as needed
Consider antiarrhythmic
drug therapy
Cardioversion
Long-term antiarrhythmic
drug therapy as necessary
AF indicates atrial fibrillation; and HF, heart failure.
Reproduced from Fuster et al (6).
Figure 6. Pharmacological management of patients with recurrent paroxysmal AF.
Page 100
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Pharmacologic management of the patient with recurrent
paroxysmal AF
Minimal or no symptoms
Disabling symptoms in AF
Anticoagulation and rate control
as needed
Anticoagulation and rate
control as needed
No drug for prevention of AF
Antiarrhythmic therapy
AF ablation if
antiarrhythmic therapy
treatment fails
AF indicates atrial fibrillation.
Reproduced from Fuster et al (6).
9.2. Anemia
Anemia is a common finding in patients with chronic HF. Although variably reported, in part due to the lack of
consensus on the definition of anemia, the prevalence of anemia among patients with HF increases with HF
severity. Anemia is also more common in women and is seen in both patients with HFrEF and HFpEF (818823). The World Health Organization defines anemia as a hemoglobin level of <12 g/dL in women and <13
g/dL in men. Registries have reported anemia to be present in 25% to 40% of HF patients (818-820). Anemia is
Page 101
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
associated with an increased mortality risk in HF. In a large study of >150,000 patients, the mortality risk was
approximately doubled in anemic HF patients compared with those without anemia, and this risk persisted after
controlling for other confounders, including renal dysfunction and HF severity (818). Anemia is also associated
with reduced exercise capacity, impaired HRQOL, and a higher risk for hospitalization (225, 819, 824, 825).
These risks are inversely and linearly associated with hemoglobin levels, although a U-shaped risk with the
highest hemoglobin levels has been reported (822, 826).
Multiple etiological factors, many of which coexist within individual patients, contribute to the
development of anemia in HF. Anemia in patients with HF is often normocytic and accompanied by an
abnormally low reticulocyte count (825, 827). Evaluation of anemia in HF requires careful consideration of
other causes, the most common being secondary causes of iron deficiency anemia.
In persons without identifiable causes of anemia, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents have gained
significant interest as potential adjunctive therapy in the patient with HF. In a retrospective study of
erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in 26 patients with HF and anemia, the hemoglobin level, LVEF, and
functional class improved (828). These patients required lower diuretic doses and were hospitalized less often.
Similar findings were also observed in a randomized open-label study of 32 patients (829). A single-blind RCT
showed that erythropoietin increased hemoglobin, peak oxygen uptake, and exercise duration in patients with
severe HF and anemia (830). Two further studies confirmed these findings; however, none of these were double
blind (831, 832).
These positive data led to 2 larger studies. A 165-patient study showed that darbepoetin alfa was
associated with improvement in several HRQOL measures with a trend toward improved exercise capacity (6minute walking distance +34 ±7 m versus +11 ±10 m, p=0.074) (833). In STAMINA-HeFT (Study of Anemia
in Heart Failure Trial), 319 patients were randomly assigned to darbepoetin alfa or placebo for 12 months (834).
Although darbepoetin alfa did not improve exercise duration, it was well tolerated, and a trend toward
improvement in the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or first hospitalization for HF was seen (hazard
ratio: 0.68; 95% confidence interval: 0.43 to 1.08; p=0.10) (834). These favorable data led to the design and
initiation of the RED-HF (Phase III Reduction of Events With Darbepoetin alfa in Heart Failure) trial (835).
Two trials in erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, however, later raised concerns that patients treated with
an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent may have an increased risk of cardiovascular events (836, 837). Because the
populations in these trials differed, the RED-HF trial was continued. Concerns about the use of erythropoiesisstimulating agents remain. The use of darbepoetin alfa in patients with HF (n=1,347), however, seems safe
(838). Also, a substudy of the CHOIR (Correction in Hemoglobin and Outcomes in Renal Insufficiency) trial
showed that the increased risk associated with the higher hemoglobin target was not observed in patients with
HF at baseline (hazard ratio: 0.99) (839). Finally, a trial using intravenous iron as a supplement in patients with
HFrEF with iron deficiency showed an improvement in functional status (840). There were no untoward adverse
Page 102
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
effects of iron in this trial. In the absence of a definitive evidence base, the writing committee has deferred a
specific treatment recommendation regarding anemia until ongoing randomized trials are completed.
9.3. Depression
Depression is common in patients with HF; those with depressive symptoms have lower HRQOL, poorer selfcare, worse clinical outcomes, and more use of healthcare services (841-843). Although it might be assumed that
depression occurs only among hospitalized patients (844), a multicenter study demonstrated that even at least 3
months after a hospitalization, 63% of patients with HF reported symptoms of depression (845). Potential
pathophysiologic mechanisms proposed to explain the high prevalence of depression in HF include autonomic
nervous system dysfunction, inflammation, cardiac arrhythmias, and altered platelet function, but the
mechanism remains unclear (846). Although remission from depression may improve cardiovascular outcomes,
the most effective intervention strategy is not yet known (842).
9.4. Other Multiple Comorbidities
Although there are additional and important comorbidities that afflict patients with HF as shown in Table 31,
how best to generate specific recommendations remains uncertain, given the status of current evidence.
Table 31. Ten Most Common Co-Occurring Chronic Conditions Among Medicare Beneficiaries With
Heart Failure (N=4,947,918), 2011
Beneficiaries Age ≥65 y (N=4,376,150)*
N
3,685,373
Ischemic heart disease
3,145,718
Hyperlipidemia
2,623,601
Anemia
2,200,674
Diabetes
2,027,875
Arthritis
1,901,447
Chronic kidney disease
1,851,812
COPD
1,311,118
Atrial fibrillation
1,247,748
Alzheimer's disease/dementia
1,207,704
*Mean No. of conditions is 6.1; median is 6.
†Mean No. of conditions is 5.5; median is 5.
Hypertension
Beneficiaries Age <65 y (N=571,768)†
%
84.2
71.9
60.0
50.3
46.3
43.5
42.3
30.0
28.5
27.6
Hypertension
Ischemic heart disease
Diabetes
Hyperlipidemia
Anemia
Chronic kidney disease
Depression
Arthritis
COPD
Asthma
N
461,235
365,889
338,687
325,498
284,102
257,015
207,082
201,964
191,016
88,816
Data source: CMS administrative claims data, January 2011−December 2011, from the Chronic Condition
Warehouse (CCW), ccwdata.org (847).
CMS indicates Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; and COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Page 103
%
80.7
64.0
59.2
56.9
49.7
45.0
36.2
35.3
33.4
15.5
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
10. Surgical/Percutaneous/Transcather Interventional Treatments of HF:
Recommendations
See Table 32 for a summary of recommendations from this section.
Class I
1. Coronary artery revascularization via CABG or percutaneous intervention is indicated for
patients (HFpEF and HFrEF) on GDMT with angina and suitable coronary anatomy, especially
for a left main stenosis (>50%) or left main equivalent disease (10, 12, 14, 848). (Level of Evidence:
C)
Class IIa
1. CABG to improve survival is reasonable in patients with mild to moderate LV systolic
dysfunction (EF 35% to 50%) and significant (≥70% diameter stenosis) multivessel CAD or
proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis when viable myocardium is present in
the region of intended revascularization (848-850). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. CABG or medical therapy is reasonable to improve morbidity and cardiovascular mortality for
patients with severe LV dysfunction (EF <35%), HF, and significant CAD (309, 851). (Level of
Evidence: B)
3. Surgical aortic valve replacement is reasonable for patients with critical aortic stenosis and a
predicted surgical mortality of no greater than 10% (852). (Level of Evidence: B)
4. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement after careful candidate consideration is reasonable for
patients with critical aortic stenosis who are deemed inoperable (853). (Level of Evidence: B)
Class IIb
1. CABG may be considered with the intent of improving survival in patients with ischemic heart
disease with severe LV systolic dysfunction (EF <35%) and operable coronary anatomy whether
or not viable myocardium is present (307-309). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Transcatheter mitral valve repair or mitral valve surgery for functional mitral insufficiency is of
uncertain benefit and should only be considered after careful candidate selection and with a
background of GDMT (854-857). (Level of Evidence: B)
3. Surgical reverse remodeling or LV aneurysmectomy may be considered in carefully selected
patients with HFrEF for specific indications, including intractable HF and ventricular
arrhythmias (858). (Level of Evidence: B)
Surgical therapies and percutaneous interventions that are commonly integrated, or at least considered, in HF
management include coronary revascularization (e.g., CABG, angioplasty, stenting); aortic valve replacement;
mitral valve replacement or repair; septal myectomy or alcohol septal ablation for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy;
surgical ablation of ventricular arrhythmia; MCS; and cardiac transplantation (675, 680, 859, 860). Surgical
placement of ICDs or LV pacing leads is of historical importance but may be considered in situations where
transvenous access is not feasible.
The most common reason for intervention is CAD. Myocardial viability indicates the likelihood of
improved outcomes with either surgical or medical therapy but does not identify patients with greater survival
benefit from revascularization (304). The dictum of CABG for left main CAD and reduced LV function was
considered absolute and subsequently extrapolated to all severities of LV dysfunction without a confirmatory
evidence base (848). Newer studies have addressed patients with multivessel CAD, HF, and at least moderately
Page 104
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
severe to severe LV systolic dysfunction (861, 862). Both surgical and medical therapies have similar outcomes,
and decisions about revascularization should be made jointly by the HF team and cardiothoracic surgeon. The
most important considerations in the decision to proceed with a surgical or interventional approach include
coronary anatomy that is amenable to revascularization and appropriate concomitant GDMT. Valvular heart
disease is not an infrequent cause of HF; however, when valvular disease is managed correctly and preemptively, its adverse consequences on ventricular mechanics can be ameliorated. The advent of effective
transcather approaches to both mitral and aortic disease creates the need for greater considerations of structural
interventions for patients with LV systolic dysfunction and valvular heart disease. To date, the surgical or
transcather management of functional mitral insufficiency has not been proven superior to medical therapy. A
decision to intervene in functional mitral regurgitation should be made on a case-by-case basis, and
consideration should be given to participation in clinical trials and/or databases. The surgical or transcather
management of critical aortic stenosis is an effective strategy with reasonable outcomes noted even in patients
with advanced age (>80 years). Indications for other surgical or percutaneous interventions in the setting of HF
are driven by other relevant guidelines or other sections of this guideline, including myomectomy for
hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, surgical or electrophysiological procedures for AF, nondurable or durable MCS,
and heart transplantation.
Several procedures under evaluation hold promise but are not yet appropriate for a guideline-driven
indication (Table 33). This includes revascularization as a means to support cellular regenerative therapies. For
patients willing to consider regenerative technologies, the ideal strategy is referral to an enrolling clinical trial at
a center experienced in both high-risk revascularization and cell-based science (863-865). Surgical reverseventricular remodeling (ventricular reconstruction) does not appear to be of benefit but may be considered in
carefully selected patients with HFrEF for specified indications, including retractable HF and ventricular
arrhythmias (858).
Table 32. Recommendations for Surgical/Percutaneous/Transcather Interventional Treatments of HF
Recommendation
CABG or percutaneous intervention is indicated for HF patients on
GDMT with angina and suitable coronary anatomy, especially
significant left main stenosis or left main equivalent
CABG to improve survival is reasonable in patients with mild to
moderate LV systolic dysfunction and significant multivessel CAD or
proximal LAD stenosis when viable myocardium is present
CABG or medical therapy is reasonable to improve morbidity and
mortality for patients with severe LV dysfunction (EF <35%), HF,
and significant CAD
Surgical aortic valve replacement is reasonable for patients with
critical aortic stenosis and a predicted surgical mortality of no greater
than 10%
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is reasonable for patients with
critical aortic stenosis who are deemed inoperable
Page 105
COR
LOE
References
I
C
(10, 12, 14,
848)
IIa
B
(848-850)
IIa
B
(309, 851)
IIa
B
(852)
IIa
B
(853)
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
CABG may be considered in patients with ischemic heart disease,
severe LV systolic dysfunction, and operable coronary anatomy
whether or not viable myocardium is present
Transcather mitral valve repair or mitral valve surgery for functional
mitral insufficiency is of uncertain benefit
Surgical reverse remodeling or LV aneurysmectomy may be
considered in HFrEF for specific indications, including intractable HF
and ventricular arrhythmias
IIb
B
(307-309)
IIb
B
(854-857)
IIb
B
(858)
CABG indicates coronary artery bypass graft; CAD, coronary artery disease; COR, Class of Recommendation; EF, ejection
fraction; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; HF, heart failure; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction;
LAD, left anterior descending; LOE, Level of Evidence; and LV, left ventricular.
Table 33. Surgical/Percutaneous/Transcatheter Interventions in Patients With HF
Appropriate Guideline-Directed Surgical/Percutaneous/Transcatheter
Interventions for HF
References
1.
Surgical or percutaneous revascularization
(10, 12, 14)
2.
3.
Surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Surgical myomectomy or alcohol ablation for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
(852, 853)
(11)
4.
Nondurable MCS for cardiogenic shock
(668-671)
5.
6.
Durable MCS for advanced HF
Heart transplantation
(672-675)
(680)
7.
Surgical/electrophysiological ablation of ventricular tachycardia
(866)
Surgical/Percutaneous/Transcatheter Interventions Under Evaluation
in Patients With HF
References
1.
Transcatheter intervention for functional mitral insufficiency
(854, 857)
2.
Left atrial resection/left atrial appendage removal, surgical or percutaneous, for
AF
3.
MCS for advanced HF as a bridge to recovery
(867)
(868, 869)
AF indicates atrial fibrillation; HF, heart failure; and MCS, mechanical circulatory support.
11. Coordinating Care for Patients With Chronic HF
11.1. Coordinating Care for Patients With Chronic HF: Recommendations
Class I
1. Effective systems of care coordination with special attention to care transitions should be
deployed for every patient with chronic HF that facilitate and ensure effective care that is
designed to achieve GDMT and prevent hospitalization (80, 82, 793, 870-884). (Level of Evidence:
B)
2. Every patient with HF should have a clear, detailed, and evidence-based plan of care that ensures
the achievement of GDMT goals, effective management of comorbid conditions, timely follow-up
with the healthcare team, appropriate dietary and physical activities, and compliance with
Secondary Prevention Guidelines for cardiovascular disease. This plan of care should be updated
regularly and made readily available to all members of each patient’s healthcare team (13). (Level
of Evidence: C)
3. Palliative and supportive care is effective for patients with symptomatic advanced HF to improve
quality of life (30, 885-888). (Level of Evidence: B)
Page 106
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Education, support, and involvement of patients with HF and their families are critical and often complex,
especially during transitions of care. Failure to understand and follow a detailed and often nuanced plan of care
likely contributes to the high rates of HF 30-day rehospitalization and mortality seen across the United States
(61, 889). One critical intervention to ensure effective care coordination and transition is the provision of a
comprehensive plan of care, with easily understood, culturally sensitive, and evidence-based educational
materials, to patients with HF and/or caregivers during both hospital and office-based encounters. A
comprehensive plan of care should promote successful patient self-care (870, 884, 890). Hence, the plan of care
for patients with HF should continuously address in detail a number of complex issues, including adherence to
GDMT, timely follow-up with the healthcare professionals who manage the patient's HF and associated
comorbidities, appropriate dietary and physical activities, including cardiac rehabilitation, and adherence to an
extensive list of secondary prevention recommendations based on established guidelines for cardiovascular
disease (Table 34). Clinicians must maintain vigilance about psychosocial, behavioral, and socioeconomic
issues that patients with HF and their caregivers face, including access to care, risk of depression, and healthcare
disparities (639, 891-895). For example, patients with HF who live in skilled nursing facilities are at higher risk
for adverse events, with a 1-year mortality rate >50% (896). Furthermore, community-dwelling patients with HF
are often unable to afford the large number of medications prescribed, thereby leading to suboptimal medication
adherence (897).
11.2. Systems of Care to Promote Care Coordination for Patients With Chronic HF
Improved communication between clinicians and nurses, medication reconciliation, carefully planned transitions
between care settings, and consistent documentation are examples of patient safety standards that should be
ensured for all patients with HF. The National Quality Forum has also endorsed a set of patient-centered
“Preferred Practices for Care Coordination” (898), which detail comprehensive specifications for successful care
coordination for patients and their families.
Systems of care designed to support patients with HF and other cardiac diseases can produce a
significant improvement in outcomes. Furthermore, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is now
financially penalizing hospitals for avoidable hospitalizations and readmissions, thereby emphasizing the
importance of such systems-based care coordination of patients with HF (899). However, the quality of evidence
is mixed for specific components of HF clinical management interventions, such as home-based care (871, 872),
disease management (873, 874, 880), and remote telemonitoring programs (80, 875, 876, 878). Unfortunately,
numerous and nonstandardized definitions of disease management (873, 879, 880), including the specific
elements that compose disease management, impede on efforts to improve the care of patients with HF. Hence,
more generic multidisciplinary strategies for improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of systems-based HF
care should be evaluated with equal weight to those interventions focused on improving adherence to GDMT.
Page 107
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
For example, multidisciplinary approaches can reduce rates of hospitalization for HF. Programs involving
specialized follow-up by a multidisciplinary team decrease all-cause hospitalizations and mortality; however,
this has not been shown for “disease management programs” that focus only on self-care activities (82, 793,
881, 882, 900). Furthermore, patient characteristics may be important predictors of HF and other cardiac
disease−related survival and hospitalization. Overall, very few specific interventions have been consistently
identified and successfully applied in clinical practice (204, 214, 901-903).
See Online Data Supplements 42 and 43 for additional data on disease management and telemonitoring.
11.3. Palliative Care for Patients With HF
The core elements of comprehensive palliative care for HF delivered by clinicians include expert symptom
assessment and management. Ongoing care should address symptom control, psychosocial distress, HRQOL,
preferences about end-of-life care, caregiver support, and assurance of access to evidence-based diseasemodifying interventions. The HF team can help patients and their families explore treatment options and
prognosis. The HF and palliative care teams are best suited to help patients and families decide when end-of-life
care (including hospice) is appropriate (30, 885-888, 904). Assessment for frailty and dementia is part of this
decision care process offered to the patient and family.
Data suggest that advance directives specifying limitations in end-of-life care are associated with
significantly lower levels of Medicare spending, lower likelihood of in-hospital death, and higher use of hospice
care in regions characterized by higher levels of end-of-life spending (905). In newly diagnosed cancer patients,
palliative care interventions delivered early have had a positive impact on survival and HRQOL. This approach
may also be relevant for HF (906). Access to formally trained palliative care specialists may be limited in
ambulatory settings. Therefore, cardiologists, primary care physicians, physician assistants, advanced practice
nurses, and other members of the HF healthcare team should be familiar with these local treatment options.
Evaluation for cardiac transplantation or MCS in experienced centers should include formal palliative care
consultation, which can improve advanced care planning and enhance the overall quality of decision making
and integrated care for these patients, regardless of the advanced HF therapy selected (907).
Table 34. Plan of Care for Patients With Chronic HF
Plan of Care
Guideline-directed medical and device therapy
ACE inhibitor/ARB
Beta blocker
Aldosterone receptor antagonist
Diuretic
Hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate
Digoxin
Discontinuation of drugs that may worsen HF
Biomarker-related therapeutic goals
HF-related devices (MCS, CRT, ICD)
Relevant Guideline Section/Reference
Section 7.3.2.2-3
Section 7.3.2.4
Section 7.3.2.5
Section 7.3.2.1 and 8.4
Section 7.3.2.6
Section 7.3.2.7
Section 7.3.2.9
Section 6.3
Sections 7.3.4 and 7.4.5
Page 108
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Management of comorbidities (examples)
Ischemic heart disease
Antithrombotic therapies
Arrhythmia/arrhythmia risk
Hypertension
Diabetes mellitus
Chronic renal failure
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Secondary prevention interventions (e.g., lipids,
smoking cessation, influenza and pneumococcal
vaccines)
Patient/family education
Diet and fluid restriction, weight monitoring
Recognizing signs and symptoms of worsening HF
Risk assessment and prognosis
QOL assessment
Advance care planning (e.g., palliative care and
advance directives)
CPR training for family members
Social support
Physical activity/cardiac rehabilitation
Exercise regimen
Activities of daily living
Functional status assessment and classification
Psychosocial factors
Sex-specific issues
Sexual activity
Depression screening
Clinician follow-up and care coordination
Cardiologists and other relevant specialists
Primary care physician
Advanced practice nurse
ACCF/AHA SIHD Guideline (14)
Sections 7.3.2.8.1
Sections 7.3.2.9.2 and 9.1
Section 7.1.1, JNC-VII (27)
2012 ADA Standards (90)
Section 8.5
2011 ACCP/ATS/ERS Guideline (908)
2011 AHA/ACCF Secondary Prevention and Risk
Reduction Guidelines and Centers for Disease Control
Adult Vaccinations (13, 909, 910)
Section 7.3.1.1, 7.3.1.3, 7.3.1.5, and 7.4.3
Table 24
Sections 3, 4.6, 6.1.2
AHA (30)
Section 11.3 (30, 888)
AHA Family & Friends CPR (911)
Section 7.3.1.2
Section 7.3.1.5-6
Section 7.3.1.6
Section 3
2011 AHA Effectiveness-Based Guidelines for the
Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Women (912)
2012 AHA Scientific Statement on Sexual Activity
(913)
US Preventive Services Task Force Guidelines (914)
2000 AHA Scientific Statement for Team Management
of Patients With HF (900)
National Quality Forum Preferred Practices for Care
Coordination (898)
Section 11.1-11.3, Joint Commission 2012 National
Patient Safety Goals (915)
Other healthcare providers (e.g., home care)
Medication reconciliation
Establishment of electronic personal health records
Socioeconomic and cultural factors
Culturally sensitive issues
Education and health literacy
Social support
HHS Meaningful Use Criteria
National Quality Forum: A Comprehensive Framework
and Preferred Practices for Measuring and Reporting
Cultural Competency (916)
Section 7.3.1.1
Section 7.3.1.2
ACCF indicates American College of Cardiology Foundation; ACCP, American College of Chest Physicians; ACE;
angiotensin-converting enzyme; ADA, American Diabetes Association; AHA, American Heart Association; ARB,
angiotensin-receptor blocker; ATS, American Thoracic Society; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; CRT, cardiac
resynchronization therapy; ERS, European Respiratory Society; HF, heart failure; HHS, Health and Human Services; ICD,
implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; JNC, Joint National Committee; LVAD, left ventricular assist device; QOL, quality
of life; SIHD, stable ischemic heart disease; and VAD, ventricular assist device.
Page 109
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
12. Quality Metrics/Performance Measures: Recommendations
Class I
1. Performance measures based on professionally developed clinical practice guidelines should be
used with the goal of improving quality of care for HF (706, 801, 917). (Level of Evidence: B)
Class IIa
1. Participation in quality improvement programs and patient registries based on nationally
endorsed, clinical practice guideline−
−based quality and performance measures can be beneficial in
improving the quality of HF care (706, 801). (Level of Evidence: B)
Quality measurement and accountability have become integral parts of medical practice over the past 2 decades.
HF has been a specific target of quality measurement, improvement, and reporting because of its substantial
impact on population morbidity and mortality. Commonly used performance measures for HF can be considered
in 2 distinct categories: process measures and outcomes measures.
Process performance measures focus on the aspects of care that are delivered to a patient (e.g., the
prescription of a particular drug such as an ACE inhibitor in patients with LV systolic dysfunction and without
contraindications). Process measures derive from the most definitive guideline recommendations (i.e., class I
and class III recommendations). A small group of process measures for hospitalized patients with HF have been
reported to the public by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as part of the Hospital Compare
program (918).
Measures used to characterize the care of patients with HF should be those developed in a
multiorganizational consensus process using an explicit methodology focusing on measurability, validity,
reliability, feasibility, and ideally, correlation with patient outcomes (919, 920), and with transparent disclosure
and management of possible conflicts of interest. In the case of HF, several national outcome measures are
currently in use (Table 35), and the ACCF/AHA/American Medical Association−Physician Consortium for
Performance Improvement recently published revised performance measures document includes several process
measures for both inpatient and outpatient HF care (Table 36) (921). Of note, the ACCF/AHA distinguish
between processes of care that can be considered “Performance Measures” (i.e., suitable for use for
accountability purposes) and “Quality Metrics” (i.e., suitable for use for quality improvement but not
accountability) (922).
Measures are appealing for several reasons; by definition, they reflect the strongest guideline
recommendations. When appropriately specified, they are relatively easy to calculate and they provide a clear
target for improvement. However, they do not capture the broader range of care; they apply only to those
patients without contraindications to therapy. Evidence of the relation between better performance with respect
to process measures and patient outcomes is conflicting, and performance rates for those measures that have
been used as part of public reporting programs are generally high for all institutions, limiting the ability of these
measures to identify high- and low-performing centers.
Page 110
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
These limitations of process measures have generated interest in the use of outcomes measures as a
complementary approach to characterize quality. With respect to HF, 30-day mortality and 30-day readmission
are reported by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as part of the Hospital Compare program (Table
35) and are incorporated in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services value-based purchasing program
(918). Outcomes measures are appealing because they apply universally to almost all patients, and they provide
a perspective on the performance of health systems (923). On the other hand, they are limited by the
questionable adequacy of risk adjustment and by the challenges of improvement. The ACCF and AHA have
published criteria that characterize the necessary attributes of robust outcomes measures (924).
Table 35. Outcome Measures for HF
Measure
Developer
Congestive HF mortality rate (NQF endorsed)
Agency for Health Research and Quality
HF 30-day mortality rate (NQF endorsed)
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services
Agency for Health Research and Quality
Congestive HF admission rate (NQF endorsed)
HF 30-day risk-standardized HF readmission rate (NQF endorsed)
HF indicates heart failure; and NQF, National Quality Forum.
Table 36. ACCF/AHA/AMA-PCPI 2011 HF Measurement Set
Page 111
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Measure
Description*
Care
Setting
Outpatient
Level of Measurement
Percentage of patients aged ≥18 y with a diagnosis of
Individual practitioner
HF for whom the quantitative or qualitative results of
a recent or prior (any time in the past) LVEF
assessment is documented within a 12-mo period
2. LVEF assessment
Percentage of patients aged ≥18 y with a principal
Inpatient
• Individual practitioner
discharge diagnosis of HF with documentation in the
• Facility
hospital record of the results of an LVEF assessment
performed either before arrival or during
hospitalization, OR documentation in the hospital
record that LVEF assessment is planned for after
discharge
3. Symptom and activity
Percentage of patient visits for those patients aged ≥18
Outpatient
Individual practitioner
assessment
y with a diagnosis of HF with quantitative results of
an evaluation of both current level of activity and
clinical symptoms documented
4. Symptom
Percentage of patient visits for those patients aged ≥18
Outpatient
Individual practitioner
management†
y with a diagnosis of HF and with quantitative results
of an evaluation of both level of activity AND clinical
symptoms documented in which patient symptoms
have improved or remained consistent with treatment
goals since last assessment OR patient symptoms have
demonstrated clinically important deterioration since
last assessment with a documented plan of care
5. Patient self-care
Percentage of patients aged ≥18 y with a diagnosis of
Outpatient
Individual practitioner
education†‡
HF who were provided with self-care education on ≥3
elements of education during ≥1 visits within a 12-mo
period
6. Beta-blocker therapy
Percentage of patients aged ≥18 y with a diagnosis of
Inpatient
• Individual practitioner
• Facility
for LVSD (outpatient
HF with a current or prior LVEF <40% who were
and
and inpatient setting)
prescribed beta-blocker therapy with bisoprolol,
outpatient
carvedilol, or sustained-release metoprolol succinate
either within a 12-mo period when seen in the
outpatient setting or at hospital discharge
7. ACE inhibitor or
Percentage of patients aged ≥18 y with a diagnosis of
Inpatient
• Individual practitioner
ARB therapy for LVSD
HF with a current or prior LVEF <40% who were
and
• Facility
(outpatient and inpatient
prescribed ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy either
outpatient
setting)
within a 12-mo period when seen in the outpatient
setting or at hospital discharge
8. Counseling about ICD
Percentage of patients aged ≥18 y with a diagnosis of
Outpatient
Individual practitioner
implantation for patients
HF with current LVEF ≤35% despite ACE
with LVSD on
inhibitor/ARB and beta-blocker therapy for at least 3
combination medical
mo who were counseled about ICD implantation as a
therapy†‡
treatment option for the prophylaxis of sudden death
9. Postdischarge
Percentage of patients, regardless of age, discharged
Inpatient
Facility
appointment for HF
from an inpatient facility to ambulatory care or home
patients
health care with a principal discharge diagnosis of HF
for whom a follow-up appointment was scheduled and
documented, including location, date, and time for a
follow-up office visit or home health visit (as
specified)
*Refer to the complete measures for comprehensive information, including measure exception.
†Test measure designated for use in internal quality improvement programs only. These measures are not appropriate for
any other purpose (e.g., pay for performance, physician ranking, or public reporting programs).
‡New measure.
1. LVEF assessment
Page 112
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
N.B., Regarding test measure no. 8, implantation of ICD must be consistent with published guidelines. This measure is
intended to promote counseling only.
ACCF indicates American College of Cardiology Foundation; ACE, angiotensin-converting enzyme; AHA, American Heart
Association; AMA-PCPI, American Medical Association−Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement; ARB,
angiotensin-receptor blocker; HF, heart failure; ICD, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; LVEF, left ventricular ejection
fraction; and LVSD, left ventricular systolic dysfunction.
Adapted from Bonow et al (921).
See Online Data Supplement 44 for additional data on quality metrics and performance measures.
13. Evidence Gaps and Future Research Directions
Despite the objective evidence compiled by the writing committee on the basis of hundreds of clinical trials,
there are huge gaps in our knowledge base about many fundamental aspects of HF care. Some key examples
include an effective management strategy for patients with HFpEF beyond blood pressure control; a convincing
method to use biomarkers in the optimization of medical therapy; the recognition and treatment of cardiorenal
syndrome; and the critical need for improving patient adherence to therapeutic regimens. Even the widely
embraced dictum of sodium restriction in HF is not well supported by current evidence. Moreover, the majority
of the clinical trials that inform GDMT were designed around the primary endpoint of mortality, so that there is
less certainty about the impact of therapies on the HRQOL of patients. It is also of major concern that the
majority of RCTs failed to randomize a sufficient number of the elderly, women, and underrepresented
minorities, thus, limiting insight into these important patient cohorts. A growing body of studies on patientcentered outcomes research is likely to address some of these deficiencies, but time will be required.
HF is a syndrome with a high prevalence of comorbidities and multiple chronic conditions, but most
guidelines are developed for patients with a single disease. Nevertheless, the coexistence of additional diseases
such as arthritis, renal insufficiency, diabetes, or chronic lung disease to the HF syndrome should logically
require a modification of treatment, outcome assessment, or follow-up care. About 25% of Americans have
multiple chronic conditions; this figure rises to 75% in those >65 years of age, including the diseases referred to
above, as well as asthma, hypertension, cognitive disorders, or depression (847). Most RCTs in HF specifically
excluded patients with significant other comorbidities from enrollment, thus limiting our ability to generalize
our recommendations to many real-world patients. Therefore, the clinician must, as always, practice the art of
using the best of the guideline recommendations as they apply to a specific patient.
Future research will need to focus on novel pharmacological therapies, especially for hospitalized HF;
regenerative cell-based therapies to restore myocardium; and new device platforms that will either improve
existing technologies (e.g., CRT, ICD, left VAD) or introduce simpler, less morbid devices that are capable of
changing the natural history of HF. What is critically needed is an evidence base that clearly identifies best
processes of care, especially in the transition from hospital to home. Finally, preventing the burden of this
disease through more successful risk modification, sophisticated screening, perhaps using specific omics
Page 113
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
technologies (i.e., systems biology) or effective treatment interventions that reduce the progression from stage A
to stage B is an urgent need.
Presidents and Staff
American College of Cardiology Foundation
John Gordon Harold, MD, MACC, President
Thomas E. Arend, Jr., Esq., CAE, Interim Chief Staff Officer
William J. Oetgen, MD, MBA, FACC, Senior Vice President, Science and Quality
Charlene L. May, Senior Director, Science and Clinical Policy
American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association
Lisa Bradfield, CAE, Director, Science and Clinical Policy
Debjani Mukherjee, MPH, Associate Director, Evidence-Based Medicine
Ezaldeen Ramadhan III, Specialist, Science and Clinical Policy
Sarah Jackson, MPH, Specialist, Science and Clinical Policy
American Heart Association
Donna K. Arnett, PhD, MD, FAHA, President
Nancy Brown, Chief Executive Officer
Rose Marie Robertson, MD, FAHA, Chief Science Officer
Gayle R. Whitman, PhD, RN, FAHA, FAAN, Senior Vice President, Office of Science Operations
Judy Bezanson, DSN, RN, CNS-MS, FAHA, Science and Medicine Advisor
Jody Hundley, Production Manager, Scientific Publications, Office of Science Operations
Key Words: AHA Scientific Statements ■ cardio-renal physiology/pathophysiology ■ CV surgery:
transplantation, ventricular assistance, cardiomyopathy ■ congestive heart failure ■ epidemiology ■ health
policy and outcome research ■ heart failure ■ other heart failure
Page 114
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Appendix 1. Author Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant)—2013 ACCF/AHA
Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure
Committee
Member
Employment
Clyde W. Yancy,
Chair
Northwestern
University—Chief,
Division of Cardiology
and Magerstadt Professor
of Medicine
University of
Pennsylvania—Professor
of Medicine
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Michael E. DeBakey VA
Medical Center—The
Mary and Gordon Cain
Chair and Professor of
Medicine
Emory Healthcare—
Director of Heart Failure
Research; Emory
University School of
Medicine—Professor of
Medicine
None
None
• Amgen
• Cardiomems
• Gambro
• Takeda
None
Mariell Jessup,
Vice Chair
Biykem Bozkurt
Javed Butler
Donald E. Casey,
Jr.
Clinically Integrated
Physician Network, NYU
Langone Medical
Center—Vice President
and Medical Director
Consultant
Speaker’s
Bureau
Ownership/
Partnership/
Principal
Institutional,
Organizational, or
Other Financial
Benefit
None
None
None
• Amgen
• Celladon
• HeartWare
None
None
None
None
None
None
7.4.4
7.4.5
7.4.6
10
None
None
None
None
None
6.4
7.1
7.2
7.3.2
7.3.3
7.3.4
7.4.4
7.4.5
7.4.6
8.6
8.7
10
None
None
None
• Amgen
• Biotronic
• Boston Scientific
• Cardiomems
• Corthera†
• FoldRx
• iOcopsys
• Johnson &
Johnson
• Medtronic
• Thoratec
• World Heart
None
None
None
Page 115
Personal
Research
Expert
Witness
Voting
Recusals by
Section*
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Mark H. Drazner
University of Texas
Southwestern Medical
Center—Professor,
Internal Medicine
None
None
None
• HeartWare
• Scios/Johnson
& Johnson†
• Medtronic
• Thoratec†
None
Gregg C.
Fonarow
Director Ahmanson—
UCLA Cardiomyopathy
Center; Co-Chief—UCLA
Division of Cardiology
• Medtronic
• Novartis†
• Gambro
(formerly
CHF
Solutions)
• Takeda
None
None
• Novartis†
• Gambro
(formerly CHF
Solutions)
• Medtronic
None
Stephen A.
Geraci
Quillen College of
Medicine/East Tennessee
State University—
Chairman of Internal
Medicine
Ahmanson—UCLA
Cardiomyopathy Center—
Assistant Professor of
Medicine, Cardiology
Harvard Medical
School—Associate
Professor of Medicine;
Massachusetts General
Hospital—Director,
Cardiac Intensive Care
Unit
University of
Wisconsin−Madison—
Professor of Medicine,
Director, Heart Failure
and Transplantation
Johns Hopkins Hospital—
E. Cowles Andrus
None
None
None
None
None
None
7.1
7.2
7.3.2
7.3.4
7.4.4
7.4.5
7.4.6
8.6
8.7
10
7.1
7.2 (Class IIa)
7.3.2
7.3.4
8.3
8.4
8.7
10
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
• Critical
Diagnostics†
• Roche
Diagnostics†
None
None
• Critical
Diagnostics†
• Roche
Diagnostics†
None
None
6.2
6.3
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Tamara Horwich
James L. Januzzi
Maryl R. Johnson
Edward K.
Kasper
Page 116
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Wayne C. Levy
Frederick A.
Masoudi
Patrick E.
McBride
John J. V.
McMurray
Judith E.
Mitchell
Pamela N.
Peterson
Professor in Cardiology
Director, Clinical
Cardiology
University of
Washington—Professor of
Medicine, Division of
Cardiology
• Cardiac
Dimensions†
• CardioMems
• GE/Scios/Joh
nson &
Johnson
• Boehringer
Ingelheim
• GlaxoSmit
hKline
• Amarin
• Amgen†
• HeartWare†
• Amgen
• Thoratec
• Epocrates
• GE Healthcare
• HeartWare
None
None
None
None
None
6.4
6.5
7.1
7.2
7.3.1
7.3.2
7.3.4
7.4.5
8.3
8.6
8.7
10
None
University of Colorado,
Denver—Associate
Professor of Medicine,
Division of Cardiology
University of Wisconsin
School of Medicine and
Public Health—Professor
of Medicine and Family
Medicine, Associate Dean
for Students, Associate
Director, Preventive
Cardiology
University of Glasgow,
Scotland, BHF Glasgow
Cardiovascular Research
Center—Professor of
Medical Cardiology
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
• GlaxoSmithKli
ne†
• Roche (DSMB)
• Novartis
• Novartis
(PARADIGM–
PI)
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
6.2
6.3
7.1
7.2 (Class I
and Class III)
7.3.2
8.3
8.7
None
SUNY Downstate Medical
Center—Director, Heart
Failure Center; Associate
Professor of Medicine
University of Colorado,
Denver Health Medical
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Page 117
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Barbara Riegel
Flora Sam
Lynne W.
Stevenson
W.H. Wilson
Tang
Emily J. Tsai
Center—Associate
Professor of Medicine,
Division of Cardiology
University of
Pennsylvania School of
Nursing—Professor
Boston University School
of Medicine, Whitaker
Cardiovascular Institute—
Associate Professor of
Medicine, Division of
Cardiology/Cardiomyopat
hy Program
Brigham and Women’s
Hospital Cardiovascular
Division—Director,
Cardiomyopathy and
Heart Failure Program
Cleveland Clinic
Foundation—Associate
Professor of Medicine,
Research Director for
Heart Failure/Transplant
Temple University School
of Medicine—Assistant
Professor of Medicine,
Cardiology
Cleveland Clinic—
Director, Cardiac Pacing
and Tachyarrhythmia
Devices; Director, Clinical
EP Research
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
• Biosense
Webster
None
None
7.3.4
• Medtronic
• St. Jude
Medical
None
None
• Abbott†
• FoldRx
• Johnson &
Johnson
• Medtronic†
• St. Jude
Medical†
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
6.2
6.3
7.1
7.2
7.3.2
7.3.3
7.3.4
8.6
8.7
10
None
None
None
7.2 (Class IIa)
• Biotronic
7.3.4
• Boston
10
Scientific
• Medtronic
• St. Jude
Medical
This table represents the relationships of committee members with industry and other entities that were determined to be relevant to this document. These relationships
were reviewed and updated in conjunction with all meetings and/or conference calls of the writing committee during the document development process. The table does
Bruce L. Wilkoff
None
None
None
Page 118
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
not necessarily reflect relationships with industry at the time of publication. A person is deemed to have a significant interest in a business if the interest represents
ownership of ≥5% of the voting stock or share of the business entity, or ownership of ≥$10,000 of the fair market value of the business entity; or if funds received by the
person from the business entity exceed 5% of the person’s gross income for the previous year. Relationships that exist with no financial benefit are also included for the
purpose of transparency. Relationships in this table are modest unless otherwise noted.
According to the ACCF/AHA, a person has a relevant relationship IF: a) The relationship or interest relates to the same or similar subject matter, intellectual property or
asset, topic, or issue addressed in the document; or b) The company/entity (with whom the relationship exists) makes a drug, drug class, or device addressed in the
document, or makes a competing drug or device addressed in the document; or c) The person or a member of the person’s household, has a reasonable potential for
financial, professional or other personal gain or loss as a result of the issues/content addressed in the document.
*Writing committee members are required to recuse themselves from voting on sections to which their specific relationships with industry and other entities may apply.
Section numbers pertain to those in the full-text guideline.
†Indicates significant relationship.
DSMB indicates Data Safety Monitoring Board; EP, electrophysiology; NYU, New York University; PARADIGM, a Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel
Group, Active-controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure
and Reduced Ejection Fraction; PI, Principal Investigator; SUNY, State University of New York; UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles; and VA, Veterans Affairs.
Appendix 2. Reviewer Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant)—2013 ACCF/AHA
Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure
Reviewer
Nancy Albert
Kathleen Grady
Paul Hauptman
Representation
Employment
Official Reviewer—
ACCF/AHA Task
Force on Practice
Guidelines
Official Reviewer—
AHA
Kaufman Center for
Heart Failure—Senior
Director of Nursing
Research
Bluhm Cardiovascular
Institute—
Administrative
Director, Center for
Heart Failure
St. Louis University
School of Medicine—
Professor of Internal
Official Reviewer—
AHA
Consultant
Speaker’s
Bureau
• BG Medicine
• Medtronic
• Merck†
None
None
None
Institutional,
Organizational,
or Other
Financial
Benefit
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
• BG Medicine
• Otsuka America*
None
None
None
• EvaHeart†
None
Page 119
Ownership/
Partnership/
Principal
Personal
Research
Expert
Witness
None
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Hector Ventura
Official Reviewer—
ACCF Board of
Governors
Mary Norine
Walsh
Official Reviewer—
ACCF Board of
Trustees
Organizational
Reviewer—ACCP
Jun Chiong
David
DeLurgio
Organizational
Reviewer—HRS
Folashade
Omole
Organizational
Reviewer—AAFP
Robert Rich, Jr.
Organizational
Reviewer—AAFP
David Taylor
Organizational
Reviewer—ISHLT
Kimberly
Birtcher
Content Reviewer—
ACCF
Cardiovascular
Team Council
Content Reviewer—
ACCF
Cardiovascular
Team Council
Kay Blum
Medicine, Division of
Cardiology
Ochsner Clinic
Foundation—
Director, Section of
Cardiomyopathy and
Heart Transplantation
St. Vincent Heart
Center of Indiana—
Medical Director
Loma Linda
University—Associate
Clinical Professor of
Medicine
The Emory Clinic—
Associate Professor,
Director of EP
Laboratory
Morehouse School of
Medicine—Associate
Professor of Clinical
Family Medicine
Bladen Medical
Associates—Family
Practice
Cleveland Clinic,
Department of
Cardiology—
Professor of Medicine
• BioControl
Medical
• Otsuka
• Actelion
None
None
None
None
• United Healthcare
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
• Otsuka
(DSMB)
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
• ISHLT
None
None
University of Houston
College of
Pharmacy—Clinical
Professor
Medstar Southern
Maryland Hospital
Center—Nurse
Practitioner
None
None
None
None
• Biotronix†
• St. Jude's
Medical†
• Genentech†
• Novartis†
• HeartWare†
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Page 120
None
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Michael Chan
Content Reviewer—
ACCF
Cardiovascular
Team Council
Jane Chen
Content Reviewer—
ACCF EP
Committee
Michael Clark
Content Reviewer—
ACCF
Cardiovascular
Team Council
Content Reviewer—
ACCF Imaging
Council
Marco Costa
Anita Deswal
Content Reviewer
Steven Dunn
Content Reviewer—
ACCF Prevention
Committee
Andrew Epstein
Content Reviewer
Justin
Ezekowitz
Content Reviewer—
AHA
Royal Alexandra
Hospital—CoDirector, Heart
Function Program;
University of
Alberta—Associate
Clinical Professor
of Medicine
Washington
University School of
Medicine—Assistant
Professor of Medicine
North Texas
Cardiology and EP—
Associate Professor
• Medtronic
None
None
None
None
• St. Jude Medical
• Medtronic
None
None
None
None
• Abbott
Pharma
None
None
None
None
University Hospital
for Cleveland—
Professor of Medicine
•
•
•
•
•
• DaiichiSankyo
• Sanofi
• Eli Lilly
None
None
None
Baylor College of
Medicine—Associate
Professor of Medicine
University of Virginia
Health System—
Clinical Pharmacy
Specialist
University of
Pennsylvania—
Professor of Medicine
None
None
None
• Novartis†
• Amgen†
• Medtronic*
• St. Jude
Medical
• Abbott
Vascular*
• Boston
Scientific
• Cardiokinetix†
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
• Biotronic
• Boehringer
Ingelheim
• Medtronic
• Zoll
None
None
• St. Jude
Medical*
• Boston
Scientific*
None
• Abbott Labs
• AstraZeneca
• Pfizer
None
None
• Biosense
Webster*
• Boston
Scientific*
• Cameron
Health*
• Amgen
• BristolMyers
None
None
Mazankowski Alberta
Heart Institute—
Director, Heart
Medtronic
Abbott Vascular
Boston Scientific
St. Jude Medical
Cardiokinetix*
Page 121
None
None
None
None
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Gerasimos
Filippatos
Content Reviewer
Linda Gillam
Content Reviewer—
ACCF Imaging
Council
Content Reviewer
Paul
Heidenreich
Paul Hess
Sharon Ann
Hunt
Charles McKay
James
McClurken
Wayne Miller
Rick Nishimura
Donna
Petruccelli
Content Reviewer—
ACCF EP
Committee
Content Reviewer
Content Reviewer—
ACCF Council on
Cardiovascular Care
for Older Adults
Content Reviewer—
ACCF Surgeons’
Scientific Council
Content Reviewer—
ACCF Heart Failure
and Transplant
Council
Content Reviewer
Content Reviewer—
ACCF Heart Failure
and Transplant
Council
Function Clinic
University of
Athens—Department
of Cardiology
Morristown Medical
Center—Professor of
Cardiology
Stanford VA Palo Alto
Medical Center—
Assistant Professor of
Medicine
Duke University
School of Medicine—
Fellow
Stanford University
Medical Center—
Professor, Department
of Cardiovascular
Medicine
Harbor-UCLA
Medical Center—
Professor of Medicine
None
None
None
Squibb
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
• Corthera
• Vifor
None
None
• Edwards
Lifesciences†
None
None
• Medtronic†
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Temple University
School of Medicine—
Director of
Cardiothoracic
Perioperative Services
Mayo Clinic—
Professor of Medicine
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Mayo Clinic—
Professor of Medicine
Lehigh Valley Health
Network—Heart
Failure Nurse
Practitioner/Clinical
Nurse Specialist,
Center for Advanced
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Page 122
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Geetha
Raghuveer
Pasala
Ravichandran
Michael Rich
Anitra Romfh
Andrea Russo
Content Reviewer—
ACCF Board of
Governors
Content Reviewer—
ACCF Surgeons’
Scientific Council
Content Reviewer—
ACCF Council on
Cardiovascular Care
for Older Adults
Content Reviewer—
ACCF Adult
Congenital and
Pediatric Cardiology
Council
Content Reviewer—
ACCF Task Force
on Appropriate Use
Criteria
Heart Failure
Children's Mercy
Hospital—Associate
Professor of Pediatrics
Oregon Health &
Science University—
Associate Professor
Washington
University School of
Medicine—Professor
of Medicine
Children's Hospital
Boston—Clinical
Fellow in Pediatrics
Cooper University
Hospital—Professor of
Medicine
Dipan Shah
Content Reviewer—
ACCF Imaging
Council
Methodist DeBakey
Heart Center—
Director
Randy Starling
Content Reviewer
Karen Stout
Content Reviewer—
ACCF Adult
Congenital and
Pediatric Cardiology
Council
Content Reviewer
Cleveland Clinic,
Department of
Cardiovascular
Medicine—Vice
Chairman
University of
Washington—
Director, Adult
Congenital Heart
Disease Program
San Francisco VA
Medical Center—
Professor of Medicine
John Teerlink
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
• Cameron Health
• Biotronik
• Boston Scientific
• Medtronic
• St. Jude Medical
None
None
None
• Cameron
Health
• Medtronic
None
None
• Lantheus
Medical
Imaging
• AstraZeneca*
None
None
None
• Novartis
None
None
None
• Astellas
Pharma
• Siemens
Medical
Solutions*
• Biotronik
• Medtronic
None
None
None
None
None
None
•
•
•
•
None
None
None
• Novartis*
• Amgen*
• Merck
None
Trevena
Novartis*
Anexon
St. Jude Medical*
Page 123
None
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Robert Touchon
Content Reviewer—
ACCF Prevention
Committee
Hiroyuki
Tsutsui
Content Reviewer
Marshall University,
Joan C. Edwards
School of Medicine—
Professor of Medicine
Hokkaido
University—Professor
of Medicine
• CardioMEMS*
• Amgen*
• Scios/Johnson &
Johnson
• Cytokinetics
None
• Novartis*
• Takeda*
• Daiichi-Sankyo*
• Pfizer
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Content Reviewer— Emory University
None
None
None
• AGA
ACCF Adult
School of Medicine—
Congenital and
Professor of Pediatrics
Pediatric Cardiology
Council
This table represents the relationships of reviewers with industry and other entities that were disclosed at the time of peer review and determined to be relevant to this
document. It does not necessarily reflect relationships with industry at the time of publication. A person is deemed to have a significant interest in a business if the interest
represents ownership of ≥5% of the voting stock or share of the business entity, or ownership of ≥$10 000 of the fair market value of the business entity; or if funds
received by the person from the business entity exceed 5% of the person’s gross income for the previous year. A relationship is considered to be modest if it is less than
significant under the preceding definition. Relationships that exist with no financial benefit are also included for the purpose of transparency. Relationships in this table are
modest unless otherwise noted. Names are listed in alphabetical order within each category of review.
Robert Vincent
According to the ACCF/AHA, a person has a relevant relationship IF: a) The relationship or interest relates to the same or similar subject matter, intellectual property or
asset, topic, or issue addressed in the document; or b) The company/entity (with whom the relationship exists) makes a drug, drug class, or device addressed in the
document, or makes a competing drug or device addressed in the document; or c) The person or a member of the person’s household has a reasonable potential for financial,
professional, or other personal gain or loss as a result of the issues/content addressed in the document.
*Significant relationship.
†No financial benefit.
AAFP indicates American Academy of Family Physicians; ACCF, American College of Cardiology Foundation; ACCP, American College of Chest Physicians; AHA,
American Heart Association; DSMB, data safety monitoring board; EP, electrophysiology; HRS, Heart Rhythm Society; ISHLT, International Society for Heart and Lung
Transplantation; and VA, Veterans Affairs.
Page 124
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
Appendix 3. Abbreviations
ACE = angiotensin-converting enzyme
ACS = acute coronary syndrome
AF = atrial fibrillation
ARB = angiotensin-receptor blocker
BMI = body mass index
BNP = B-type natriuretic peptide
BTT = bridge to transplantation
CABG = coronary artery bypass graft
CAD = coronary artery disease
CPAP = continuous positive airway pressure
CRT = cardiac resynchronization therapy
DCM = dilated cardiomyopathy
ECG = electrocardiogram
EF = ejection fraction
GDMT = guideline-directed medical therapy
HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c
HF = heart failure
HFpEF = heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
HFrEF = heart failure with reduced ejection fraction
HRQOL = health-related quality of life
ICD = implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
LBBB = left bundle-branch block
LV = left ventricular
LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction
MCS = mechanical circulatory support
MI = myocardial infarction
NSAIDs = nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
NT-proBNP = N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide
NYHA = New York Heart Association
PUFA = polyunsaturated fatty acids
RCT = randomized controlled trial
SCD = sudden cardiac death
VAD = ventricular assist device
Page 125
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
References
1. ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Methodology Manual and Policies From the ACCF/AHA Task
Force on Practice Guidelines. American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association.
2010. Available at:
http://assets.cardiosource.com/Methodology_Manual_for_ACC_AHA_Writing_Committees.pdf and
http://my.americanheart.org/idc/groups/ahamah-public/@wcm/sop/documents/downloadable/ucm_319826.pdf.
Accessed May 16, 2012.
2. Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines; Institute of Medicine. Clinical
Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press, 2011.
3. Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Institute of Medicine:
Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011.
4. Tracy CM, Epstein AE, Darbar D, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS Focused Update Incorporated Into the
ACCF/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: A Report of the
American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and
the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2013;127:e283-352.
5. Warnes CA, Williams RG, Bashore TM, et al. ACC/AHA 2008 guidelines for the management of adults with
congenital heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force
on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Congenital
Heart Disease). Circulation. 2008;118:e714–833.
6. Fuster V, Ryden LE, Cannom DS, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused updates incorporated into the
ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American
College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in
partnership with the European Society of Cardiology. Circulation. 2011;123:e269–367.
7. Wann LS, Curtis AB, January CT, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update on the management of patients
with atrial fibrillation (Updating the 2006 Guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology
Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2011;123:104–23.
8. Wann LS, Curtis AB, Ellenbogen KA, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update on the management of
patients with atrial fibrillation (update on dabigatran): a report of the American College of Cardiology
Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2011;123:1144-50.
9. Greenland P, Alpert JS, Beller GA, et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA guideline for assessment of cardiovascular risk in
asymptomatic adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association
Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2010;122:e584–636.
10. Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.
A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice
Guidelines. Circulation. 2011;124:e652-735.
11. Gersh BJ, Maron BJ, Bonow RO, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart
Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for
Thoracic Surgery, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure
Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and
Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2011;124:e783– 831.
12. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary
Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force
on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation. 2011; 124:
e574-651.
13. Smith SC, Jr., Benjamin EJ, Bonow RO, et al. AHA/ACCF secondary prevention and risk reduction therapy for
patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2011 update: a guideline from the American
Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation. 2011; 124: 2458-73.
14. Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis
and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology
Page 126
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of
Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society
for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation.
2012;126:e354-471.
O'Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation
myocardial infarction: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American
Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2013;127:529-55.
Anderson J, Adams C, Antman E, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACCF/AHA 2007
guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-st-elevation myocardial infarction.
Circulation. 2013;127: DOI:10.1161/CIR.0b013e31828478ac.
Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, et al. 2008 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006
guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of
Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1998
guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease). Circulation. 2008;118:e523-661.
Lindenfeld J, Albert NM, Boehmer JP, et al. HFSA 2010 Comprehensive Heart Failure Practice Guideline. J Card
Fail. 2010;16:e1-194.
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. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1787-847.
National Collaborating Centre for Acute and Chronic Conditions. Chronic heart failure: Management of chronic
heart failure in adults in primary and secondary care (NICE clinical guideline 108). 2010;
Guyatt GH, Akl EA, Crowther M, et al. Executive summary: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of
Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest.
2012;141:7S-47S.
Costanzo MR, Dipchand A, Starling R, et al. The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation
Guidelines for the care of heart transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29:914-56.
Maron BJ, Towbin JA, Thiene G, et al. Contemporary definitions and classification of the cardiomyopathies: an
American Heart Association Scientific Statement from the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Heart Failure and
Transplantation Committee; Quality of Care and Outcomes Research and Functional Genomics and Translational
Biology Interdisciplinary Working Groups; and Council on Epidemiology and Prevention. Circulation.
2006;113:1807-16.
Ashley EA, Hershberger RE, Caleshu C, et al. Genetics and cardiovascular disease: a policy statement from the
American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;126:142-57.
Patel MR, White RD, Abbara S, et al. 2013 ACCF/ACR/ASE/ASNC/SCCT/SCMR Appropriate Utilization of
Cardiovascular Imaging in Heart Failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013.
Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, et al. ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/SCCT 2012 Appropriate
use criteria for coronary revascularization focused update: a report of the American College of Cardiology
Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions,
Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association,
American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 2012;59:857-81.
Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention,
Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension. 2003;42:1206-52.
Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and
Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation.
2002;106:3143-421.
Balady GJ, Ades PA, Bittner VA, et al. Referral, enrollment, and delivery of cardiac rehabilitation/secondary
prevention programs at clinical centers and beyond: a presidential advisory from the American Heart Association.
Circulation. 2011;124:2951-60.
Allen LA, Stevenson LW, Grady KL, et al. Decision Making in Advanced Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement
From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;125:1928-52.
Peura JL, Colvin-Adams M, Francis GS, et al. Recommendations for the use of mechanical circulatory support:
device strategies and patient selection: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation.
2012;126:2648-67.
Metra M, Ponikowski P, Dickstein K, et al. Advanced chronic heart failure: A position statement from the Study
Group on Advanced Heart Failure of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J
Heart Fail. 2007;9:684-94.
Page 127
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
33. Furie KL, Goldstein LB, Albers GW, et al. Oral Antithrombotic Agents for the Prevention of Stroke in
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Science Advisory for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart
Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2012;43.
34. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2012;60:1581-98.
35. Fonarow GC, Stough WG, Abraham WT, et al. Characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with
preserved systolic function hospitalized for heart failure: a report from the OPTIMIZE-HF Registry. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 2007;50:768-77.
36. Cleland JG, Torabi A, Khan NK. Epidemiology and management of heart failure and left ventricular systolic
dysfunction in the aftermath of a myocardial infarction. Heart. 2005;91 Suppl 2:ii7-13.
37. Kannel WB. Incidence and epidemiology of heart failure. Heart Fail Rev. 2000;5:167-73.
38. Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH, et al. 2009 Focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2005 Guidelines
for the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure in Adults A Report of the American College of Cardiology
Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2009; 119: e391-479.
39. Kane GC, Karon BL, Mahoney DW, et al. Progression of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and risk of heart
failure. JAMA. 2011;306:856-63.
40. Owan TE, Hodge DO, Herges RM, et al. Trends in prevalence and outcome of heart failure with preserved
ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:251-9.
41. Vasan RS, Levy D. Defining diastolic heart failure: a call for standardized diagnostic criteria. Circulation.
2000;101:2118-21.
42. Steinberg BA, Zhao X, Heidenreich PA, et al. Trends in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure and Preserved
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: Prevalence, Therapies, and Outcomes. Circulation. 2012;126:65-75.
43. Lee DS, Gona P, Vasan RS, et al. Relation of disease pathogenesis and risk factors to heart failure with preserved
or reduced ejection fraction: insights from the framingham heart study of the national heart, lung, and blood
institute. Circulation. 2009;119:3070-7.
44. Bhuiyan T, Maurer MS. Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Persistent Diagnosis, Therapeutic
Enigma. Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep. 2011;5:440-9.
45. Punnoose LR, Givertz MM, Lewis EF, et al. Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction: a distinct clinical
entity. J Card Fail. 2011;17:527-32.
46. The Criteria Committee of the New York Heart Association. Nomenclature and Criteria for Diagnosis of Diseases
of the Heart and Great Vessels, 9th edition. Boston: Little and Brown Co.; 1994.
47. Ammar KA, Jacobsen SJ, Mahoney DW, et al. Prevalence and prognostic significance of heart failure stages:
application of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association heart failure staging criteria in the
community. Circulation. 2007;115:1563-70.
48. Goldman L, Hashimoto B, Cook EF, et al. Comparative reproducibility and validity of systems for assessing
cardiovascular functional class: advantages of a new specific activity scale. Circulation. 1981;64:1227-34.
49. Madsen BK, Hansen JF, Stokholm KH, et al. Chronic congestive heart failure. Description and survival of 190
consecutive patients with a diagnosis of chronic congestive heart failure based on clinical signs and symptoms. Eur
Heart J. 1994;15:303-10.
50. Djousse L, Driver JA, Gaziano JM. Relation between modifiable lifestyle factors and lifetime risk of heart failure.
JAMA. 2009;302:394-400.
51. Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2013 update: a report from the
American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;127:e6-245.
52. Curtis LH, Whellan DJ, Hammill BG, et al. Incidence and prevalence of heart failure in elderly persons, 19942003. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:418-24.
53. Roger VL, Weston SA, Redfield MM, et al. Trends in heart failure incidence and survival in a community-based
population. JAMA. 2004;292:344-50.
54. Owan TE, Redfield MM. Epidemiology of diastolic heart failure. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2005;47:320-32.
55. The Booming Dynamics of Aging: The White House Conference on Aging. 2011.
56. Bahrami H, Kronmal R, Bluemke DA, et al. Differences in the incidence of congestive heart failure by ethnicity:
the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:2138-45.
57. Lloyd-Jones DM, Larson MG, Leip EP, et al. Lifetime risk for developing congestive heart failure: the
Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2002;106:3068-72.
58. Loehr LR, Rosamond WD, Chang PP, et al. Heart failure incidence and survival (from the Atherosclerosis Risk in
Communities study). Am J Cardiol. 2008;101:1016-22.
59. Levy D, Kenchaiah S, Larson MG, et al. Long-term trends in the incidence of and survival with heart failure. N
Engl J Med. 2002;347:1397-402.
Page 128
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
60. Bueno H, Ross JS, Wang Y, et al. Trends in length of stay and short-term outcomes among Medicare patients
hospitalized for heart failure, 1993-2006. JAMA. 2010;303:2141-7.
61. Krumholz HM, Merrill AR, Schone EM, et al. Patterns of hospital performance in acute myocardial infarction and
heart failure 30-day mortality and readmission. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2:407-13.
62. McDonagh TA, Morrison CE, Lawrence A, et al. Symptomatic and asymptomatic left-ventricular systolic
dysfunction in an urban population. Lancet. 1997;350:829-33.
63. Mosterd A, Hoes AW, de Bruyne MC, et al. Prevalence of heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction in the
general population; The Rotterdam Study. Eur Heart J. 1999;20:447-55.
64. Redfield MM, Jacobsen SJ, Burnett JC, Jr., et al. Burden of systolic and diastolic ventricular dysfunction in the
community: appreciating the scope of the heart failure epidemic. JAMA. 2003;289:194-202.
65. Jong P, Yusuf S, Rousseau MF, et al. Effect of enalapril on 12-year survival and life expectancy in patients with
left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a follow-up study. Lancet. 2003;361:1843-8.
66. Heo S, Doering LV, Widener J, et al. Predictors and effect of physical symptom status on health-related quality of
life in patients with heart failure. Am J Crit Care. 2008;17:124-32.
67. Lesman-Leegte I, Jaarsma T, Coyne JC, et al. Quality of life and depressive symptoms in the elderly: a
comparison between patients with heart failure and age- and gender-matched community controls. J Card Fail.
2009;15:17-23.
68. Moser DK, Yamokoski L, Sun JL, et al. Improvement in health-related quality of life after hospitalization predicts
event-free survival in patients with advanced heart failure. J Card Fail. 2009;15:763-9.
69. Rodriguez-Artalejo F, Guallar-Castillon P, Pascual CR, et al. Health-related quality of life as a predictor of
hospital readmission and death among patients with heart failure. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1274-9.
70. Heo S, Moser DK, Widener J. Gender differences in the effects of physical and emotional symptoms on healthrelated quality of life in patients with heart failure. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2007;6:146-52.
71. Riegel B, Moser DK, Rayens MK, et al. Ethnic differences in quality of life in persons with heart failure. J Card
Fail. 2008;14:41-7.
72. Bosworth HB, Steinhauser KE, Orr M, et al. Congestive heart failure patients' perceptions of quality of life: the
integration of physical and psychosocial factors. Aging Ment Health. 2004;8:83-91.
73. Carmona-Bernal C, Ruiz-Garcia A, Villa-Gil M, et al. Quality of life in patients with congestive heart failure and
central sleep apnea. Sleep Med. 2008;9:646-51.
74. Lewis EF, Lamas GA, O'Meara E, et al. Characterization of health-related quality of life in heart failure patients
with preserved versus low ejection fraction in CHARM. Eur J Heart Fail. 2007;9:83-91.
75. Masoudi FA, Rumsfeld JS, Havranek EP, et al. Age, functional capacity, and health-related quality of life in
patients with heart failure. J Card Fail. 2004;10:368-73.
76. Pressler SJ, Subramanian U, Kareken D, et al. Cognitive deficits and health-related quality of life in chronic heart
failure. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2010;25:189-98.
77. Majani G, Giardini A, Opasich C, et al. Effect of valsartan on quality of life when added to usual therapy for heart
failure: results from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial. J Card Fail. 2005;11:253-9.
78. Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, et al. The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in
heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1539-49.
79. Harrison MB, Browne GB, Roberts J, et al. Quality of life of individuals with heart failure: a randomized trial of
the effectiveness of two models of hospital-to-home transition. Med Care. 2002;40:271-82.
80. Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, et al. Structured telephone support or telemonitoring programmes for patients
with chronic heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;CD007228.
81. Johansson P, Dahlstrom U, Brostrom A. Factors and interventions influencing health-related quality of life in
patients with heart failure: a review of the literature. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2006;5:5-15.
82. McAlister FA, Stewart S, Ferrua S, et al. 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.
83. Ditewig JB, Blok H, Havers J, et al. Effectiveness of self-management interventions on mortality, hospital
readmissions, chronic heart failure hospitalization rate and quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure: a
systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78:297-315.
84. Jovicic A, Holroyd-Leduc JM, Straus SE. Effects of self-management intervention on health outcomes of patients
with heart failure: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2006;6:43.
85. Chien CL, Lee CM, Wu YW, et al. Home-based exercise increases exercise capacity but not quality of life in
people with chronic heart failure: a systematic review. Aust J Physiother. 2008;54:87-93.
86. Karapolat H, Demir E, Bozkaya YT, et al. Comparison of hospital-based versus home-based exercise training in
patients with heart failure: effects on functional capacity, quality of life, psychological symptoms, and
hemodynamic parameters. Clin Res Cardiol. 2009;98:635-42.
Page 129
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
87. Heidenreich PA, Trogdon JG, Khavjou OA, et al. Forecasting the future of cardiovascular disease in the United
States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123:933-44.
88. Titler MG, Jensen GA, Dochterman JM, et al. Cost of hospital care for older adults with heart failure: medical,
pharmaceutical, and nursing costs. Health Serv Res. 2008;43:635-55.
89. Wang G, Zhang Z, Ayala C, et al. Costs of heart failure-related hospitalizations in patients aged 18 to 64 years.
Am J Manag Care. 2010;16:769-76.
90. Standards of medical care in diabetes--2012. Diabetes Care. 2012;35 Suppl 1:S11-S63.
91. Levy D, Larson MG, Vasan RS, et al. The progression from hypertension to congestive heart failure. JAMA.
1996;275:1557-62.
92. Wilhelmsen L, Rosengren A, Eriksson H, et al. Heart failure in the general population of men--morbidity, risk
factors and prognosis. J Intern Med. 2001;249:253-61.
93. Effects of treatment on morbidity in hypertension. II. Results in patients with diastolic blood pressure averaging 90
through 114 mm Hg. JAMA. 1970;213:1143-52.
94. Kostis JB, Davis BR, Cutler J, et al. Prevention of heart failure by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons
with isolated systolic hypertension. SHEP Cooperative Research Group. JAMA. 1997;278:212-6.
95. Izzo JL, Jr., Gradman AH. Mechanisms and management of hypertensive heart disease: from left ventricular
hypertrophy to heart failure. Med Clin North Am. 2004;88:1257-71.
96. Baker DW. Prevention of heart failure. J Card Fail. 2002;8:333-46.
97. Vasan RS, Beiser A, Seshadri S, et al. Residual lifetime risk for developing hypertension in middle-aged women
and men: The Framingham Heart Study. JAMA. 2002;287:1003-10.
98. Taegtmeyer H, McNulty P, Young ME. Adaptation and maladaptation of the heart in diabetes: Part I: general
concepts. Circulation. 2002;105:1727-33.
99. Kenchaiah S, Evans JC, Levy D, et al. Obesity and the risk of heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:305-13.
100. He J, Ogden LG, Bazzano LA, et al. Risk factors for congestive heart failure in US men and women: NHANES I
epidemiologic follow-up study. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:996-1002.
101. Krumholz HM, Chen YT, Wang Y, et al. Predictors of readmission among elderly survivors of admission with
heart failure. Am Heart J. 2000;139:72-7.
102. Shindler DM, Kostis JB, Yusuf S, et al. Diabetes mellitus, a predictor of morbidity and mortality in the Studies of
Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) Trials and Registry. Am J Cardiol. 1996;77:1017-20.
103. Kereiakes DJ, Willerson JT. Metabolic syndrome epidemic. Circulation. 2003;108:1552-3.
104. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol
Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:720-32.
105. Richardson P, McKenna W, Bristow M, et al. Report of the 1995 World Health Organization/International Society
and Federation of Cardiology Task Force on the Definition and Classification of cardiomyopathies. Circulation.
1996;93:841-2.
106. Manolio TA, Baughman KL, Rodeheffer R, et al. Prevalence and etiology of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy
(summary of a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop). Am J Cardiol. 1992;69:1458-66.
107. Adams KF, Jr., Fonarow GC, Emerman CL, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalized for heart
failure in the United States: rationale, design, and preliminary observations from the first 100,000 cases in the
Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE). Am Heart J. 2005;149:209-16.
108. Cohn JN, Tognoni G. A randomized trial of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan in chronic heart failure. N
Engl J Med. 2001;345:1667-75.
109. Ghali JK, Pina IL, Gottlieb SS, et al. Metoprolol CR/XL in female patients with heart failure: analysis of the
experience in Metoprolol Extended-Release Randomized Intervention Trial in Heart Failure (MERIT-HF).
Circulation. 2002;105:1585-91.
110. Dries DL, Exner DV, Gersh BJ, et al. Racial differences in the outcome of left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J
Med. 1999;340:609-16.
111. Nieminen MS, Harjola VP, Hochadel M, et al. Gender related differences in patients presenting with acute heart
failure. Results from EuroHeart Failure Survey II. Eur J Heart Fail. 2008;10:140-8.
112. Dec GW, Fuster V. Idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1564-75.
113. McNamara DM, Starling RC, Cooper LT, et al. Clinical and demographic predictors of outcomes in recent onset
dilated cardiomyopathy: results of the IMAC (Intervention in Myocarditis and Acute Cardiomyopathy)-2 study. J
Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1112-8.
114. Ehlert FA, Cannom DS, Renfroe EG, et al. Comparison of dilated cardiomyopathy and coronary artery disease in
patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias: Differences in presentation and outcome in the AVID
registry. Am Heart J. 2001;142:816-22.
Page 130
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
115. Abraham WT, Young JB, Leon AR, et al. Effects of cardiac resynchronization on disease progression in patients
with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, an indication for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and mildly
symptomatic chronic heart failure. Circulation. 2004;110:2864-8.
116. Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable
defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2140-50.
117. CBIS II Authors. The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II): a randomised trial. Lancet.
1999;353:9-13.
118. Hershberger RE, Siegfried JD. Update 2011: clinical and genetic issues in familial dilated cardiomyopathy. J Am
Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:1641-9.
119. Petretta M, Pirozzi F, Sasso L, et al. Review and metaanalysis of the frequency of familial dilated cardiomyopathy.
Am J Cardiol. 2011;108:1171-6.
120. Judge DP, Rouf R. Use of genetics in the clinical evaluation and management of heart failure. Curr Treat Options
Cardiovasc Med. 2010;12:566-77.
121. Hershberger RE, Lindenfeld J, Mestroni L, et al. Genetic evaluation of cardiomyopathy--a Heart Failure Society of
America practice guideline. J Card Fail. 2009;15:83-97.
122. Charron P, Arad M, Arbustini E, et al. Genetic counselling and testing in cardiomyopathies: a position statement
of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases. Eur Heart J.
2010;31:2715-26.
123. Ackerman MJ, Priori SG, Willems S, et al. HRS/EHRA expert consensus statement on the state of genetic testing
for the channelopathies and cardiomyopathies: this document was developed as a partnership between the Heart
Rhythm Society (HRS) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Europace. 2011;13:1077-109.
124. Alpert MA. Obesity cardiomyopathy: pathophysiology and evolution of the clinical syndrome. Am J Med Sci.
2001;321:225-36.
125. Marfella R, Di Filippo C, Portoghese M, et al. Myocardial lipid accumulation in patients with pressure-overloaded
heart and metabolic syndrome. J Lipid Res. 2009;50:2314-23.
126. Schulze PC. Myocardial lipid accumulation and lipotoxicity in heart failure. J Lipid Res. 2009;50:2137-8.
127. Aguilar D, Bozkurt B, Ramasubbu K, et al. Relationship of hemoglobin A1C and mortality in heart failure patients
with diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:422-8.
128. Eurich DT, McAlister FA, Blackburn DF, et al. Benefits and harms of antidiabetic agents in patients with diabetes
and heart failure: systematic review. BMJ. 2007;335:497.
129. Aguilar D, Bozkurt B, Pritchett A, et al. The impact of thiazolidinedione use on outcomes in ambulatory patients
with diabetes mellitus and heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:32-6.
130. Masoudi FA, Inzucchi SE, Wang Y, et al. Thiazolidinediones, metformin, and outcomes in older patients with
diabetes and heart failure: an observational study. Circulation. 2005;111:583-90.
131. Misbin RI, Green L, Stadel BV, et al. Lactic acidosis in patients with diabetes treated with metformin. N Engl J
Med. 1998;338:265-6.
132. Nesto RW, Bell D, Bonow RO, et al. Thiazolidinedione use, fluid retention, and congestive heart failure: a
consensus statement from the American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association. October 7, 2003.
Circulation. 2003;108:2941-8.
133. Klein I, Ojamaa K. Thyroid hormone and the cardiovascular system. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:501-9.
134. Lee RT, Plappert M, Sutton MG. Depressed left ventricular systolic ejection force in hypothyroidism. Am J
Cardiol. 1990;65:526-7.
135. Colao A, Marzullo P, Di Somma C, et al. Growth hormone and the heart. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2001;54:137-54.
136. Piano MR. Alcoholic cardiomyopathy: incidence, clinical characteristics, and pathophysiology. Chest.
2002;121:1638-50.
137. Cerqueira MD, Harp GD, Ritchie JL, et al. Rarity of preclinical alcoholic cardiomyopathy in chronic alcoholics
less than 40 years of age. Am J Cardiol. 1991;67:183-7.
138. Faris RF, Henein MY, Coats AJ. Influence of gender and reported alcohol intake on mortality in nonischemic
dilated cardiomyopathy. Heart Dis. 2003;5:89-94.
139. Abramson JL, Williams SA, Krumholz HM, et al. Moderate alcohol consumption and risk of heart failure among
older persons. JAMA. 2001;285:1971-7.
140. Walsh CR, Larson MG, Evans JC, et al. Alcohol consumption and risk for congestive heart failure in the
Framingham Heart Study. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:181-91.
141. Pavan D, Nicolosi GL, Lestuzzi C, et al. Normalization of variables of left ventricular function in patients with
alcoholic cardiomyopathy after cessation of excessive alcohol intake: an echocardiographic study. Eur Heart J.
1987;8:535-40.
Page 131
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
142. Bertolet BD, Freund G, Martin CA, et al. Unrecognized left ventricular dysfunction in an apparently healthy
cocaine abuse population. Clin Cardiol. 1990;13:323-8.
143. Chakko S, Myerburg RJ. Cardiac complications of cocaine abuse. Clin Cardiol. 1995;18:67-72.
144. Moliterno DJ, Willard JE, Lange RA, et al. Coronary-artery vasoconstriction induced by cocaine, cigarette
smoking, or both. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:454-9.
145. McCord J, Jneid H, Hollander JE, et al. Management of cocaine-associated chest pain and myocardial infarction: a
scientific statement from the American Heart Association Acute Cardiac Care Committee of the Council on
Clinical Cardiology. Circulation. 2008;117:1897-907.
146. Marty M, Espie M, Llombart A, et al. Multicenter randomized phase III study of the cardioprotective effect of
dexrazoxane (Cardioxane) in advanced/metastatic breast cancer patients treated with anthracycline-based
chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:614-22.
147. van Dalen EC, Caron HN, Dickinson HO, et al. Cardioprotective interventions for cancer patients receiving
anthracyclines. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;CD003917.
148. Bovelli D, Plataniotis G, Roila F. Cardiotoxicity of chemotherapeutic agents and radiotherapy-related heart
disease: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2010;21 Suppl 5:v277-82.
149. Martin M, Esteva FJ, Alba E, et al. Minimizing cardiotoxicity while optimizing treatment efficacy with
trastuzumab: review and expert recommendations. Oncologist. 2009;14:1-11.
150. Figueredo VM. Chemical cardiomyopathies: the negative effects of medications and nonprescribed drugs on the
heart. Am J Med. 2011;124:480-8.
151. Dunnick JK, Kissling G, Gerken DK, et al. Cardiotoxicity of Ma Huang/caffeine or ephedrine/caffeine in a rodent
model system. Toxicol Pathol. 2007;35:657-64.
152. Djoenaidi W, Notermans SL, Dunda G. Beriberi cardiomyopathy. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1992;46:227-34.
153. Retter AS. Carnitine and its role in cardiovascular disease. Heart Dis. 1999;1:108-13.
154. Khasnis A, Jongnarangsin K, Abela G, et al. Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy: a review of literature. Pacing
Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28:710-21.
155. Wilkoff BL, Cook JR, Epstein AE, et al. Dual-chamber pacing or ventricular backup pacing in patients with an
implantable defibrillator: the Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial. JAMA.
2002;288:3115-23.
156. Wilkoff BL, Kudenchuk PJ, Buxton AE, et al. The DAVID (Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator) II
trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:872-80.
157. Kindermann I, Barth C, Mahfoud F, et al. Update on myocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:779-92.
158. McCarthy RE, III, Boehmer JP, Hruban RH, et al. Long-term outcome of fulminant myocarditis as compared with
acute (nonfulminant) myocarditis. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:690-5.
159. Elliott P, Andersson B, Arbustini E, et al. Classification of the cardiomyopathies: a position statement from the
European Society Of Cardiology Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases. Eur Heart J.
2008;29:270-6.
160. Frustaci A, Russo MA, Chimenti C. Randomized study on the efficacy of immunosuppressive therapy in patients
with virus-negative inflammatory cardiomyopathy: the TIMIC study. Eur Heart J. 2009;30:1995-2002.
161. Cooper LT, Jr., Berry GJ, Shabetai R. Idiopathic giant-cell myocarditis--natural history and treatment. Multicenter
Giant Cell Myocarditis Study Group Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1860-6.
162. Cooper LT, Jr., Hare JM, Tazelaar HD, et al. Usefulness of immunosuppression for giant cell myocarditis. Am J
Cardiol. 2008;102:1535-9.
163. Kaul S, Fishbein MC, Siegel RJ. Cardiac manifestations of acquired immune deficiency syndrome: a 1991 update.
Am Heart J. 1991;122:535-44.
164. Grody WW, Cheng L, Lewis W. Infection of the heart by the human immunodeficiency virus. Am J Cardiol.
1990;66:203-6.
165. Raidel SM, Haase C, Jansen NR, et al. Targeted myocardial transgenic expression of HIV Tat causes
cardiomyopathy and mitochondrial damage. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2002;282:H1672-H1678.
166. Barbaro G, Di Lorenzo G, Grisorio B, et al. Incidence of dilated cardiomyopathy and detection of HIV in
myocardial cells of HIV-positive patients. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio Cardiologico dei Pazienti Affetti da
AIDS. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1093-9.
167. Rossi MA, Bestetti RB. The challenge of chagasic cardiomyopathy. The pathologic roles of autonomic
abnormalities, autoimmune mechanisms and microvascular changes, and therapeutic implications. Cardiology.
1995;86:1-7.
168. Kounis GN, Soufras GD, Kouni SA, et al. Hypersensitivity myocarditis and hypersensitivity coronary syndrome
(Kounis syndrome). Am J Emerg Med. 2009;27:506-8.
Page 132
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
169. Leyngold I, Baughman K, Kasper E, et al. Comparison of survival among patients with connective tissue disease
and cardiomyopathy (systemic sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and undifferentiated disease). Am J
Cardiol. 2007;100:513-7.
170. Paradiso M, Gabrielli F, Masala C, et al. Evaluation of myocardial involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus
by signal-averaged electrocardiography and echocardiography. Acta Cardiol. 2001;56:381-6.
171. Kazzam E, Caidahl K, Hallgren R, et al. Non-invasive assessment of systolic left ventricular function in systemic
sclerosis. Eur Heart J. 1991;12:151-6.
172. Goldenberg J, Ferraz MB, Pessoa AP, et al. Symptomatic cardiac involvement in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Int
J Cardiol. 1992;34:57-62.
173. Gasparyan AY, Cocco G, Pandolfi S. Cardiac complications in rheumatoid arthritis in the absence of occlusive
coronary pathology. Rheumatol Int. 2012;32:461-4.
174. Elkayam U, Tummala PP, Rao K, et al. Maternal and fetal outcomes of subsequent pregnancies in women with
peripartum cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1567-71.
175. O'Connell JB, Costanzo-Nordin MR, Subramanian R, et al. Peripartum cardiomyopathy: clinical, hemodynamic,
histologic and prognostic characteristics. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986;8:52-6.
176. Murphy CJ, Oudit GY. Iron-overload cardiomyopathy: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. J Card Fail.
2010;16:888-900.
177. Wojcik JP, Speechley MR, Kertesz AE, et al. Natural history of C282Y homozygotes for hemochromatosis. Can J
Gastroenterol. 2002;16:297-302.
178. Gujja P, Rosing DR, Tripodi DJ, et al. Iron overload cardiomyopathy: better understanding of an increasing
disorder. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:1001-12.
179. Ronsyn M, Shivalkar B, Vrints CJ. Cardiac amyloidosis in full glory. Heart. 2011;97:720.
180. Dietrich S, Schonland SO, Benner A, et al. Treatment with intravenous melphalan and dexamethasone is not able
to overcome the poor prognosis of patients with newly diagnosed systemic light chain amyloidosis and severe
cardiac involvement. Blood. 2010;116:522-8.
181. Palladini G, Barassi A, Klersy C, et al. The combination of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) at
presentation and changes in N-terminal natriuretic peptide type B (NT-proBNP) after chemotherapy best predicts
survival in AL amyloidosis. Blood. 2010;116:3426-30.
182. Jacobson D, Tagoe C, Schwartzbard A, et al. Relation of Clinical, Echocardiographic and Electrocardiographic
Features of Cardiac Amyloidosis to the Presence of the Transthyretin V122I Allele in Older African-American
Men. Am J Cardiol. 2011;108:440-4.
183. Srichai MB, Addrizzo-Harris DJ, Friedman K. Cardiac sarcoidosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:438.
184. Dubrey SW, Falk RH. Diagnosis and management of cardiac sarcoidosis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2010;52:336-46.
185. Kron J, Sauer W, Schuller J, et al. Efficacy and safety of implantable cardiac defibrillators for treatment of
ventricular arrhythmias in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis. Europace. 2013;15:347-54.
186. Sharkey SW, Windenburg DC, Lesser JR, et al. Natural history and expansive clinical profile of stress (tako-tsubo)
cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:333-41.
187. Butman SM, Ewy GA, Standen JR, et al. Bedside cardiovascular examination in patients with severe chronic heart
failure: importance of rest or inducible jugular venous distension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22:968-74.
188. Drazner MH, Rame JE, Stevenson LW, et al. Prognostic importance of elevated jugular venous pressure and a
third heart sound in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:574-81.
189. Drazner MH, Hellkamp AS, Leier CV, et al. Value of clinician assessment of hemodynamics in advanced heart
failure: the ESCAPE trial. Circ Heart Fail. 2008;1:170-7.
190. Stevenson LW, Perloff JK. The limited reliability of physical signs for estimating hemodynamics in chronic heart
failure. JAMA. 1989;261:884-8.
191. Anker SD, Ponikowski P, Varney S, et al. Wasting as independent risk factor for mortality in chronic heart failure.
Lancet. 1997;349:1050-3.
192. Mishkin JD, Saxonhouse SJ, Woo GW, et al. Appropriate evaluation and treatment of heart failure patients after
implantable cardioverter-defibrillator discharge: time to go beyond the initial shock. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2009;54:1993-2000.
193. Kasai T, Bradley TD. Obstructive sleep apnea and heart failure: pathophysiologic and therapeutic implications. J
Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:119-27.
194. Setoguchi S, Stevenson LW, Schneeweiss S. Repeated hospitalizations predict mortality in the community
population with heart failure. Am Heart J. 2007;154:260-6.
195. Fonarow GC, Abraham WT, Albert NM, et al. Influence of beta-blocker continuation or withdrawal on outcomes
in patients hospitalized with heart failure: findings from the OPTIMIZE-HF program. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2008;52:190-9.
Page 133
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
196. Kittleson M, Hurwitz S, Shah MR, et al. Development of circulatory-renal limitations to angiotensin-converting
enzyme inhibitors identifies patients with severe heart failure and early mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2003;41:2029-35.
197. Felker GM, Cuculich PS, Gheorghiade M. The Valsalva maneuver: a bedside "biomarker" for heart failure. Am J
Med. 2006;119:117-22.
198. Leier CV, Young JB, Levine TB, et al. Nuggets, pearls, and vignettes of master heart failure clinicians. Part 2-the
physical examination. Congest Heart Fail. 2001;7:297-308.
199. Aaronson KD, Schwartz JS, Chen TM, et al. Development and prospective validation of a clinical index to predict
survival in ambulatory patients referred for cardiac transplant evaluation. Circulation. 1997;95:2660-7.
200. Fonarow GC, Adams KF, Jr., Abraham WT, et al. Risk stratification for in-hospital mortality in acutely
decompensated heart failure: classification and regression tree analysis. JAMA. 2005;293:572-80.
201. Komajda M, Carson PE, Hetzel S, et al. Factors associated with outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection
fraction: findings from the Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Study (I-PRESERVE).
Circ Heart Fail. 2011;4:27-35.
202. Lee DS, Austin PC, Rouleau JL, et al. Predicting mortality among patients hospitalized for heart failure: derivation
and validation of a clinical model. JAMA. 2003;290:2581-7.
203. Levy WC, Mozaffarian D, Linker DT, et al. The Seattle Heart Failure Model: prediction of survival in heart
failure. Circulation. 2006;113:1424-33.
204. O'Connor CM, Abraham WT, Albert NM, et al. Predictors of mortality after discharge in patients hospitalized with
heart failure: an analysis from the Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients
with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF). Am Heart J. 2008;156:662-73.
205. Peterson PN, Rumsfeld JS, Liang L, et al. A validated risk score for in-hospital mortality in patients with heart
failure from the American Heart Association get with the guidelines program. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes.
2010;3:25-32.
206. Pocock SJ, Wang D, Pfeffer MA, et al. Predictors of mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure.
Eur Heart J. 2006;27:65-75.
207. Wedel H, McMurray JJ, Lindberg M, et al. Predictors of fatal and non-fatal outcomes in the Controlled
Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure (CORONA): incremental value of apolipoprotein A-1, highsensitivity C-reactive peptide and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide. Eur J Heart Fail. 2009;11:281-91.
208. Lucas C, Johnson W, Hamilton MA, et al. Freedom from congestion predicts good survival despite previous class
IV symptoms of heart failure. Am Heart J. 2000;140:840-7.
209. Amarasingham R, Moore BJ, Tabak YP, et al. An automated model to identify heart failure patients at risk for 30day readmission or death using electronic medical record data. Med Care. 2010;48:981-8.
210. The University of Washington. The Seattle Heart Failure Model. 2012;
211. Giamouzis G, Kalogeropoulos A, Georgiopoulou V, et al. Hospitalization epidemic in patients with heart failure:
risk factors, risk prediction, knowledge gaps, and future directions. J Card Fail. 2011;17:54-75.
212. Januzzi JL, Jr., Sakhuja R, O'donoghue M, et al. Utility of amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide testing for
prediction of 1-year mortality in patients with dyspnea treated in the emergency department. Arch Intern Med.
2006;166:315-20.
213. Januzzi JL, Jr., Rehman S, Mueller T, et al. Importance of biomarkers for long-term mortality prediction in acutely
dyspneic patients. Clin Chem. 2010;56:1814-21.
214. O'Connor CM, Hasselblad V, Mehta RH, et al. Triage after hospitalization with advanced heart failure: the
ESCAPE (Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness) risk
model and discharge score. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:872-8.
215. Kociol RD, Horton JR, Fonarow GC, et al. Admission, discharge, or change in B-type natriuretic peptide and longterm outcomes: data from Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart
Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF) linked to Medicare claims. Circ Heart Fail. 2011;4:628-36.
216. Okonko DO, Mandal AK, Missouris CG, et al. Disordered iron homeostasis in chronic heart failure: prevalence,
predictors, and relation to anemia, exercise capacity, and survival. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1241-51.
217. Costello-Boerrigter LC, Boerrigter G, Redfield MM, et al. Amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and Btype natriuretic peptide in the general community: determinants and detection of left ventricular dysfunction. J Am
Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:345-53.
218. de Lemos JA, McGuire DK, Khera A, et al. Screening the population for left ventricular hypertrophy and left
ventricular systolic dysfunction using natriuretic peptides: results from the Dallas Heart Study. Am Heart J.
2009;157:746-53.
219. Goetze JP, Mogelvang R, Maage L, et al. Plasma pro-B-type natriuretic peptide in the general population:
screening for left ventricular hypertrophy and systolic dysfunction. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:3004-10.
Page 134
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
220. Ng LL, Loke IW, Davies JE, et al. Community screening for left ventricular systolic dysfunction using plasma and
urinary natriuretic peptides. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1043-50.
221. Richards AM, Doughty R, Nicholls MG, et al. Plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and
adrenomedullin: prognostic utility and prediction of benefit from carvedilol in chronic ischemic left ventricular
dysfunction. Australia-New Zealand Heart Failure Group. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:1781-7.
222. Tang WH, Girod JP, Lee MJ, et al. Plasma B-type natriuretic peptide levels in ambulatory patients with
established chronic symptomatic systolic heart failure. Circulation. 2003;108:2964-6.
223. Vasan RS, Benjamin EJ, Larson MG, et al. Plasma natriuretic peptides for community screening for left
ventricular hypertrophy and systolic dysfunction: the Framingham heart study. JAMA. 2002;288:1252-9.
224. Berger R, Huelsman M, Strecker K, et al. B-type natriuretic peptide predicts sudden death in patients with chronic
heart failure. Circulation. 2002;105:2392-7.
225. Anand IS, Fisher LD, Chiang YT, et al. Changes in brain natriuretic peptide and norepinephrine over time and
mortality and morbidity in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT). Circulation. 2003;107:1278-83.
226. Forfia PR, Watkins SP, Rame JE, et al. Relationship between B-type natriuretic peptides and pulmonary capillary
wedge pressure in the intensive care unit. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1667-71.
227. Taub PR, Daniels LB, Maisel AS. Usefulness of B-type natriuretic peptide levels in predicting hemodynamic and
clinical decompensation. Heart Fail Clin. 2009;5:169-75.
228. Maeda K, Tsutamoto T, Wada A, et al. High levels of plasma brain natriuretic peptide and interleukin-6 after
optimized treatment for heart failure are independent risk factors for morbidity and mortality in patients with
congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1587-93.
229. Neuhold S, Huelsmann M, Strunk G, et al. Comparison of copeptin, B-type natriuretic peptide, and amino-terminal
pro-B-type natriuretic peptide in patients with chronic heart failure: prediction of death at different stages of the
disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:266-72.
230. Januzzi JL, Jr., Rehman SU, Mohammed AA, et al. Use of amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide to guide
outpatient therapy of patients with chronic left ventricular systolic dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:18819.
231. Porapakkham P, Porapakkham P, Zimmet H, et al. B-type natriuretic peptide-guided heart failure therapy: A metaanalysis. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:507-14.
232. Felker GM, Hasselblad V, Hernandez AF, et al. Biomarker-guided therapy in chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis
of randomized controlled trials. Am Heart J. 2009;158:422-30.
233. Jourdain P, Jondeau G, Funck F, et al. Plasma brain natriuretic peptide-guided therapy to improve outcome in
heart failure: the STARS-BNP Multicenter Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:1733-9.
234. Pfisterer M, Buser P, Rickli H, et al. BNP-guided vs symptom-guided heart failure therapy: the Trial of Intensified
vs Standard Medical Therapy in Elderly Patients With Congestive Heart Failure (TIME-CHF) randomized trial.
JAMA. 2009;301:383-92.
235. Berger R, Moertl D, Peter S, et al. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide-guided, intensive patient management
in addition to multidisciplinary care in chronic heart failure a 3-arm, prospective, randomized pilot study. J Am
Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:645-53.
236. Troughton RW, Frampton CM, Yandle TG, et al. Treatment of heart failure guided by plasma aminoterminal brain
natriuretic peptide (N-BNP) concentrations. Lancet. 2000;355:1126-30.
237. Lainchbury JG, Troughton RW, Strangman KM, et al. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide-guided treatment
for chronic heart failure: results from the BATTLESCARRED (NT-proBNP-Assisted Treatment To Lessen Serial
Cardiac Readmissions and Death) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;55:53-60.
238. Horwich TB, Patel J, MacLellan WR, et al. Cardiac troponin I is associated with impaired hemodynamics,
progressive left ventricular dysfunction, and increased mortality rates in advanced heart failure. Circulation.
2003;108:833-8.
239. Sato Y, Yamada T, Taniguchi R, et al. Persistently increased serum concentrations of cardiac troponin t in patients
with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy are predictive of adverse outcomes. Circulation. 2001;103:369-74.
240. Setsuta K, Seino Y, Takahashi N, et al. Clinical significance of elevated levels of cardiac troponin T in patients
with chronic heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 1999;84:608-11, A9.
241. Hudson MP, O'Connor CM, Gattis WA, et al. Implications of elevated cardiac troponin T in ambulatory patients
with heart failure: a prospective analysis. Am Heart J. 2004;147:546-52.
242. Tang WH, Shrestha K, Shao Z, et al. Usefulness of plasma galectin-3 levels in systolic heart failure to predict renal
insufficiency and survival. Am J Cardiol. 2011;108:385-90.
243. de Boer RA, Lok DJ, Jaarsma T, et al. Predictive value of plasma galectin-3 levels in heart failure with reduced
and preserved ejection fraction. Ann Med. 2011;43:60-8.
Page 135
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
244. Lok DJ, van der Meer P, de la Porte PW, et al. Prognostic value of galectin-3, a novel marker of fibrosis, in
patients with chronic heart failure: data from the DEAL-HF study. Clin Res Cardiol. 2010;99:323-8.
245. Dao Q, Krishnaswamy P, Kazanegra R, et al. Utility of B-type natriuretic peptide in the diagnosis of congestive
heart failure in an urgent-care setting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:379-85.
246. Davis M, Espiner E, Richards G, et al. Plasma brain natriuretic peptide in assessment of acute dyspnoea. Lancet.
1994;343:440-4.
247. Maisel AS, Krishnaswamy P, Nowak RM, et al. Rapid measurement of B-type natriuretic peptide in the
emergency diagnosis of heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:161-7.
248. van Kimmenade RR, Pinto YM, Bayes-Genis A, et al. Usefulness of intermediate amino-terminal pro-brain
natriuretic peptide concentrations for diagnosis and prognosis of acute heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:38690.
249. Moe GW, Howlett J, Januzzi JL, et al. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide testing improves the management
of patients with suspected acute heart failure: primary results of the Canadian prospective randomized multicenter
IMPROVE-CHF study. Circulation. 2007;115:3103-10.
250. Mueller C, Scholer A, Laule-Kilian K, et al. Use of B-type natriuretic peptide in the evaluation and management
of acute dyspnea. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:647-54.
251. Bettencourt P, Azevedo A, Pimenta J, et al. N-terminal-pro-brain natriuretic peptide predicts outcome after
hospital discharge in heart failure patients. Circulation. 2004;110:2168-74.
252. Cheng V, Kazanagra R, Garcia A, et al. A rapid bedside test for B-type peptide predicts treatment outcomes in
patients admitted for decompensated heart failure: a pilot study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:386-91.
253. Fonarow GC, Peacock WF, Horwich TB, et al. Usefulness of B-type natriuretic peptide and cardiac troponin levels
to predict in-hospital mortality from ADHERE. Am J Cardiol. 2008;101:231-7.
254. Logeart D, Thabut G, Jourdain P, et al. Predischarge B-type natriuretic peptide assay for identifying patients at
high risk of re-admission after decompensated heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:635-41.
255. Maisel A, Hollander JE, Guss D, et al. Primary results of the Rapid Emergency Department Heart Failure
Outpatient Trial (REDHOT). A multicenter study of B-type natriuretic peptide levels, emergency department
decision making, and outcomes in patients presenting with shortness of breath. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:132833.
256. Zairis MN, Tsiaousis GZ, Georgilas AT, et al. Multimarker strategy for the prediction of 31 days cardiac death in
patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2010;141:284-90.
257. Peacock WFIV, De Marco T, Fonarow GC, et al. Cardiac troponin and outcome in acute heart failure. N Engl J
Med. 2008;358:2117-26.
258. Lee DS, Stitt A, Austin PC, et al. Prediction of heart failure mortality in emergent care: a cohort study. Ann Intern
Med. 2012;156:767-75.
259. Bayes-Genis A, Lopez L, Zapico E, et al. NT-ProBNP reduction percentage during admission for acutely
decompensated heart failure predicts long-term cardiovascular mortality. J Card Fail. 2005;11:S3-S8.
260. Dhaliwal AS, Deswal A, Pritchett A, et al. Reduction in BNP levels with treatment of decompensated heart failure
and future clinical events. J Card Fail. 2009;15:293-9.
261. Alonso-Martinez JL, Llorente-Diez B, Echegaray-Agara M, et al. C-reactive protein as a predictor of improvement
and readmission in heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2002;4:331-6.
262. Dieplinger B, Gegenhuber A, Kaar G, et al. Prognostic value of established and novel biomarkers in patients with
shortness of breath attending an emergency department. Clin Biochem. 2010;43:714-9.
263. Ilva T, Lassus J, Siirila-Waris K, et al. Clinical significance of cardiac troponins I and T in acute heart failure. Eur
J Heart Fail. 2008;10:772-9.
264. Januzzi JL, Jr., Peacock WF, Maisel AS, et al. Measurement of the interleukin family member ST2 in patients with
acute dyspnea: results from the PRIDE (Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide Investigation of Dyspnea in the Emergency
Department) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:607-13.
265. Manzano-Fernandez S, Mueller T, Pascual-Figal D, et al. Usefulness of soluble concentrations of interleukin
family member ST2 as predictor of mortality in patients with acutely decompensated heart failure relative to left
ventricular ejection fraction. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:259-67.
266. Rehman SU, Mueller T, Januzzi JL, Jr. Characteristics of the novel interleukin family biomarker ST2 in patients
with acute heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1458-65.
267. Shah RV, Chen-Tournoux AA, Picard MH, et al. Galectin-3, cardiac structure and function, and long-term
mortality in patients with acutely decompensated heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2010;12:826-32.
268. Anwaruddin S, Lloyd-Jones DM, Baggish A, et al. Renal function, congestive heart failure, and amino-terminal
pro-brain natriuretic peptide measurement: results from the ProBNP Investigation of Dyspnea in the Emergency
Department (PRIDE) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:91-7.
Page 136
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
269. Redfield MM, Rodeheffer RJ, Jacobsen SJ, et al. Plasma brain natriuretic peptide concentration: impact of age and
gender. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:976-82.
270. Wang TJ, Larson MG, Levy D, et al. Impact of age and sex on plasma natriuretic peptide levels in healthy adults.
Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:254-8.
271. Chang AY, Abdullah SM, Jain T, et al. Associations among androgens, estrogens, and natriuretic peptides in
young women: observations from the Dallas Heart Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:109-16.
272. Frantz RP, Olson LJ, Grill D, et al. Carvedilol therapy is associated with a sustained decline in brain natriuretic
peptide levels in patients with congestive heart failure. Am Heart J. 2005;149:541-7.
273. Tsutamoto T, Wada A, Maeda K, et al. Effect of spironolactone on plasma brain natriuretic peptide and left
ventricular remodeling in patients with congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:1228-33.
274. Fruhwald FM, Fahrleitner-Pammer A, Berger R, et al. Early and sustained effects of cardiac resynchronization
therapy on N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide in patients with moderate to severe heart failure and cardiac
dyssynchrony. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:1592-7.
275. Januzzi JL, Jr. Use of biomarkers to "guide" care in chronic heart failure: what have we learned (so far)? J Card
Fail. 2011;17:622-5.
276. Missov E, Calzolari C, Pau B. Circulating cardiac troponin I in severe congestive heart failure. Circulation.
1997;96:2953-8.
277. Ather S, Hira RS, Shenoy M, et al. Recurrent low-level Troponin I elevation is a worse prognostic indicator than
occasional injury pattern in patients hospitalized with heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2011;301:H2351-H2361.
278. Januzzi JL, Jr., Filippatos G, Nieminen M, et al. Troponin elevation in patients with heart failure: on behalf of the
third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction Global Task Force: Heart Failure Section. Eur Heart J.
2012;33:2265-71.
279. Matsumura Y, Takata J, Kitaoka H, et al. Long-term prognosis of dilated cardiomyopathy revisited: an
improvement in survival over the past 20 years. Circ J. 2006;70:376-83.
280. Sato Y, Yamada T, Taniguchi R, et al. Persistently increased serum concentrations of cardiac troponin T in
patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy are predictive of adverse outcomes. Circulation. 2001;103:369-74.
281. Rizzello V, Poldermans D, Biagini E, et al. Prognosis of patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy after coronary
revascularisation: relation to viability and improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction. Heart. 2009;95:1273-7.
282. Allman KC, Shaw LJ, Hachamovitch R, et al. Myocardial viability testing and impact of revascularization on
prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 2002;39:1151-8.
283. Beanlands RS, Ruddy TD, deKemp RA, et al. Positron emission tomography and recovery following
revascularization (PARR-1): the importance of scar and the development of a prediction rule for the degree of
recovery of left ventricular function. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1735-43.
284. Pagley PR, Beller GA, Watson DD, et al. Improved outcome after coronary bypass surgery in patients with
ischemic cardiomyopathy and residual myocardial viability. Circulation. 1997;96:793-800.
285. Senior R, Kaul S, Lahiri A. Myocardial viability on echocardiography predicts long-term survival after
revascularization in patients with ischemic congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:1848-54.
286. Kwon DH, Halley CM, Carrigan TP, et al. Extent of left ventricular scar predicts outcomes in ischemic
cardiomyopathy patients with significantly reduced systolic function: a delayed hyperenhancement cardiac
magnetic resonance study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:34-44.
287. Ordovas KG, Higgins CB. Delayed contrast enhancement on MR images of myocardium: past, present, future.
Radiology. 2011;261:358-74.
288. Syed IS, Glockner JF, Feng D, et al. Role of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of cardiac
amyloidosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:155-64.
289. Beller GA. Tests that may be overused or misused in cardiology: the Choosing Wisely campaign. J Nucl Cardiol.
2012;19:401-3.
290. Douglas PS, Garcia MJ, Haines DE, et al. ACCF/ASE/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR 2011
Appropriate Use Criteria for Echocardiography. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation
Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American Heart Association,
American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for
Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular
Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance American College of Chest Physicians. J
Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011;24:229-67.
291. Agha SA, Kalogeropoulos AP, Shih J, et al. Echocardiography and risk prediction in advanced heart failure:
incremental value over clinical markers. J Card Fail. 2009;15:586-92.
Page 137
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
292. Aurigemma GP, Gottdiener JS, Shemanski L, et al. Predictive value of systolic and diastolic function for incident
congestive heart failure in the elderly: the cardiovascular health study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:1042-8.
293. Chen AA, Wood MJ, Krauser DG, et al. NT-proBNP levels, echocardiographic findings, and outcomes in
breathless patients: results from the ProBNP Investigation of Dyspnoea in the Emergency Department (PRIDE)
echocardiographic substudy. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:839-45.
294. Gardin JM, McClelland R, Kitzman D, et al. M-mode echocardiographic predictors of six- to seven-year incidence
of coronary heart disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, and mortality in an elderly cohort (the Cardiovascular
Health Study). Am J Cardiol. 2001;87:1051-7.
295. Grayburn PA, Appleton CP, DeMaria AN, et al. Echocardiographic predictors of morbidity and mortality in
patients with advanced heart failure: the Beta-blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial (BEST). J Am Coll Cardiol.
2005;45:1064-71.
296. Francis CM, Caruana L, Kearney P, et al. Open access echocardiography in management of heart failure in the
community. BMJ. 1995;310:634-6.
297. Bonow RO, Bennett S, Casey DE, Jr., et al. ACC/AHA clinical performance measures for adults with chronic
heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on
Performance Measures (Writing Committee to Develop Heart Failure Clinical Performance Measures) endorsed
by the Heart Failure Society of America. Circulation. 2005;112:1853-87.
298. Valle-Munoz A, Estornell-Erill J, Soriano-Navarro CJ, et al. Late gadolinium enhancement-cardiovascular
magnetic resonance identifies coronary artery disease as the aetiology of left ventricular dysfunction in acute newonset congestive heart failure. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2009;10:968-74.
299. Butler J. The emerging role of multi-detector computed tomography in heart failure. J Card Fail. 2007;13:215-26.
300. van Royen N., Jaffe CC, Krumholz HM, et al. Comparison and reproducibility of visual echocardiographic and
quantitative radionuclide left ventricular ejection fractions. Am J Cardiol. 1996;77:843-50.
301. Atchley AE, Kitzman DW, Whellan DJ, et al. Myocardial perfusion, function, and dyssynchrony in patients with
heart failure: baseline results from the single-photon emission computed tomography imaging ancillary study of
the Heart Failure and A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise TraiNing (HF-ACTION) Trial. Am
Heart J. 2009;158:S53-S63.
302. Nichols KJ, Van TA, Wang Y, et al. Automated detection of left ventricular dyskinesis by gated blood pool
SPECT. Nucl Med Commun. 2010;31:881-8.
303. Soman P, Lahiri A, Mieres JH, et al. Etiology and pathophysiology of new-onset heart failure: evaluation by
myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:82-91.
304. 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.
305. Binanay C, Califf RM, Hasselblad V, et al. Evaluation study of congestive heart failure and pulmonary artery
catheterization effectiveness: the ESCAPE trial. JAMA. 2005;294:1625-33.
306. Shah MR, Hasselblad V, Stevenson LW, et al. Impact of the pulmonary artery catheter in critically ill patients:
meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 2005;294:1664-70.
307. Alderman EL, Fisher LD, Litwin P, et al. Results of coronary artery surgery in patients with poor left ventricular
function (CASS). Circulation. 1983;68:785-95.
308. Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, et al. ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria
for Coronary Revascularization: a report by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness
Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons,
American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear
Cardiology. Circulation. 2009;119:1330-52.
309. 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.
310. Cooper LT, Baughman KL, Feldman AM, et al. The role of endomyocardial biopsy in the management of
cardiovascular disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association, the American College of
Cardiology, and the European Society of Cardiology. Circulation. 2007;116:2216-33.
311. Beckett NS, Peters R, Fletcher AE, et al. Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. N Engl J
Med. 2008;358:1887-98.
312. Sciarretta S, Palano F, Tocci G, et al. Antihypertensive treatment and development of heart failure in hypertension:
a Bayesian network meta-analysis of studies in patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk. Arch
Intern Med. 2011;171:384-94.
313. Staessen JA, Wang JG, Thijs L. Cardiovascular prevention and blood pressure reduction: a quantitative overview
updated until 1 March 2003. J Hypertens. 2003;21:1055-76.
Page 138
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
314. Verdecchia P, Sleight P, Mancia G, et al. Effects of telmisartan, ramipril, and their combination on left ventricular
hypertrophy in individuals at high vascular risk in the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination With
Ramipril Global End Point Trial and the Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE Intolerant Subjects
With Cardiovascular Disease. Circulation. 2009;120:1380-9.
315. Mills EJ, Rachlis B, Wu P, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular mortality and events with statin treatments:
a network meta-analysis involving more than 65,000 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1769-81.
316. Taylor F, Ward K, Moore TH, et al. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2011;CD004816.
317. Braunwald E, Domanski MJ, Fowler SE, et al. Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery
disease. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2058-68.
318. Kenchaiah S, Sesso HD, Gaziano JM. Body mass index and vigorous physical activity and the risk of heart failure
among men. Circulation. 2009;119:44-52.
319. Lee DS, Massaro JM, Wang TJ, et al. Antecedent blood pressure, body mass index, and the risk of incident heart
failure in later life. Hypertension. 2007;50:869-76.
320. Butler J, Kalogeropoulos A, Georgiopoulou V, et al. Incident heart failure prediction in the elderly: the health
ABC heart failure score. Circ Heart Fail. 2008;1:125-33.
321. Kalogeropoulos A, Georgiopoulou V, Harris TB, et al. Glycemic status and incident heart failure in elderly
without history of diabetes mellitus: the health, aging, and body composition study. J Card Fail. 2009;15:593-9.
322. Lind M, Bounias I, Olsson M, et al. Glycaemic control and incidence of heart failure in 20,985 patients with type 1
diabetes: an observational study. Lancet. 2011;378:140-6.
323. Pfister R, Cairns R, Erdmann E, et al. A clinical risk score for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes and
macrovascular disease: An analysis of the PROactive study. Int J Cardiol. 2011.
324. Bibbins-Domingo K, Lin F, Vittinghoff E, et al. Predictors of heart failure among women with coronary disease.
Circulation. 2004;110:1424-30.
325. Randomised placebo-controlled trial of lisinopril in normotensive patients with insulin-dependent diabetes and
normoalbuminuria or microalbuminuria. The EUCLID Study Group. Lancet. 1997;349:1787-92.
326. Coyle JD, Gardner SF, White CM. The renal protective effects of angiotensin II receptor blockers in type 2
diabetes mellitus. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38:1731-8.
327. Berl T, Hunsicker LG, Lewis JB, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes in the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial of
patients with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:542-9.
328. Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, et al. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients
with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:861-9.
329. Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, et al. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on
cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N
Engl J Med. 2000;342:145-53.
330. Choueiri TK, Mayer EL, Je Y, et al. Congestive heart failure risk in patients with breast cancer treated with
bevacizumab. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:632-8.
331. Du XL, Xia R, Burau K, et al. Cardiac risk associated with the receipt of anthracycline and trastuzumab in a large
nationwide cohort of older women with breast cancer, 1998-2005. Med Oncol. 2011;28 Suppl 1:S80-S90.
332. Yusuf SW, Ilias-Khan NA, Durand JB. Chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther.
2011;9:231-43.
333. Sawaya H, Sebag IA, Plana JC, et al. Early detection and prediction of cardiotoxicity in chemotherapy-treated
patients. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:1375-80.
334. Kalogeropoulos A, Georgiopoulou V, Kritchevsky SB, et al. Epidemiology of incident heart failure in a
contemporary elderly cohort: the health, aging, and body composition study. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:708-15.
335. McKie PM, Cataliotti A, Lahr BD, et al. The prognostic value of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide for
death and cardiovascular events in healthy normal and stage A/B heart failure subjects. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2010;55:2140-7.
336. Velagaleti RS, Gona P, Larson MG, et al. Multimarker approach for the prediction of heart failure incidence in the
community. Circulation. 2010;122:1700-6.
337. deFilippi CR, de Lemos JA, Christenson RH, et al. Association of serial measures of cardiac troponin T using a
sensitive assay with incident heart failure and cardiovascular mortality in older adults. JAMA. 2010;304:2494-502.
338. Blecker S, Matsushita K, Kottgen A, et al. High-normal albuminuria and risk of heart failure in the community.
Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;58:47-55.
339. Dhingra R, Gaziano JM, Djousse L. Chronic kidney disease and the risk of heart failure in men. Circ Heart Fail.
2011;4:138-44.
Page 139
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
340. Dhingra R, Gona P, Benjamin EJ, et al. Relations of serum phosphorus levels to echocardiographic left ventricular
mass and incidence of heart failure in the community. Eur J Heart Fail. 2010;12:812-8.
341. Heidenreich PA, Gubens MA, Fonarow GC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening with B-type natriuretic peptide
to identify patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:1019-26.
342. Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E, Moye LA, et al. Effect of captopril on mortality and morbidity in patients with left
ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. Results of the survival and ventricular enlargement trial. The
SAVE Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:669-77.
343. Effects of enalapril on mortality in severe congestive heart failure. Results of the Cooperative North Scandinavian
Enalapril Survival Study (CONSENSUS). The CONSENSUS Trial Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:142935.
344. Effect of enalapril on mortality and the development of heart failure in asymptomatic patients with reduced left
ventricular ejection fractions. The SOLVD Investigattors. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:685-91.
345. Pfeffer MA, McMurray JJ, Velazquez EJ, et al. Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated
by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1893-906.
346. Dargie HJ. Effect of carvedilol on outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with left-ventricular
dysfunction: the CAPRICORN randomised trial. Lancet. 2001;357:1385-90.
347. Vantrimpont P, Rouleau JL, Wun CC, et al. Additive beneficial effects of beta-blockers to angiotensin-converting
enzyme inhibitors in the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) Study. SAVE Investigators. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 1997;29:229-36.
348. Exner DV, Dries DL, Waclawiw MA, et al. Beta-adrenergic blocking agent use and mortality in patients with
asymptomatic and symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a post hoc analysis of the Studies of Left
Ventricular Dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:916-23.
349. Scirica BM, Morrow DA, Cannon CP, et al. Intensive statin therapy and the risk of hospitalization for heart failure
after an acute coronary syndrome in the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:2326-31.
350. Afilalo J, Majdan AA, Eisenberg MJ. Intensive statin therapy in acute coronary syndromes and stable coronary
heart disease: a comparative meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Heart. 2007;93:914-21.
351. Ho JE, Waters DD, Kean A, et al. Relation of improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate with atorvastatin
to reductions in hospitalizations for heart failure (from the Treating to New Targets [TNT] study). Am J Cardiol.
2012;109:1761-6.
352. Strandberg TE, Holme I, Faergeman O, et al. Comparative effect of atorvastatin (80 mg) versus simvastatin (20 to
40 mg) in preventing hospitalizations for heart failure in patients with previous myocardial infarction. Am J
Cardiol. 2009;103:1381-5.
353. Kjekshus J, Pedersen TR, Olsson AG, et al. The effects of simvastatin on the incidence of heart failure in patients
with coronary heart disease. J Card Fail. 1997;3:249-54.
354. Sacks FM, Pfeffer MA, Moye LA, et al. The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in
patients with average cholesterol levels. Cholesterol and Recurrent Events Trial investigators. N Engl J Med.
1996;335:1001-9.
355. Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, et al. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial
infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:877-83.
356. de Lemos JA, Blazing MA, Wiviott SD, et al. Early intensive vs a delayed conservative simvastatin strategy in
patients with acute coronary syndromes: phase Z of the A to Z trial. JAMA. 2004;292:1307-16.
357. Dahlof B, Devereux R, de Faire U, et al. The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) in
Hypertension study: rationale, design, and methods. The LIFE Study Group. Am J Hypertens. 1997;10:705-13.
358. Mancia G. Effects of intensive blood pressure control in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus
in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. Circulation. 2010;122:847-9.
359. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or
calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack
Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA. 2002;288:2981-97.
360. Staessen JA, Wang JG, Thijs L. Cardiovascular protection and blood pressure reduction: a meta-analysis. Lancet.
2001;358:1305-15.
361. Pitt B, Reichek N, Willenbrock R, et al. Effects of eplerenone, enalapril, and eplerenone/enalapril in patients with
essential hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy: the 4E-left ventricular hypertrophy study. Circulation.
2003;108:1831-8.
362. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, et al. Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary
disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial
Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1933-40.
Page 140
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
363. Boren SA, Wakefield BJ, Gunlock TL, et al. Heart failure self-management education: a systematic review of the
evidence. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2009;7:159-68.
364. Gwadry-Sridhar FH, Arnold JM, Zhang Y, et al. Pilot study to determine the impact of a multidisciplinary
educational intervention in patients hospitalized with heart failure. Am Heart J. 2005;150:982.
365. Koelling TM, Johnson ML, Cody RJ, et al. Discharge education improves clinical outcomes in patients with
chronic heart failure. Circulation. 2005;111:179-85.
366. VanSuch M, Naessens JM, Stroebel RJ, et al. Effect of discharge instructions on readmission of hospitalised
patients with heart failure: do all of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations heart
failure core measures reflect better care? Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15:414-7.
367. Aguado O, Morcillo C, Delas J, et al. Long-term implications of a single home-based educational intervention in
patients with heart failure. Heart Lung. 2010;39:S14-S22.
368. Riegel B, Moser DK, Anker SD, et al. State of the science: promoting self-care in persons with heart failure: a
scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2009;120:1141-63.
369. Powell LH, Calvin JE, Jr., Richardson D, et al. Self-management counseling in patients with heart failure: the
heart failure adherence and retention randomized behavioral trial. JAMA. 2010;304:1331-8.
370. Jha AK, Orav EJ, Epstein AM. Public reporting of discharge planning and rates of readmissions. N Engl J Med.
2009;361:2637-45.
371. Gallager R, Luttik ML, Jaarsma T. Social Support and Self-care in Heart Failure. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011.
372. Luttik ML, Jaarsma T, Moser D, et al. The importance and impact of social support on outcomes in patients with
heart failure: an overview of the literature. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2005;20:162-9.
373. Struthers AD, Anderson G, Donnan PT, et al. Social deprivation increases cardiac hospitalisations in chronic heart
failure independent of disease severity and diuretic non-adherence. Heart. 2000;83:12-6.
374. Murberg TA, Bru E. Social relationships and mortality in patients with congestive heart failure. J Psychosom Res.
2001;51:521-7.
375. Murberg TA. Long-term effect of social relationships on mortality in patients with congestive heart failure. Int J
Psychiatry Med. 2004;34:207-17.
376. Dickstein K, Cohen-Solal A, Filippatos G, et al. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and
chronic heart failure 2008: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure
2008 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the
ESC (HFA) and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). Eur Heart J.
2008;29:2388-442.
377. Malcom J, Arnold O, Howlett JG, et al. Canadian Cardiovascular Society Consensus Conference guidelines on
heart failure--2008 update: best practices for the transition of care of heart failure patients, and the recognition,
investigation and treatment of cardiomyopathies. Can J Cardiol. 2008;24:21-40.
378. Lennie TA, Song EK, Wu JR, et al. Three gram sodium intake is associated with longer event-free survival only in
patients with advanced heart failure. J Card Fail. 2011;17:325-30.
379. Arcand J, Ivanov J, Sasson A, et al. A high-sodium diet is associated with acute decompensated heart failure in
ambulatory heart failure patients: a prospective follow-up study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;93:332-7.
380. Cody RJ, Covit AB, Schaer GL, et al. Sodium and water balance in chronic congestive heart failure. J Clin Invest.
1986;77:1441-52.
381. Damgaard M, Norsk P, Gustafsson F, et al. Hemodynamic and neuroendocrine responses to changes in sodium
intake in compensated heart failure. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2006;290:R1294-R1301.
382. Volpe M, Magri P, Rao MA, et al. Intrarenal determinants of sodium retention in mild heart failure: effects of
angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. Hypertension. 1997;30:168-76.
383. Volpe M, Tritto C, DeLuca N, et al. Abnormalities of sodium handling and of cardiovascular adaptations during
high salt diet in patients with mild heart failure. Circulation. 1993;88:1620-7.
384. 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.
385. 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.
386. 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;15:86473.
387. He FJ, MacGregor GA. Effect of longer-term modest salt reduction on blood pressure. Cochrane Database Syst
Rev. 2004;CD004937.
Page 141
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
388. Effects of weight loss and sodium reduction intervention on blood pressure and hypertension incidence in
overweight people with high-normal blood pressure. The Trials of Hypertension Prevention, phase II. The Trials
of Hypertension Prevention Collaborative Research Group. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:657-67.
389. Jula AM, Karanko HM. Effects on left ventricular hypertrophy of long-term nonpharmacological treatment with
sodium restriction in mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Circulation. 1994;89:1023-31.
390. Cook NR, Cutler JA, Obarzanek E, et al. Long term effects of dietary sodium reduction on cardiovascular disease
outcomes: observational follow-up of the trials of hypertension prevention (TOHP). BMJ. 2007;334:885-8.
391. Strazzullo P, D'Elia L, Kandala NB, et al. Salt intake, stroke, and cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of
prospective studies. BMJ. 2009;339:b4567.
392. Gupta D, Georgiopoulou VV, Kalogeropoulos AP, et al. Dietary sodium intake in heart failure. Circulation.
2012;126:479-85.
393. Arzt M, Floras JS, Logan AG, et al. Suppression of central sleep apnea by continuous positive airway pressure and
transplant-free survival in heart failure: a post hoc analysis of the Canadian Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
for Patients with Central Sleep Apnea and Heart Failure Trial (CANPAP). Circulation. 2007;115:3173-80.
394. Bradley TD, Logan AG, Kimoff RJ, et al. Continuous positive airway pressure for central sleep apnea and heart
failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2025-33.
395. Kaneko Y, Floras JS, Usui K, et al. Cardiovascular effects of continuous positive airway pressure in patients with
heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1233-41.
396. Mansfield DR, Gollogly NC, Kaye DM, et al. Controlled trial of continuous positive airway pressure in
obstructive sleep apnea and heart failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;169:361-6.
397. MacDonald M, Fang J, Pittman SD, et al. The current prevalence of sleep disordered breathing in congestive heart
failure patients treated with beta-blockers. J Clin Sleep Med. 2008;4:38-42.
398. Arzt M, Young T, Finn L, et al. Sleepiness and sleep in patients with both systolic heart failure and obstructive
sleep apnea. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1716-22.
399. Pasini E, Opasich C, Pastoris O, et al. Inadequate nutritional intake for daily life activity of clinically stable
patients with chronic heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2004;93:41A-3A.
400. Habbu A, Lakkis NM, Dokainish H. The obesity paradox: fact or fiction? Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:944-8.
401. Alpert MA, Lambert CR, Panayiotou H, et al. Relation of duration of morbid obesity to left ventricular mass,
systolic function, and diastolic filling, and effect of weight loss. Am J Cardiol. 1995;76:1194-7.
402. Ristow B, Rabkin J, Haeusslein E. Improvement in dilated cardiomyopathy after bariatric surgery. J Card Fail.
2008;14:198-202.
403. Sayin T, Guldal M. Sibutramine: possible cause of a reversible cardiomyopathy. Int J Cardiol. 2005;99:481-2.
404. Davies EJ, Moxham T, Rees K, et al. Exercise training for systolic heart failure: Cochrane systematic review and
meta-analysis. Eur J Heart Fail. 2010;12:706-15.
405. McKelvie RS. Exercise training in patients with heart failure: clinical outcomes, safety, and indications. Heart Fail
Rev. 2008;13:3-11.
406. O'Connor CM, Whellan DJ, Lee KL, et al. Efficacy and safety of exercise training in patients with chronic heart
failure: HF-ACTION randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;301:1439-50.
407. Pina IL, Apstein CS, Balady GJ, et al. Exercise and heart failure: A statement from the American Heart
Association Committee on exercise, rehabilitation, and prevention. Circulation. 2003;107:1210-25.
408. Smart N, Marwick TH. Exercise training for patients with heart failure: a systematic review of factors that improve
mortality and morbidity. Am J Med. 2004;116:693-706.
409. Piepoli MF, Davos C, Francis DP, et al. Exercise training meta-analysis of trials in patients with chronic heart
failure (ExTraMATCH). BMJ. 2004;328:189.
410. Austin J, Williams R, Ross L, et al. Randomised controlled trial of cardiac rehabilitation in elderly patients with
heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2005;7:411-7.
411. Austin J, Williams WR, Ross L, et al. Five-year follow-up findings from a randomized controlled trial of cardiac
rehabilitation for heart failure. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2008;15:162-7.
412. 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.
413. Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and congestive heart
failure. The SOLVD Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:293-302.
414. Garg R, Yusuf S. Overview of randomized trials of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on mortality and
morbidity in patients with heart failure. Collaborative Group on ACE Inhibitor Trials. JAMA. 1995;273:1450-6.
415. Maggioni AP, Anand I, Gottlieb SO, et al. Effects of valsartan on morbidity and mortality in patients with heart
failure not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1414-21.
416. Xamoterol in severe heart failure. The Xamoterol in Severe Heart Failure Study Group. Lancet. 1990;336:1-6.
Page 142
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
417. Effects of carvedilol, a vasodilator-beta-blocker, in patients with congestive heart failure due to ischemic heart
disease. Australia-New Zealand Heart Failure Research Collaborative Group. Circulation. 1995;92:212-8.
418. A trial of the beta-blocker bucindolol in patients with advanced chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med.
2001;344:1659-67.
419. Poole-Wilson PA, Swedberg K, Cleland JG, et al. Comparison of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcomes
in patients with chronic heart failure in the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET): randomised
controlled trial. Lancet. 2003;362:7-13.
420. Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, et al. Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with
chronic heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme. Lancet. 2003;362:759-66.
421. Konstam MA, Neaton JD, Dickstein K, et al. Effects of high-dose versus low-dose losartan on clinical outcomes in
patients with heart failure (HEAAL study): a randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet. 2009;374:1840-8.
422. Pitt B, Segal R, Martinez FA, et al. Randomised trial of losartan versus captopril in patients over 65 with heart
failure (Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly Study, ELITE). Lancet. 1997;349:747-52.
423. Carson P, Ziesche S, Johnson G, et al. Racial differences in response to therapy for heart failure: analysis of the
vasodilator-heart failure trials. Vasodilator-Heart Failure Trial Study Group. J Card Fail. 1999;5:178-87.
424. 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.
425. Pitt B, Zannad F, Remme WJ, et al. The effect of spironolactone on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe
heart failure. Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:709-17.
426. Zannad F, McMurray JJ, Krum H, et al. Eplerenone in patients with systolic heart failure and mild symptoms. N
Engl J Med. 2011;364:11-21.
427. Brater DC. Diuretic therapy. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:387-95.
428. Cody RJ, Kubo SH, Pickworth KK. Diuretic treatment for the sodium retention of congestive heart failure. Arch
Intern Med. 1994;154:1905-14.
429. Patterson JH, Adams KF, Jr., Applefeld MM, et al. Oral torsemide in patients with chronic congestive heart
failure: effects on body weight, edema, and electrolyte excretion. Torsemide Investigators Group.
Pharmacotherapy. 1994;14:514-21.
430. Sherman LG, Liang CS, Baumgardner S, et al. Piretanide, a potent diuretic with potassium-sparing properties, for
the treatment of congestive heart failure. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1986;40:587-94.
431. Wilson JR, Reichek N, Dunkman WB, et al. Effect of diuresis on the performance of the failing left ventricle in
man. Am J Med. 1981;70:234-9.
432. Parker JO. The effects of oral ibopamine in patients with mild heart failure--a double blind placebo controlled
comparison to furosemide. The Ibopamine Study Group. Int J Cardiol. 1993;40:221-7.
433. Richardson A, Bayliss J, Scriven AJ, et al. Double-blind comparison of captopril alone against frusemide plus
amiloride in mild heart failure. Lancet. 1987;2:709-11.
434. Risler T, Schwab A, Kramer B, et al. Comparative pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of loop diuretics in
renal failure. Cardiology. 1994;84 Suppl 2:155-61.
435. Vargo DL, Kramer WG, Black PK, et al. Bioavailability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of torsemide
and furosemide in patients with congestive heart failure. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1995;57:601-9.
436. Herchuelz A, Derenne F, Deger F, et al. Interaction between nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and loop
diuretics: modulation by sodium balance. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1989;248:1175-81.
437. Gottlieb SS, Robinson S, Krichten CM, et al. Renal response to indomethacin in congestive heart failure secondary
to ischemic or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol. 1992;70:890-3.
438. Brater DC, Harris C, Redfern JS, et al. Renal effects of COX-2-selective inhibitors. Am J Nephrol. 2001;21:1-15.
439. Dormans TP, van Meyel JJ, Gerlag PG, et al. Diuretic efficacy of high dose furosemide in severe heart failure:
bolus injection versus continuous infusion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28:376-82.
440. Oster JR, Epstein M, Smoller S. Combined therapy with thiazide-type and loop diuretic agents for resistant sodium
retention. Ann Intern Med. 1983;99:405-6.
441. Ellison DH. The physiologic basis of diuretic synergism: its role in treating diuretic resistance. Ann Intern Med.
1991;114:886-94.
442. Sica DA, Gehr TW. Diuretic combinations in refractory oedema states: pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic
relationships. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1996;30:229-49.
443. Epstein M, Lepp B, Hoffman D. Potentiation of furosemide by metolazone in refractory edema. Curr Ther Res.
1977;656-67.
444. Steiness E, Olesen KH. Cardiac arrhythmias induced by hypokalaemia and potassium loss during maintenance
digoxin therapy. Br Heart J. 1976;38:167-72.
Page 143
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
445. Packer M, Poole-Wilson PA, Armstrong PW, et al. Comparative effects of low and high doses of the angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitor, lisinopril, on morbidity and mortality in chronic heart failure. ATLAS Study Group.
Circulation. 1999;100:2312-8.
446. Pitt B, Remme W, Zannad F, et al. Eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker, in patients with left ventricular
dysfunction after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1309-21.
447. Packer M, Coats AJ, Fowler MB, et al. Effect of carvedilol on survival in severe chronic heart failure. N Engl J
Med. 2001;344:1651-8.
448. Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR/XL Randomised Intervention Trial in
Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF). Lancet. 1999;353:2001-7.
449. 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.
450. Granger CB, McMurray JJ, Yusuf S, et al. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced
left-ventricular systolic function intolerant to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Alternative
trial. Lancet. 2003;362:772-6.
451. Crozier I, Ikram H, Awan N, et al. Losartan in heart failure. Hemodynamic effects and tolerability. Losartan
Hemodynamic Study Group. Circulation. 1995;91:691-7.
452. Gottlieb SS, Dickstein K, Fleck E, et al. Hemodynamic and neurohormonal effects of the angiotensin II antagonist
losartan in patients with congestive heart failure. Circulation. 1993;88:1602-9.
453. Mazayev VP, Fomina IG, Kazakov EN, et al. Valsartan in heart failure patients previously untreated with an ACE
inhibitor. Int J Cardiol. 1998;65:239-46.
454. McKelvie RS, Yusuf S, Pericak D, et al. Comparison of candesartan, enalapril, and their combination in
congestive heart failure: randomized evaluation of strategies for left ventricular dysfunction (RESOLVD) pilot
study. The RESOLVD Pilot Study Investigators. Circulation. 1999;100:1056-64.
455. Riegger GA, Bouzo H, Petr P, et al. Improvement in exercise tolerance and symptoms of congestive heart failure
during treatment with candesartan cilexetil. Symptom, Tolerability, Response to Exercise Trial of Candesartan
Cilexetil in Heart Failure (STRETCH) Investigators. Circulation. 1999;100:2224-30.
456. Sharma D, Buyse M, Pitt B, et al. Meta-analysis of observed mortality data from all-controlled, double-blind,
multiple-dose studies of losartan in heart failure. Losartan Heart Failure Mortality Meta-analysis Study Group. Am
J Cardiol. 2000;85:187-92.
457. Velazquez EJ, Pfeffer MA, McMurray JV, et al. VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) trial:
baseline characteristics in context. Eur J Heart Fail. 2003;5:537-44.
458. Cicardi M, Zingale LC, Bergamaschini L, et al. Angioedema associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme
inhibitor use: outcome after switching to a different treatment. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:910-3.
459. Makani H, Messerli FH, Romero J, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized trials of angioedema as an adverse event of
renin-angiotensin system inhibitors. Am J Cardiol. 2012;110:383-91.
460. Toh S, Reichman ME, Houstoun M, et al. Comparative risk for angioedema associated with the use of drugs that
target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:1582-9.
461. Warner KK, Visconti JA, Tschampel MM. Angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with ACE inhibitorinduced angioedema. Ann Pharmacother. 2000;34:526-8.
462. Fisher ML, Gottlieb SS, Plotnick GD, et al. Beneficial effects of metoprolol in heart failure associated with
coronary artery disease: a randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;23:943-50.
463. Metra M, Nardi M, Giubbini R, et al. Effects of short- and long-term carvedilol administration on rest and exercise
hemodynamic variables, exercise capacity and clinical conditions in patients with idiopathic dilated
cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;24:1678-87.
464. Olsen SL, Gilbert EM, Renlund DG, et al. Carvedilol improves left ventricular function and symptoms in chronic
heart failure: a double-blind randomized study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25:1225-31.
465. Krum H, Sackner-Bernstein JD, Goldsmith RL, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the long-term
efficacy of carvedilol in patients with severe chronic heart failure. Circulation. 1995;92:1499-506.
466. Waagstein F, Bristow MR, Swedberg K, et al. Beneficial effects of metoprolol in idiopathic dilated
cardiomyopathy. Metoprolol in Dilated Cardiomyopathy (MDC) Trial Study Group. Lancet. 1993;342:1441-6.
467. A randomized trial of beta-blockade in heart failure. The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS). CIBIS
Investigators and Committees. Circulation. 1994;90:1765-73.
468. Packer M, Colucci WS, Sackner-Bernstein JD, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effects of
carvedilol in patients with moderate to severe heart failure. The PRECISE Trial. Prospective Randomized
Evaluation of Carvedilol on Symptoms and Exercise. Circulation. 1996;94:2793-9.
469. Colucci WS, Packer M, Bristow MR, et al. Carvedilol inhibits clinical progression in patients with mild symptoms
of heart failure. US Carvedilol Heart Failure Study Group. Circulation. 1996;94:2800-6.
Page 144
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
470. Packer M, Bristow MR, Cohn JN, et al. The effect of carvedilol on morbidity and mortality in patients with
chronic heart failure. U.S. Carvedilol Heart Failure Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1349-55.
471. Randomised, placebo-controlled trial of carvedilol in patients with congestive heart failure due to ischaemic heart
disease. Australia/New Zealand Heart Failure Research Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1997;349:375-80.
472. van Veldhuisen DJ, Cohen-Solal A, Bohm M, et al. Beta-blockade with nebivolol in elderly heart failure patients
with impaired and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: Data From SENIORS (Study of Effects of Nebivolol
Intervention on Outcomes and Rehospitalization in Seniors With Heart Failure). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:21508.
473. Clinical outcome with enalapril in symptomatic chronic heart failure; a dose comparison. The NETWORK
Investigators. Eur Heart J. 1998;19:481-9.
474. Epstein SE, Braunwald E. The effect of beta adrenergic blockade on patterns of urinary sodium excretion. Studies
in normal subjects and in patients with heart disease. Ann Intern Med. 1966;65:20-7.
475. Weil JV, Chidsey CA. Plasma volume expansion resulting from interference with adrenergic function in normal
man. Circulation. 1968;37:54-61.
476. Gattis WA, O'Connor CM, Gallup DS, et al. Predischarge initiation of carvedilol in patients hospitalized for
decompensated heart failure: results of the Initiation Management Predischarge: Process for Assessment of
Carvedilol Therapy in Heart Failure (IMPACT-HF) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:1534-41.
477. Waagstein F, Caidahl K, Wallentin I, et al. Long-term beta-blockade in dilated cardiomyopathy. Effects of shortand long-term metoprolol treatment followed by withdrawal and readministration of metoprolol. Circulation.
1989;80:551-63.
478. Vizzardi E, D'Aloia A, Giubbini R, et al. Effect of spironolactone on left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes
in patients with class I or II heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:1292-6.
479. Juurlink DN, Mamdani MM, Lee DS, et al. Rates of hyperkalemia after publication of the Randomized Aldactone
Evaluation Study. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:543-51.
480. Bozkurt B, Agoston I, Knowlton AA. Complications of inappropriate use of spironolactone in heart failure: when
an old medicine spirals out of new guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:211-4.
481. Butler J, Ezekowitz JA, Collins SP, et al. Update on aldosterone antagonists use in heart failure with reduced left
ventricular ejection fraction heart failure society of america guidelines committee. J Card Fail. 2012;18:265-81.
482. Fonarow GC, Chelimsky-Fallick C, Stevenson LW, et al. Effect of direct vasodilation with hydralazine versus
angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition with captopril on mortality in advanced heart failure: the Hy-C trial. J
Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19:842-50.
483. Fonarow GC, Yancy CW, Hernandez AF, et al. Potential impact of optimal implementation of evidence-based
heart failure therapies on mortality. Am Heart J. 2011;161:1024-30.
484. The effect of digoxin on mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure. The Digitalis Investigation Group.
N Engl J Med. 1997;336:525-33.
485. Comparative effects of therapy with captopril and digoxin in patients with mild to moderate heart failure. The
Captopril-Digoxin Multicenter Research Group. JAMA. 1988;259:539-44.
486. Dobbs SM, Kenyon WI, Dobbs RJ. Maintenance digoxin after an episode of heart failure: placebo-controlled trial
in outpatients. Br Med J. 1977;1:749-52.
487. Lee DC, Johnson RA, Bingham JB, et al. Heart failure in outpatients: a randomized trial of digoxin versus placebo.
N Engl J Med. 1982;306:699-705.
488. Guyatt GH, Sullivan MJ, Fallen EL, et al. A controlled trial of digoxin in congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol.
1988;61:371-5.
489. DiBianco R, Shabetai R, Kostuk W, et al. A comparison of oral milrinone, digoxin, and their combination in the
treatment of patients with chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:677-83.
490. Uretsky BF, Young JB, Shahidi FE, et al. Randomized study assessing the effect of digoxin withdrawal in patients
with mild to moderate chronic congestive heart failure: results of the PROVED trial. PROVED Investigative
Group. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22:955-62.
491. Packer M, Gheorghiade M, Young JB, et al. Withdrawal of digoxin from patients with chronic heart failure treated
with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors. RADIANCE Study. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1-7.
492. Matsuda M, Matsuda Y, Yamagishi T, et al. Effects of digoxin, propranolol, and verapamil on exercise in patients
with chronic isolated atrial fibrillation. Cardiovasc Res. 1991;25:453-7.
493. David D, Segni ED, Klein HO, et al. Inefficacy of digitalis in the control of heart rate in patients with chronic
atrial fibrillation: beneficial effect of an added beta adrenergic blocking agent. Am J Cardiol. 1979;44:1378-82.
494. Farshi R, Kistner D, Sarma JS, et al. Ventricular rate control in chronic atrial fibrillation during daily activity and
programmed exercise: a crossover open-label study of five drug regimens. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:304-10.
Page 145
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
495. Khand AU, Rankin AC, Martin W, et al. Carvedilol alone or in combination with digoxin for the management of
atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:1944-51.
496. Jelliffe RW, Brooker G. A nomogram for digoxin therapy. Am J Med. 1974;57:63-8.
497. Rathore SS, Curtis JP, Wang Y, et al. Association of serum digoxin concentration and outcomes in patients with
heart failure. JAMA. 2003;289:871-8.
498. Adams KF, Jr., Patterson JH, Gattis WA, et al. Relationship of serum digoxin concentration to mortality and
morbidity in women in the digitalis investigation group trial: a retrospective analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2005;46:497-504.
499. Steiner JF, Robbins LJ, Hammermeister KE, et al. Incidence of digoxin toxicity in outpatients. West J Med.
1994;161:474-8.
500. Arnold SB, Byrd RC, Meister W, et al. Long-term digitalis therapy improves left ventricular function in heart
failure. N Engl J Med. 1980;303:1443-8.
501. Gheorghiade M, Hall VB, Jacobsen G, et al. Effects of increasing maintenance dose of digoxin on left ventricular
function and neurohormones in patients with chronic heart failure treated with diuretics and angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitors. Circulation. 1995;92:1801-7.
502. Slatton ML, Irani WN, Hall SA, et al. Does digoxin provide additional hemodynamic and autonomic benefit at
higher doses in patients with mild to moderate heart failure and normal sinus rhythm? J Am Coll Cardiol.
1997;29:1206-13.
503. Fogelman AM, La Mont JT, Finkelstein S, et al. Fallibility of plasma-digoxin in differentiating toxic from nontoxic patients. Lancet. 1971;2:727-9.
504. Ingelfinger JA, Goldman P. The serum digitalis concentration--does it diagnose digitalis toxicity? N Engl J Med.
1976;294:867-70.
505. Juurlink DN, Mamdani M, Kopp A, et al. Drug-drug interactions among elderly patients hospitalized for drug
toxicity. JAMA. 2003;289:1652-8.
506. Hager WD, Fenster P, Mayersohn M, et al. Digoxin-quinidine interaction Pharmacokinetic evaluation. N Engl J
Med. 1979;300:1238-41.
507. Bizjak ED, Mauro VF. Digoxin-macrolide drug interaction. Ann Pharmacother. 1997;31:1077-9.
508. Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ, et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N
Engl J Med. 2011;365:981-92.
509. Cairns JA, Connolly S, McMurtry S, et al. Canadian Cardiovascular Society atrial fibrillation guidelines 2010:
prevention of stroke and systemic thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation and flutter. Can J Cardiol. 2011;27:74-90.
510. Risk factors for stroke and efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation. Analysis of pooled data from
five randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:1449-57.
511. Hughes M, Lip GY. Stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review of stroke risk factors,
risk stratification schema and cost effectiveness data. Thromb Haemost. 2008;99:295-304.
512. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J
Med. 2009;361:1139-51.
513. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Newly identified events in the RE-LY trial. N Engl J Med.
2010;363:1875-6.
514. Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J
Med. 2011;365:883-91.
515. Dries DL, Rosenberg YD, Waclawiw MA, et al. Ejection fraction and risk of thromboembolic events in patients
with systolic dysfunction and sinus rhythm: evidence for gender differences in the studies of left ventricular
dysfunction trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;29:1074-80.
516. Camm AJ, Kirchhof P, Lip GY, et al. Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: the Task Force for the
Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2010;31:2369-429.
517. Freudenberger RS, Hellkamp AS, Halperin JL, et al. Risk of thromboembolism in heart failure: an analysis from
the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). Circulation. 2007;115:2637-41.
518. Loh E, Sutton MS, Wun CC, et al. Ventricular dysfunction and the risk of stroke after myocardial infarction. N
Engl J Med. 1997;336:251-7.
519. 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.
520. 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.
521. Fuster V, Gersh BJ, Giuliani ER, et al. The natural history of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol.
1981;47:525-31.
Page 146
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
522. Stratton JR, Nemanich JW, Johannessen KA, et al. Fate of left ventricular thrombi in patients with remote
myocardial infarction or idiopathic cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 1988;78:1388-93.
523. Jafri SM. Hypercoagulability in heart failure. Semin Thromb Hemost. 1997;23:543-5.
524. Dunkman WB, Johnson GR, Carson PE, et al. Incidence of thromboembolic events in congestive heart failure. The
V-HeFT VA Cooperative Studies Group. Circulation. 1993;87:VI94-101.
525. Dunkman WB. Thromboembolism and antithrombotic therapy in congestive heart failure. J Cardiovasc Risk.
1995;2:107-17.
526. Cioffi G, Pozzoli M, Forni G, et al. Systemic thromboembolism in chronic heart failure. A prospective study in
406 patients. Eur Heart J. 1996;17:1381-9.
527. Baker DW, Wright RF. Management of heart failure. IV. Anticoagulation for patients with heart failure due to left
ventricular systolic dysfunction. JAMA. 1994;272:1614-8.
528. Katz SD. Left ventricular thrombus and the incidence of thromboembolism in patients with congestive heart
failure: can clinical factors identify patients at increased risk? J Cardiovasc Risk. 1995;2:97-102.
529. Al-Khadra AS, Salem DN, Rand WM, et al. Warfarin anticoagulation and survival: a cohort analysis from the
Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:749-53.
530. Dries DL, Domanski MJ, Waclawiw MA, et al. Effect of antithrombotic therapy on risk of sudden coronary death
in patients with congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79:909-13.
531. Lip GY, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R, et al. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and
thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial
fibrillation. Chest. 2010;137:263-72.
532. Lip GY, Chung I. Antiplatelet agents versus control or anticoagulation for heart failure in sinus rhyth (Review).
The Cochrane Library. 2011.
533. Horwich TB, MacLellan WR, Fonarow GC. Statin therapy is associated with improved survival in ischemic and
non-ischemic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:642-8.
534. Anker SD, Clark AL, Winkler R, et al. Statin use and survival in patients with chronic heart failure--results from
two observational studies with 5200 patients. Int J Cardiol. 2006;112:234-42.
535. Go AS, Lee WY, Yang J, et al. Statin therapy and risks for death and hospitalization in chronic heart failure.
JAMA. 2006;296:2105-11.
536. Foody JM, Shah R, Galusha D, et al. Statins and mortality among elderly patients hospitalized with heart failure.
Circulation. 2006;113:1086-92.
537. Kjekshus J, Apetrei E, Barrios V, et al. Rosuvastatin in older patients with systolic heart failure. N Engl J Med.
2007;357:2248-61.
538. Tavazzi L, Maggioni AP, Marchioli R, et al. Effect of rosuvastatin in patients with chronic heart failure (the
GISSI-HF trial): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;372:1231-9.
539. Macchia A, Levantesi G, Franzosi MG, et al. Left ventricular systolic dysfunction, total mortality, and sudden
death in patients with myocardial infarction treated with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Eur J Heart Fail.
2005;7:904-9.
540. Tavazzi L, Maggioni AP, Marchioli R, et al. Effect of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in patients with chronic heart
failure (the GISSI-HF trial): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;372:1223-30.
541. Lavie CJ, Milani RV, Mehra MR, et al. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and cardiovascular diseases. J Am
Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:585-94.
542. Dietary supplementation with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E after myocardial infarction: results of
the GISSI-Prevenzione trial. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto miocardico. Lancet.
1999;354:447-55.
543. Nodari S, Triggiani M, Campia U, et al. Effects of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids on left ventricular function and
functional capacity in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:870-9.
544. McMurray JJ, Dunselman P, Wedel H, et al. Coenzyme Q10, rosuvastatin, and clinical outcomes in heart failure: a
pre-specified substudy of CORONA (controlled rosuvastatin multinational study in heart failure). J Am Coll
Cardiol. 2010;56:1196-204.
545. Soukoulis V, Dihu JB, Sole M, et al. Micronutrient deficiencies an unmet need in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2009;54:1660-73.
546. Effect of verapamil on mortality and major events after acute myocardial infarction (the Danish Verapamil
Infarction Trial II--DAVIT II). Am J Cardiol. 1990;66:779-85.
547. Goldstein RE, Boccuzzi SJ, Cruess D, et al. Diltiazem increases late-onset congestive heart failure in
postinfarction patients with early reduction in ejection fraction. The Adverse Experience Committee; and the
Multicenter Diltiazem Postinfarction Research Group. Circulation. 1991;83:52-60.
Page 147
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
548. Waldo AL, Camm AJ, deRuyter H, et al. Effect of d-sotalol on mortality in patients with left ventricular
dysfunction after recent and remote myocardial infarction. The SWORD Investigators. Survival With Oral dSotalol. Lancet. 1996;348:7-12.
549. Kober L, Torp-Pedersen C, McMurray JJ, et al. Increased mortality after dronedarone therapy for severe heart
failure. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2678-87.
550. Preliminary report: effect of encainide and flecainide on mortality in a randomized trial of arrhythmia suppression
after myocardial infarction. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) Investigators. N Engl J Med.
1989;321:406-12.
551. The effect of diltiazem on mortality and reinfarction after myocardial infarction. The Multicenter Diltiazem
Postinfarction Trial Research Group. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:385-92.
552. Figulla HR, Gietzen F, Zeymer U, et al. Diltiazem improves cardiac function and exercise capacity in patients with
idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Results of the Diltiazem in Dilated Cardiomyopathy Trial. Circulation.
1996;94:346-52.
553. Elkayam U, Amin J, Mehra A, et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study to compare the
efficacy and safety of chronic nifedipine therapy with that of isosorbide dinitrate and their combination in the
treatment of chronic congestive heart failure. Circulation. 1990;82:1954-61.
554. Gislason GH, Rasmussen JN, Abildstrom SZ, et al. Increased mortality and cardiovascular morbidity associated
with use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in chronic heart failure. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:141-9.
555. Heerdink ER, Leufkens HG, Herings RM, et al. NSAIDs associated with increased risk of congestive heart failure
in elderly patients taking diuretics. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:1108-12.
556. Hudson M, Richard H, Pilote L. Differences in outcomes of patients with congestive heart failure prescribed
celecoxib, rofecoxib, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: population based study. BMJ. 2005;330:1370.
557. Lipscombe LL, Gomes T, Levesque LE, et al. Thiazolidinediones and cardiovascular outcomes in older patients
with diabetes. JAMA. 2007;298:2634-43.
558. Azuma J, Sawamura A, Awata N. Usefulness of taurine in chronic congestive heart failure and its prospective
application. Jpn Circ J. 1992;56:95-9.
559. Fazio S, Sabatini D, Capaldo B, et al. A preliminary study of growth hormone in the treatment of dilated
cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:809-14.
560. Ferrari R, De Giuli F. The propionyl-L-carnitine hypothesis: an alternative approach to treating heart failure. J
Card Fail. 1997;3:217-24.
561. Ghatak A, Brar MJ, Agarwal A, et al. Oxy free radical system in heart failure and therapeutic role of oral vitamin
E. Int J Cardiol. 1996;57:119-27.
562. Hamilton MA, Stevenson LW. Thyroid hormone abnormalities in heart failure: possibilities for therapy. Thyroid.
1996;6:527-9.
563. Soja AM, Mortensen SA. Treatment of congestive heart failure with coenzyme Q10 illuminated by meta-analyses
of clinical trials. Mol Aspects Med. 1997;18 Suppl:S159-S168.
564. Toma M, McAlister FA, Coglianese EE, et al. Testosterone supplementation in heart failure: a meta-analysis. Circ
Heart Fail. 2012;5:315-21.
565. Morris CD, Carson S. Routine vitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease: a summary of the
evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:56-70.
566. Hofman-Bang C, Rehnqvist N, Swedberg K, et al. Coenzyme Q10 as an adjunctive in the treatment of chronic
congestive heart failure. The Q10 Study Group. J Card Fail. 1995;1:101-7.
567. Watson PS, Scalia GM, Galbraith A, et al. Lack of effect of coenzyme Q on left ventricular function in patients
with congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:1549-52.
568. Baggio E, Gandini R, Plancher AC, et al. Italian multicenter study on the safety and efficacy of coenzyme Q10 as
adjunctive therapy in heart failure. CoQ10 Drug Surveillance Investigators. Mol Aspects Med. 1994;15
Suppl:s287-94.
569. Miller KL, Liebowitz RS, Newby LK. Complementary and alternative medicine in cardiovascular disease: a
review of biologically based approaches. Am Heart J. 2004;147:401-11.
570. Doval HC, Nul DR, Grancelli HO, et al. Randomised trial of low-dose amiodarone in severe congestive heart
failure. Grupo de Estudio de la Sobrevida en la Insuficiencia Cardiaca en Argentina (GESICA). Lancet.
1994;344:493-8.
571. Singh SN, Fletcher RD, Fisher SG, et al. Amiodarone in patients with congestive heart failure and asymptomatic
ventricular arrhythmia. Survival Trial of Antiarrhythmic Therapy in Congestive Heart Failure. N Engl J Med.
1995;333:77-82.
Page 148
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
572. Torp-Pedersen C, Moller M, Bloch-Thomsen PE, et al. Dofetilide in patients with congestive heart failure and left
ventricular dysfunction. Danish Investigations of Arrhythmia and Mortality on Dofetilide Study Group. N Engl J
Med. 1999;341:857-65.
573. Kober L, Bloch Thomsen PE, Moller M, et al. Effect of dofetilide in patients with recent myocardial infarction and
left-ventricular dysfunction: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2000;356:2052-8.
574. Setaro JF, Zaret BL, Schulman DS, et al. Usefulness of verapamil for congestive heart failure associated with
abnormal left ventricular diastolic filling and normal left ventricular systolic performance. Am J Cardiol.
1990;66:981-6.
575. Packer M, O'Connor CM, Ghali JK, et al. Effect of amlodipine on morbidity and mortality in severe chronic heart
failure. Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Evaluation Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1107-14.
576. Cohn JN, Ziesche S, Smith R, et al. Effect of the calcium antagonist felodipine as supplementary vasodilator
therapy in patients with chronic heart failure treated with enalapril: V-HeFT III. Vasodilator-Heart Failure Trial
(V-HeFT) Study Group. Circulation. 1997;96:856-63.
577. Littler WA, Sheridan DJ. Placebo controlled trial of felodipine in patients with mild to moderate heart failure. UK
Study Group. Br Heart J. 1995;73:428-33.
578. Udelson JE, DeAbate CA, Berk M, et al. Effects of amlodipine on exercise tolerance, quality of life, and left
ventricular function in patients with heart failure from left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Am Heart J.
2000;139:503-10.
579. Thackray S, Witte K, Clark AL, et al. Clinical trials update: OPTIME-CHF, PRAISE-2, ALL-HAT. Eur J Heart
Fail. 2000;2:209-12.
580. Page J, Henry D. Consumption of NSAIDs and the development of congestive heart failure in elderly patients: an
underrecognized public health problem. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:777-84.
581. Feenstra J, Heerdink ER, Grobbee DE, et al. Association of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with first
occurrence of heart failure and with relapsing heart failure: the Rotterdam Study. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:26570.
582. Mamdani M, Juurlink DN, Lee DS, et al. Cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors versus non-selective non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs and congestive heart failure outcomes in elderly patients: a population-based cohort study.
Lancet. 2004;363:1751-6.
583. Delea TE, Edelsberg JS, Hagiwara M, et al. Use of thiazolidinediones and risk of heart failure in people with type
2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:2983-9.
584. Dargie HJ, Hildebrandt PR, Riegger GA, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessing the effects of
rosiglitazone on echocardiographic function and cardiac status in type 2 diabetic patients with New York Heart
Association Functional Class I or II Heart Failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:1696-704.
585. Lago RM, Singh PP, Nesto RW. Congestive heart failure and cardiovascular death in patients with prediabetes and
type 2 diabetes given thiazolidinediones: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Lancet. 2007;370:1129-36.
586. Home PD, Pocock SJ, Beck-Nielsen H, et al. Rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes in oral agent
combination therapy for type 2 diabetes (RECORD): a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial. Lancet.
2009;373:2125-35.
587. Giles TD, Elkayam U, Bhattacharya M, et al. Comparison of pioglitazone vs glyburide in early heart failure:
insights from a randomized controlled study of patients with type 2 diabetes and mild cardiac disease. Congest
Heart Fail. 2010;16:111-7.
588. Komajda M, McMurray JJ, Beck-Nielsen H, et al. Heart failure events with rosiglitazone in type 2 diabetes: data
from the RECORD clinical trial. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:824-31.
589. Yusuf S, Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, et al. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved
left-ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM-Preserved Trial. Lancet. 2003;362:777-81.
590. Edelmann F, Wachter R, Schmidt AG, et al. Effect of spironolactone on diastolic function and exercise capacity in
patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the Aldo-DHF randomized controlled trial. JAMA.
2013;309:781-91.
591. Piller LB, Baraniuk S, Simpson LM, et al. Long-term follow-up of participants with heart failure in the
antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT). Circulation.
2011;124:1811-8.
592. Abraham WT, Adams KF, Fonarow GC, et al. In-hospital mortality in patients with acute decompensated heart
failure requiring intravenous vasoactive medications: an analysis from the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure
National Registry (ADHERE). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:57-64.
593. Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, et al. Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart
failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:225-37.
Page 149
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
594. Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith AL, et al. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med.
2002;346:1845-53.
595. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events.
N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1329-38.
596. Tang AS, Wells GA, Talajic M, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for mild-to-moderate heart failure. N
Engl J Med. 2010;363:2385-95.
597. Buxton AE, Lee KL, Fisher JD, et al. A randomized study of the prevention of sudden death in patients with
coronary artery disease. Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:188290.
598. Hohnloser SH, Kuck KH, Dorian P, et al. Prophylactic use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after acute
myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2481-8.
599. Linde C, Abraham WT, Gold MR, et al. Randomized trial of cardiac resynchronization in mildly symptomatic
heart failure patients and in asymptomatic patients with left ventricular dysfunction and previous heart failure
symptoms. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1834-43.
600. Brignole M, Gammage M, Puggioni E, et al. Comparative assessment of right, left, and biventricular pacing in
patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:712-22.
601. Brignole M, Botto G, Mont L, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients undergoing atrioventricular
junction ablation for permanent atrial fibrillation: a randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:2420-9.
602. Doshi RN, Daoud EG, Fellows C, et al. Left ventricular-based cardiac stimulation post AV nodal ablation
evaluation (the PAVE study). J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2005;16:1160-5.
603. Gasparini M, Auricchio A, Regoli F, et al. Four-year efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy on exercise
tolerance and disease progression: the importance of performing atrioventricular junction ablation in patients with
atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:734-43.
604. Wilton SB, Leung AA, Ghali WA, et al. Outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with versus
those without atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart Rhythm. 2011;8:1088-94.
605. Upadhyay GA, Choudhry NK, Auricchio A, et al. Cardiac resynchronization in patients with atrial fibrillation: a
meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1239-46.
606. Adelstein E, Schwartzman D, Gorcsan J, III, et al. Predicting hyperresponse among pacemaker-dependent
nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients upgraded to cardiac resynchronization. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol.
2011;22:905-11.
607. Vatankulu MA, Goktekin O, Kaya MG, et al. Effect of long-term resynchronization therapy on left ventricular
remodeling in pacemaker patients upgraded to biventricular devices. Am J Cardiol. 2009;103:1280-4.
608. Setoguchi S, Nohria A, Rassen JA, et al. Maximum potential benefit of implantable defibrillators in preventing
sudden death after hospital admission because of heart failure. CMAJ. 2009;180:611-6.
609. Carson P, Anand I, O'Connor C, et al. Mode of death in advanced heart failure: the Comparison of Medical,
Pacing, and Defibrillation Therapies in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:2329-34.
610. Zareba W, Piotrowicz K, McNitt S, et al. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy in patients with heart
failure and left ventricular dysfunction (from the MADIT II population). Am J Cardiol. 2005;95:1487-91.
611. Mozaffarian D, Anker SD, Anand I, et al. Prediction of mode of death in heart failure: the Seattle Heart Failure
Model. Circulation. 2007;116:392-8.
612. Rickard J, Bassiouny M, Cronin EM, et al. Predictors of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients
with a non-left bundle branch block morphology. Am J Cardiol. 2011;108:1576-80.
613. Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, et al. ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of
Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task
Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for
Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices). [published correction appears in Circulation.
2009;120:e34-35]. Circulation. 2008;117:e350–408.
614. Steinbeck G, Andresen D, Seidl K, et al. Defibrillator implantation early after myocardial infarction. N Engl J
Med. 2009;361:1427-36.
615. Sears SF, Hauf JD, Kirian K, et al. Posttraumatic stress and the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patient: what
the electrophysiologist needs to know. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2011;4:242-50.
616. Al-Khatib SM, Greiner MA, Peterson ED, et al. Patient and implanting physician factors associated with mortality
and complications after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, 2002-2005. Circ Arrhythm
Electrophysiol. 2008;1:240-9.
617. Epstein AE, Kay GN, Plumb VJ, et al. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator prescription in the elderly. Heart
Rhythm. 2009;6:1136-43.
Page 150
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
618. Healey JS, Hallstrom AP, Kuck KH, et al. Role of the implantable defibrillator among elderly patients with a
history of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:1746-9.
619. Santangeli P, Di Biase L, Dello Russo A, et al. Meta-analysis: age and effectiveness of prophylactic implantable
cardioverter-defibrillators. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:592-9.
620. Stevenson LW, Desai AS. Selecting patients for discussion of the ICD as primary prevention for sudden death in
heart failure. J Card Fail. 2006;12:407-12.
621. Lampert R, Hayes DL, Annas GJ, et al. HRS Expert Consensus Statement on the Management of Cardiovascular
Implantable Electronic Devices (CIEDs) in patients nearing end of life or requesting withdrawal of therapy. Heart
Rhythm. 2010;7:1008-26.
622. Young JB, Abraham WT, Smith AL, et al. Combined cardiac resynchronization and implantable cardioversion
defibrillation in advanced chronic heart failure: the MIRACLE ICD Trial. JAMA. 2003;289:2685-94.
623. Saxon LA, Ellenbogen KA. Resynchronization therapy for the treatment of heart failure. Circulation.
2003;108:1044-8.
624. 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.
625. Stavrakis S, Lazzara R, Thadani U. The benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy and QRS duration: a metaanalysis. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012;23:163-8.
626. Bilchick KC, Kamath S, DiMarco JP, et al. Bundle-branch block morphology and other predictors of outcome
after cardiac resynchronization therapy in Medicare patients. Circulation. 2010;122:2022-30.
627. Adelstein EC, Saba S. Usefulness of baseline electrocardiographic QRS complex pattern to predict response to
cardiac resynchronization. Am J Cardiol. 2009;103:238-42.
628. Rickard J, Kumbhani DJ, Gorodeski EZ, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in non-left bundle branch block
morphologies. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2010;33:590-5.
629. Sharma A, Heist EK. The Utility of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. The
Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management. 2012;621-6.
630. Daubert C, Gold MR, Abraham WT, et al. Prevention of disease progression by cardiac resynchronization therapy
in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic left ventricular dysfunction: insights from the European
cohort of the REVERSE (Resynchronization Reverses Remodeling in Systolic Left Ventricular Dysfunction) trial.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1837-46.
631. Santangeli P, Di Biase L, Pelargonio G, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with mild heart failure:
a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2011;32:125-35.
632. Barsheshet A, Wang PJ, Moss AJ, et al. Reverse remodeling and the risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in the
MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy). J Am
Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:2416-23.
633. Tang AS, Wells GA, Arnold M, et al. Resynchronization/defibrillation for ambulatory heart failure trial: rationale
and trial design. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2009;24:1-8.
634. Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH, et al. 2009 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2005 guidelines
for the diagnosis and management of heart failure in adults. a report of the American College of Cardiology
Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:e1-90.
635. University of Alabama Birmingham. INTERMACS Manual of Operations V2.3. User's Guide 2008. 2009;
636. Ambardekar AV, Fonarow GC, Hernandez AF, et al. Characteristics and in-hospital outcomes for nonadherent
patients with heart failure: findings from Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF). Am Heart J.
2009;158:644-52.
637. Kripalani S, Yao X, Haynes RB. Interventions to enhance medication adherence in chronic medical conditions: a
systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:540-50.
638. Wu JR, Moser DK, Lennie TA, et al. Medication adherence in patients who have heart failure: a review of the
literature. Nurs Clin North Am. 2008;43:133-53.
639. Bagchi AD, Esposito D, Kim M, et al. Utilization of, and adherence to, drug therapy among medicaid beneficiaries
with congestive heart failure. Clin Ther. 2007;29:1771-83.
640. Neily JB, Toto KH, Gardner EB, et al. Potential contributing factors to noncompliance with dietary sodium
restriction in patients with heart failure. Am Heart J. 2002;143:29-33.
641. van der Wal MH, van Veldhuisen DJ, Veeger NJ, et al. Compliance with non-pharmacological recommendations
and outcome in heart failure patients. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:1486-93.
642. Russell SD, Miller LW, Pagani FD. Advanced heart failure: a call to action. Congest Heart Fail. 2008;14:316-21.
643. Stevenson LW, Pagani FD, Young JB, et al. INTERMACS profiles of advanced heart failure: the current picture. J
Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28:535-41.
Page 151
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
644. 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.
645. Gheorghiade M, Abraham WT, Albert NM, et al. Relationship between admission serum sodium concentration
and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized for heart failure: an analysis from the OPTIMIZE-HF registry. Eur
Heart J. 2007;28:980-8.
646. Klein L, O'Connor CM, Leimberger JD, et al. Lower serum sodium is associated with increased short-term
mortality in hospitalized patients with worsening heart failure: results from the Outcomes of a Prospective Trial of
Intravenous Milrinone for Exacerbations of Chronic Heart Failure (OPTIME-CHF) study. Circulation.
2005;111:2454-60.
647. Aranda JM, Jr., Schofield RS, Pauly DF, et al. Comparison of dobutamine versus milrinone therapy in hospitalized
patients awaiting cardiac transplantation: a prospective, randomized trial. Am Heart J. 2003;145:324-9.
648. Brozena SC, Twomey C, Goldberg LR, et al. A prospective study of continuous intravenous milrinone therapy for
status IB patients awaiting heart transplant at home. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2004;23:1082-6.
649. Cuffe MS, Califf RM, Adams KF, Jr., et al. Short-term intravenous milrinone for acute exacerbation of chronic
heart failure: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;287:1541-7.
650. Elkayam U, Tasissa G, Binanay C, et al. Use and impact of inotropes and vasodilator therapy in hospitalized
patients with severe heart failure. Am Heart J. 2007;153:98-104.
651. O'Connor CM, Gattis WA, Uretsky BF, et al. Continuous intravenous dobutamine is associated with an increased
risk of death in patients with advanced heart failure: insights from the Flolan International Randomized Survival
Trial (FIRST). Am Heart J. 1999;138:78-86.
652. Hershberger RE, Nauman D, Walker TL, et al. Care processes and clinical outcomes of continuous outpatient
support with inotropes (COSI) in patients with refractory endstage heart failure. J Card Fail. 2003;9:180-7.
653. Gorodeski EZ, Chu EC, Reese JR, et al. Prognosis on chronic dobutamine or milrinone infusions for stage D heart
failure. Circ Heart Fail. 2009;2:320-4.
654. Cohn JN, Goldstein SO, Greenberg BH, et al. A dose-dependent increase in mortality with vesnarinone among
patients with severe heart failure. Vesnarinone Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1810-6.
655. Hampton JR, van Veldhuisen DJ, Kleber FX, et al. Randomised study of effect of ibopamine on survival in
patients with advanced severe heart failure. Second Prospective Randomised Study of Ibopamine on Mortality and
Efficacy (PRIME II) Investigators. Lancet. 1997;349:971-7.
656. Lubsen J, Just H, Hjalmarsson AC, et al. Effect of pimobendan on exercise capacity in patients with heart failure:
main results from the Pimobendan in Congestive Heart Failure (PICO) trial. Heart. 1996;76:223-31.
657. Packer M, Carver JR, Rodeheffer RJ, et al. Effect of oral milrinone on mortality in severe chronic heart failure.
The PROMISE Study Research Group. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1468-75.
658. Metra M, Eichhorn E, Abraham WT, et al. Effects of low-dose oral enoximone administration on mortality,
morbidity, and exercise capacity in patients with advanced heart failure: the randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled, parallel group ESSENTIAL trials. Eur Heart J. 2009;30:3015-26.
659. Oliva F, Latini R, Politi A, et al. Intermittent 6-month low-dose dobutamine infusion in severe heart failure: DICE
multicenter trial. Am Heart J. 1999;138:247-53.
660. Pagani FD, Miller LW, Russell SD, et al. Extended mechanical circulatory support with a continuous-flow rotary
left ventricular assist device. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:312-21.
661. Alba AC, Rao V, Ross HJ, et al. Impact of fixed pulmonary hypertension on post-heart transplant outcomes in
bridge-to-transplant patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29:1253-8.
662. Elhenawy AM, Algarni KD, Rodger M, et al. Mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to transplant candidacy. J
Card Surg. 2011;26:542-7.
663. Nair PK, Kormos RL, Teuteberg JJ, et al. Pulsatile left ventricular assist device support as a bridge to decision in
patients with end-stage heart failure complicated by pulmonary hypertension. J Heart Lung Transplant.
2010;29:201-8.
664. Miller LW, Pagani FD, Russell SD, et al. Use of a continuous-flow device in patients awaiting heart
transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:885-96.
665. Lahpor J, Khaghani A, Hetzer R, et al. European results with a continuous-flow ventricular assist device for
advanced heart-failure patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;37:357-61.
666. Starling RC, Naka Y, Boyle AJ, et al. Results of the post-U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approval study with
a continuous flow left ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplantation: a prospective study using the
INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support). J Am Coll Cardiol.
2011;57:1890-8.
667. Grady KL, Meyer PM, Dressler D, et al. Longitudinal change in quality of life and impact on survival after left
ventricular assist device implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77:1321-7.
Page 152
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
668. Burkhoff D, Cohen H, Brunckhorst C, et al. A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and
efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic
balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J. 2006;152:469-8.
669. Greenberg B, Czerska B, Delgado RM, et al. Effects of continuous aortic flow augmentation in patients with
exacerbation of heart failure inadequately responsive to medical therapy: results of the Multicenter Trial of the
Orqis Medical Cancion System for the Enhanced Treatment of Heart Failure Unresponsive to Medical Therapy
(MOMENTUM). Circulation. 2008;118:1241-9.
670. Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a
percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock
caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1584-8.
671. Thiele H, Sick P, Boudriot E, et al. Randomized comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous
left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by
cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:1276-83.
672. Rose EA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, et al. Long-term use of a left ventricular assist device for end-stage heart
failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1435-43.
673. Stevenson LW, Miller LW, Desvigne-Nickens P, et al. Left ventricular assist device as destination for patients
undergoing intravenous inotropic therapy: a subset analysis from REMATCH (Randomized Evaluation of
Mechanical Assistance in Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure). Circulation. 2004;110:975-81.
674. Rogers JG, Butler J, Lansman SL, et al. Chronic mechanical circulatory support for inotrope-dependent heart
failure patients who are not transplant candidates: results of the INTrEPID Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:7417.
675. Slaughter MS, Rogers JG, Milano CA, et al. Advanced heart failure treated with continuous-flow left ventricular
assist device. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2241-51.
676. Liotta D, Crawford ES, Cooley DA, et al. Prolonged partial left ventricular bypass by means of an intrathoracic
pump implanted in the left chest. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs. 1962;8:90-9.
677. Holman WL, Kormos RL, Naftel DC, et al. Predictors of death and transplant in patients with a mechanical
circulatory support device: a multi-institutional study. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28:44-50.
678. Hall JL, Fermin DR, Birks EJ, et al. Clinical, molecular, and genomic changes in response to a left ventricular
assist device. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:641-52.
679. Kato TS, Chokshi A, Singh P, et al. Effects of continuous-flow versus pulsatile-flow left ventricular assist devices
on myocardial unloading and remodeling. Circ Heart Fail. 2011;4:546-53.
680. Mehra MR, Kobashigawa J, Starling R, et al. Listing criteria for heart transplantation: International Society for
Heart and Lung Transplantation guidelines for the care of cardiac transplant candidates--2006. J Heart Lung
Transplant. 2006;25:1024-42.
681. Stehlik J, Edwards LB, Kucheryavaya AY, et al. The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung
Transplantation: Twenty-eighth Adult Heart Transplant Report--2011. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30:1078-94.
682. Grady KL, Jalowiec A, White-Williams C. Improvement in quality of life in patients with heart failure who
undergo transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1996;15:749-57.
683. Grady KL, Jalowiec A, White-Williams C. Predictors of quality of life in patients at one year after heart
transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1999;18:202-10.
684. Grady KL, Naftel DC, Young JB, et al. Patterns and predictors of physical functional disability at 5 to 10 years
after heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2007;26:1182-91.
685. Habedank D, Ewert R, Hummel M, et al. Changes in exercise capacity, ventilation, and body weight following
heart transplantation. Eur J Heart Fail. 2007;9:310-6.
686. Kobashigawa JA, Leaf DA, Lee N, et al. A controlled trial of exercise rehabilitation after heart transplantation. N
Engl J Med. 1999;340:272-7.
687. Salyer J, Flattery MP, Joyner PL, et al. Lifestyle and quality of life in long-term cardiac transplant recipients. J
Heart Lung Transplant. 2003;22:309-21.
688. Grady KL, Naftel DC, Kobashigawa J, et al. Patterns and predictors of quality of life at 5 to 10 years after heart
transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2007;26:535-43.
689. Deng MC, De Meester JM, Smits JM, et al. Effect of receiving a heart transplant: analysis of a national cohort
entered on to a waiting list, stratified by heart failure severity. Comparative Outcome and Clinical Profiles in
Transplantation (COCPIT) Study Group. BMJ. 2000;321:540-5.
690. Arena R, Myers J, Aslam SS, et al. Peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope in patients with heart failure: a prognostic
comparison. Am Heart J. 2004;147:354-60.
691. Butler J, Khadim G, Paul KM, et al. Selection of patients for heart transplantation in the current era of heart failure
therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:787-93.
Page 153
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
692. Chase P, Arena R, Guazzi M, et al. Prognostic usefulness of the functional aerobic reserve in patients with heart
failure. Am Heart J. 2010;160:922-7.
693. Ferreira AM, Tabet JY, Frankenstein L, et al. Ventilatory efficiency and the selection of patients for heart
transplantation. Circ Heart Fail. 2010;3:378-86.
694. Goda A, Lund LH, Mancini D. The Heart Failure Survival Score outperforms the peak oxygen consumption for
heart transplantation selection in the era of device therapy. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30:315-25.
695. Lund LH, Aaronson KD, Mancini DM. Predicting survival in ambulatory patients with severe heart failure on
beta-blocker therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2003;92:1350-4.
696. Mancini DM, Eisen H, Kussmaul W, et al. Value of peak exercise oxygen consumption for optimal timing of
cardiac transplantation in ambulatory patients with heart failure. Circulation. 1991;83:778-86.
697. Klotz S, Deng MC, Hanafy D, et al. Reversible pulmonary hypertension in heart transplant candidates-pretransplant evaluation and outcome after orthotopic heart transplantation. Eur J Heart Fail. 2003;5:645-53.
698. Maron MS, Kalsmith BM, Udelson JE, et al. Survival after cardiac transplantation in patients with hypertrophic
cardiomyopathy. Circ Heart Fail. 2010;3:574-9.
699. Rasmusson KD, Stehlik J, Brown RN, et al. Long-term outcomes of cardiac transplantation for peri-partum
cardiomyopathy: a multiinstitutional analysis. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2007;26:1097-104.
700. Zangwill SD, Naftel D, L'Ecuyer T, et al. Outcomes of children with restrictive cardiomyopathy listed for heart
transplant: a multi-institutional study. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28:1335-40.
701. Zaidi AR, Zaidi A, Vaitkus PT. Outcome of heart transplantation in patients with sarcoid cardiomyopathy. J Heart
Lung Transplant. 2007;26:714-7.
702. Wu RS, Gupta S, Brown RN, et al. Clinical outcomes after cardiac transplantation in muscular dystrophy patients.
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29:432-8.
703. Fang J, Mensah GA, Croft JB, et al. Heart failure-related hospitalization in the U.S., 1979 to 2004. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 2008;52:428-34.
704. Kociol RD, Hammill BG, Fonarow GC, et al. Generalizability and longitudinal outcomes of a national heart
failure clinical registry: Comparison of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) and
non-ADHERE Medicare beneficiaries. Am Heart J. 2010;160:885-92.
705. Weintraub NL, Collins SP, Pang PS, et al. Acute heart failure syndromes: emergency department presentation,
treatment, and disposition: current approaches and future aims: a scientific statement from the American Heart
Association. Circulation. 2010;122:1975-96.
706. Fonarow GC, Heywood JT, Heidenreich PA, et al. Temporal trends in clinical characteristics, treatments, and
outcomes for heart failure hospitalizations, 2002 to 2004: findings from Acute Decompensated Heart Failure
National Registry (ADHERE). Am Heart J. 2007;153:1021-8.
707. West R, Liang L, Fonarow GC, et al. Characterization of heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction: a
comparison between ADHERE-US registry and ADHERE-International registry. Eur J Heart Fail. 2011;13:94552.
708. Baggish AL, van KR, Bayes-Genis A, et al. Hemoglobin and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide: Independent
and synergistic predictors of mortality in patients with acute heart failure Results from the International
Collaborative of NT-proBNP (ICON) Study. Clin Chim Acta. 2007;381:145-50.
709. Gheorghiade M, Rossi JS, Cotts W, et al. Characterization and prognostic value of persistent hyponatremia in
patients with severe heart failure in the ESCAPE Trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1998-2005.
710. 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.
711. Mohammed AA, van Kimmenade RR, Richards M, et al. Hyponatremia, natriuretic peptides, and outcomes in
acutely decompensated heart failure: results from the International Collaborative of NT-proBNP Study. Circ Heart
Fail. 2010;3:354-61.
712. van Kimmenade RR, Januzzi JL, Jr., Baggish AL, et al. Amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic Peptide, renal
function, and outcomes in acute heart failure: redefining the cardiorenal interaction? J Am Coll Cardiol.
2006;48:1621-7.
713. van Kimmenade RR, Mohammed AA, Uthamalingam S, et al. Red blood cell distribution width and 1-year
mortality in acute heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2010;12:129-36.
714. Sweitzer NK, Lopatin M, Yancy CW, et al. Comparison of clinical features and outcomes of patients hospitalized
with heart failure and normal ejection fraction (> or =55%) versus those with mildly reduced (40% to 55%) and
moderately to severely reduced (<40%) fractions. Am J Cardiol. 2008;101:1151-6.
Page 154
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
715. Yancy CW, Lopatin M, Stevenson LW, et al. Clinical presentation, management, and in-hospital outcomes of
patients admitted with acute decompensated heart failure with preserved systolic function: a report from the Acute
Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) Database. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:76-84.
716. Nohria A, Lewis E, Stevenson LW. Medical management of advanced heart failure. JAMA. 2002;287:628-40.
717. Martinez-Rumayor AA, Vazquez J, Rehman SU, et al. Relative value of amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic
peptide testing and radiographic standards for the diagnostic evaluation of heart failure in acutely dyspneic
subjects. Biomarkers. 2010;15:175-82.
718. Januzzi JL, Jr., Camargo CA, Anwaruddin S, et al. The N-terminal Pro-BNP investigation of dyspnea in the
emergency department (PRIDE) study. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95:948-54.
719. Januzzi JL, van Kimmenade R, Lainchbury J, et al. NT-proBNP testing for diagnosis and short-term prognosis in
acute destabilized heart failure: an international pooled analysis of 1256 patients: the International Collaborative of
NT-proBNP Study. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:330-7.
720. Green SM, Martinez-Rumayor A, Gregory SA, et al. Clinical uncertainty, diagnostic accuracy, and outcomes in
emergency department patients presenting with dyspnea. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:741-8.
721. McCullough PA, Nowak RM, McCord J, et al. B-type natriuretic peptide and clinical judgment in emergency
diagnosis of heart failure: analysis from Breathing Not Properly (BNP) Multinational Study. Circulation.
2002;106:416-22.
722. Steinhart B, Thorpe KE, Bayoumi AM, et al. Improving the diagnosis of acute heart failure using a validated
prediction model. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1515-21.
723. Collins SP, Peacock WF, Lindsell CJ, et al. S3 detection as a diagnostic and prognostic aid in emergency
department patients with acute dyspnea. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;53:748-57.
724. Di Somma S, De Berardinis B, Bongiovanni C, et al. Use of BNP and bioimpedance to drive therapy in heart
failure patients. Congest Heart Fail. 2010;16 Suppl 1:S56-S61.
725. Cotter G, Moshkovitz Y, Kaluski E, et al. Accurate, noninvasive continuous monitoring of cardiac output by
whole-body electrical bioimpedance. Chest. 2004;125:1431-40.
726. Flaherty JD, Bax JJ, De Luca L, et al. Acute heart failure syndromes in patients with coronary artery disease early
assessment and treatment. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:254-63.
727. Kociol RD, Pang PS, Gheorghiade M, et al. Troponin elevation in heart failure prevalence, mechanisms, and
clinical implications. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:1071-8.
728. Latini R, Masson S, Anand IS, et al. Prognostic value of very low plasma concentrations of troponin T in patients
with stable chronic heart failure. Circulation. 2007;116:1242-9.
729. Peacock WF, Hollander JE, Diercks DB, et al. Morphine and outcomes in acute decompensated heart failure: an
ADHERE analysis. Emerg Med J. 2008;25:205-9.
730. Fonarow GC, Abraham WT, Albert NM, et al. Factors identified as precipitating hospital admissions for heart
failure and clinical outcomes: findings from OPTIMIZE-HF. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:847-54.
731. Gheorghiade M, Abraham WT, Albert NM, et al. Systolic blood pressure at admission, clinical characteristics, and
outcomes in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure. JAMA. 2006;296:2217-26.
732. Zanotti-Cavazzoni SL, Hollenberg SM. Cardiac dysfunction in severe sepsis and septic shock. Curr Opin Crit
Care. 2009;15:392-7.
733. Klemperer JD, Ojamaa K, Klein I. Thyroid hormone therapy in cardiovascular disease. Prog Cardiovasc Dis.
1996;38:329-36.
734. Granger BB, Swedberg K, Ekman I, et al. Adherence to candesartan and placebo and outcomes in chronic heart
failure in the CHARM programme: double-blind, randomised, controlled clinical trial. Lancet. 2005;366:2005-11.
735. Metra M, Torp-Pedersen C, Cleland JG, et al. Should beta-blocker therapy be reduced or withdrawn after an
episode of decompensated heart failure? Results from COMET. Eur J Heart Fail. 2007;9:901-9.
736. Butler J, Young JB, Abraham WT, et al. Beta-blocker use and outcomes among hospitalized heart failure patients.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:2462-9.
737. Maisel AS, Peacock WF, McMullin N, et al. Timing of immunoreactive B-type natriuretic peptide levels and
treatment delay in acute decompensated heart failure: an ADHERE (Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National
Registry) analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:534-40.
738. Peacock WF, Fonarow GC, Emerman CL, et al. Impact of early initiation of intravenous therapy for acute
decompensated heart failure on outcomes in ADHERE. Cardiology. 2007;107:44-51.
739. 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.
740. Grosskopf I, Rabinovitz M, Rosenfeld JB. Combination of furosemide and metolazone in the treatment of severe
congestive heart failure. Isr J Med Sci. 1986;22:787-90.
Page 155
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
741. Channer KS, McLean KA, Lawson-Matthew P, et al. Combination diuretic treatment in severe heart failure: a
randomised controlled trial. Br Heart J. 1994;71:146-50.
742. Sigurd B, Olesen KH, Wennevold A. The supra-additive natriuretic effect addition of bendroflumethiazide and
bumetanide in congestive heart failure. Permutation trial tests in patients in long-term treatment with bumetanide.
Am Heart J. 1975;89:163-70.
743. Rosenberg J, Gustafsson F, Galatius S, et al. Combination therapy with metolazone and loop diuretics in
outpatients with refractory heart failure: an observational study and review of the literature. Cardiovasc Drugs
Ther. 2005;19:301-6.
744. Giamouzis G, Butler J, Starling RC, et al. Impact of dopamine infusion on renal function in hospitalized heart
failure patients: results of the Dopamine in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (DAD-HF) Trial. J Card Fail.
2010;16:922-30.
745. Elkayam U, Ng TM, Hatamizadeh P, et al. Renal Vasodilatory Action of Dopamine in Patients With Heart Failure:
Magnitude of Effect and Site of Action. Circulation. 2008;117:200-5.
746. Cleland JG, Coletta A, Witte K. Practical applications of intravenous diuretic therapy in decompensated heart
failure. Am J Med. 2006;119:S26-S36.
747. Vasko MR, Cartwright DB, Knochel JP, et al. Furosemide absorption altered in decompensated congestive heart
failure. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102:314-8.
748. Wilcox CS, Mitch WE, Kelly RA, et al. Response of the kidney to furosemide. I. Effects of salt intake and renal
compensation. J Lab Clin Med. 1983;102:450-8.
749. Firth JD, Raine AE, Ledingham JG. Raised venous pressure: a direct cause of renal sodium retention in oedema?
Lancet. 1988;1:1033-5.
750. Pivac N, Rumboldt Z, Sardelic S, et al. Diuretic effects of furosemide infusion versus bolus injection in congestive
heart failure. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res. 1998;18:121-8.
751. Salvador DR, Rey NR, Ramos GC, et al. Continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics in congestive
heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;CD003178.
752. 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.
753. Bart BA, Boyle A, Bank AJ, et al. Ultrafiltration versus usual care for hospitalized patients with heart failure: the
Relief for Acutely Fluid-Overloaded Patients With Decompensated Congestive Heart Failure (RAPID-CHF) trial.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:2043-6.
754. Bourge RC, Tallaj JA. Ultrafiltration: a new approach toward mechanical diuresis in heart failure. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 2005;46:2052-3.
755. Jaski BE, Ha J, Denys BG, et al. Peripherally inserted veno-venous ultrafiltration for rapid treatment of volume
overloaded patients. J Card Fail. 2003;9:227-31.
756. Costanzo M, Saltzburg M, O'Sullivan J, et al. EUPHORIA trial: Early ultrafiltration therapy in patients with
decompensated heart failure and observed resistance to intervention with diuretic agents. J Card Fail.
2004;10:(Suppl):S78.
757. Bart B, Boyle A, Bank A, et al. Randomized controlled trial of ultrafiltration versus usual care for hospitalized
patients with heart failure: preliminary report of the Rapid Trial. J Card Fail. 2004;10:(Suppl):S23.
758. Bart BA, Goldsmith SR, Lee KL, et al. Cardiorenal rescue study in acute decompensated heart failure: rationale
and design of CARRESS-HF, for the Heart Failure Clinical Research Network. J Card Fail. 2012;18:176-82.
759. Bart BA, Goldsmith SR, Lee KL, et al. Ultrafiltration in decompensated heart failure with cardiorenal syndrome.
N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2296-304.
760. Colucci WS, Elkayam U, Horton DP, et al. Intravenous nesiritide, a natriuretic peptide, in the treatment of
decompensated congestive heart failure. Nesiritide Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:246-53.
761. Cioffi G, Stefenelli C, Tarantini L, et al. Hemodynamic response to intensive unloading therapy (furosemide and
nitroprusside) in patients >70 years of age with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and decompensated chronic
heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2003;92:1050-6.
762. 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.
763. Intravenous nesiritide vs nitroglycerin for treatment of decompensated congestive heart failure: a randomized
controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;287:1531-40.
764. Elkayam U, Akhter MW, Singh H, et al. Comparison of effects on left ventricular filling pressure of intravenous
nesiritide and high-dose nitroglycerin in patients with decompensated heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2004;93:237-40.
765. Cotter G, Metzkor E, Kaluski E, et al. Randomised trial of high-dose isosorbide dinitrate plus low-dose furosemide
versus high-dose furosemide plus low-dose isosorbide dinitrate in severe pulmonary oedema. Lancet.
1998;351:389-93.
Page 156
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
766. Elkayam U, Kulick D, McIntosh N, et al. Incidence of early tolerance to hemodynamic effects of continuous
infusion of nitroglycerin in patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure. Circulation. 1987;76:577-84.
767. Dupuis J, Lalonde G, Lemieux R, et al. Tolerance to intravenous nitroglycerin in patients with congestive heart
failure: role of increased intravascular volume, neurohumoral activation and lack of prevention with Nacetylcysteine. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;16:923-31.
768. Fung HL, Bauer JA. Mechanisms of nitrate tolerance. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 1994;8:489-99.
769. Mullens W, Abrahams Z, Francis GS, et al. Sodium nitroprusside for advanced low-output heart failure. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 2008;52:200-7.
770. Alikhan R, Cohen AT, Combe S, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in medical patients with
enoxaparin: a subgroup analysis of the MEDENOX study. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2003;14:341-6.
771. Belch JJ, Lowe GD, Ward AG, et al. Prevention of deep vein thrombosis in medical patients by low-dose heparin.
Scott Med J. 1981;26:115-7.
772. Kleber FX, Witt C, Vogel G, et al. Randomized comparison of enoxaparin with unfractionated heparin for the
prevention of venous thromboembolism in medical patients with heart failure or severe respiratory disease. Am
Heart J. 2003;145:614-21.
773. Samama MM, Cohen AT, Darmon JY, et al. A comparison of enoxaparin with placebo for the prevention of
venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. Prophylaxis in Medical Patients with Enoxaparin Study
Group. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:793-800.
774. Turpie AG. Thrombosis prophylaxis in the acutely ill medical patient: insights from the prophylaxis in MEDical
patients with ENOXaparin (MEDENOX) trial. Am J Cardiol. 2000;86:48M-52M.
775. Guyatt GH, Akl EA, Crowther M, et al. Executive summary: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis,
9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012;141:7S47S.
776. Cohen AT, Turpie AG, Leizorovicz A, et al. Thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin in medical patients: which
patients benefit? Vasc Med. 2007;12:123-7.
777. Leizorovicz A, Cohen AT, Turpie AG, et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of dalteparin for the prevention
of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. Circulation. 2004;110:874-9.
778. Anderson GM, Hull E. The effect of dicumarol upon the mortality and incidence of thromboembolic complications
in congestive heart failure. Am Heart J. 1950;39:697-702.
779. Griffith GC, Stragnell R, Levinson DC, et al. A study of the beneficial effects of anticoagulant therapy in
congestive heart failure. Ann Intern Med. 1952;37:867-87.
780. Harvey WP, Finch CA. Dicumarol prophylaxis of thromboembolic disease in congestive heart failure. N Engl J
Med. 1950;242:208-11.
781. Cohen AT, Davidson BL, Gallus AS, et al. Efficacy and safety of fondaparinux for the prevention of venous
thromboembolism in older acute medical patients: randomised placebo controlled trial. BMJ. 2006;332:325-9.
782. Wojnicz R, Nowak J, Szygula-Jurkiewicz B, et al. Adjunctive therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin in
patients with chronic heart failure secondary to dilated cardiomyopathy: one-year follow-up results of the
randomized trial. Am Heart J. 2006;152:713.e1-713.e7.
783. Tebbe U, Schellong SM, Haas S, et al. Certoparin versus unfractionated heparin to prevent venous
thromboembolic events in patients hospitalized because of heart failure: a subgroup analysis of the randomized,
controlled CERTIFY study. Am Heart J. 2011;161:322-8.
784. Lederle FA, Zylla D, MacDonald R, et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients
and those with stroke: a background review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.
Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:602-15.
785. Dennis M, Sandercock PA, Reid J, et al. Effectiveness of thigh-length graduated compression stockings to reduce
the risk of deep vein thrombosis after stroke (CLOTS trial 1): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet.
2009;373:1958-65.
786. Muir KW, Watt A, Baxter G, et al. Randomized trial of graded compression stockings for prevention of deep-vein
thrombosis after acute stroke. QJM. 2000;93:359-64.
787. Ghali JK, Koren MJ, Taylor JR, et al. Efficacy and safety of oral conivaptan: a V1A/V2 vasopressin receptor
antagonist, assessed in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in patients with euvolemic or hypervolemic
hyponatremia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91:2145-52.
788. Schrier RW, Gross P, Gheorghiade M, et al. Tolvaptan, a selective oral vasopressin V2-receptor antagonist, for
hyponatremia. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2099-112.
789. Renneboog B, Musch W, Vandemergel X, et al. Mild chronic hyponatremia is associated with falls, unsteadiness,
and attention deficits. Am J Med. 2006;119:71-8.
Page 157
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
790. Gheorghiade M, Konstam MA, Burnett JC, Jr., et al. Short-term clinical effects of tolvaptan, an oral vasopressin
antagonist, in patients hospitalized for heart failure: the EVEREST Clinical Status Trials. JAMA. 2007;297:133243.
791. Konstam MA, Gheorghiade M, Burnett JC, Jr., et al. Effects of oral tolvaptan in patients hospitalized for
worsening heart failure: the EVEREST Outcome Trial. JAMA. 2007;297:1319-31.
792. Naylor M, Brooten D, Jones R, et al. Comprehensive discharge planning for the hospitalized elderly. A
randomized clinical trial. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:999-1006.
793. Naylor MD, Brooten DA, Campbell RL, et al. Transitional care of older adults hospitalized with heart failure: a
randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52:675-84.
794. Fonarow GC, Abraham WT, Albert NM, et al. Influence of a performance-improvement initiative on quality of
care for patients hospitalized with heart failure: results of the Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment
in Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF). Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1493-502.
795. Lappe JM, Muhlestein JB, Lappe DL, et al. Improvements in 1-year cardiovascular clinical outcomes associated
with a hospital-based discharge medication program. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:446-53.
796. Phillips CO, Wright SM, Kern DE, et al. Comprehensive discharge planning with postdischarge support for older
patients with congestive heart failure: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;291:1358-67.
797. Gislason GH, Rasmussen JN, Abildstrom SZ, et al. Persistent use of evidence-based pharmacotherapy in heart
failure is associated with improved outcomes. Circulation. 2007;116:737-44.
798. Masoudi FA, Rathore SS, Wang Y, et al. National patterns of use and effectiveness of angiotensin-converting
enzyme inhibitors in older patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Circulation.
2004;110:724-31.
799. Braunstein JB, Anderson GF, Gerstenblith G, et al. Noncardiac comorbidity increases preventable hospitalizations
and mortality among Medicare beneficiaries with chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:1226-33.
800. Windham BG, Bennett RG, Gottlieb S. Care management interventions for older patients with congestive heart
failure. Am J Manag Care. 2003;9:447-59.
801. Fonarow GC, Albert NM, Curtis AB, et al. Improving evidence-based care for heart failure in outpatient
cardiology practices: primary results of the Registry to Improve the Use of Evidence-Based Heart Failure
Therapies in the Outpatient Setting (IMPROVE HF). Circulation. 2010;122:585-96.
802. Fonarow GC, Abraham WT, Albert NM, et al. Association between performance measures and clinical outcomes
for patients hospitalized with heart failure. JAMA. 2007;297:61-70.
803. Hernandez AF, Greiner MA, Fonarow GC, et al. Relationship between early physician follow-up and 30-day
readmission among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for heart failure. JAMA. 2010;303:1716-22.
804. The Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research 30 Safe Practices for Better Health Care. 2012;
805. The Joint Commission, 2011 National Patient Safety Goals. 2012;
806. Levenson JW, McCarthy EP, Lynn J, et al. The last six months of life for patients with congestive heart failure. J
Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48:S101-S109.
807. Krumholz HM, Baker DW, Ashton CM, et al. Evaluating quality of care for patients with heart failure.
Circulation. 2000;101:E122-E140.
808. Wang TJ, Larson MG, Levy D, et al. Temporal relations of atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure and their
joint influence on mortality: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2003;107:2920-5.
809. Maisel WH, Stevenson LW. Atrial fibrillation in heart failure: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and rationale for
therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2003;91:2D-8D.
810. Dickstein K, Cohen-Solal A, Filippatos G, et al. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and
chronic heart failure 2008: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure
2008 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the
ESC (HFA) and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). Eur Heart J.
2008;29:2388-442.
811. Tsang TS, Gersh BJ, Appleton CP, et al. Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction as a predictor of the first diagnosed
nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in 840 elderly men and women. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1636-44.
812. Roy D, Talajic M, Nattel S, et al. Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure. N Engl
J Med. 2008;358:2667-77.
813. Hsu LF, Jais P, Sanders P, et al. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med.
2004;351:2373-83.
814. Khan MN, Jais P, Cummings J, et al. Pulmonary-vein isolation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure.
N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1778-85.
815. Fuster V, Ryden LE, Cannom DS, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with
atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on
Page 158
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
816.
817.
818.
819.
820.
821.
822.
823.
824.
825.
826.
827.
828.
829.
830.
831.
832.
833.
834.
835.
836.
837.
Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing
Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation): developed in
collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation.
2006;114:e257-e354.
Wann LS, Curtis AB, Ellenbogen KA, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update on the management of
patients with atrial fibrillation (update on dabigatran): a report of the American College of Cardiology
Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2011;123:1144-50.
Wann LS, Curtis AB, January CT, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update on the management of patients
with atrial fibrillation (updating the 2006 guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology
Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2011;123:104–23.
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.
Tang YD, Katz SD. Anemia in chronic heart failure: prevalence, etiology, clinical correlates, and treatment
options. Circulation. 2006;113:2454-61.
Go AS, Yang J, Ackerson LM, et al. Hemoglobin level, chronic kidney disease, and the risks of death and
hospitalization in adults with chronic heart failure: the Anemia in Chronic Heart Failure: Outcomes and Resource
Utilization (ANCHOR) Study. Circulation. 2006;113:2713-23.
Ezekowitz JA, McAlister FA, Armstrong PW. Anemia is common in heart failure and is associated with poor
outcomes: insights from a cohort of 12 065 patients with new-onset heart failure. Circulation. 2003;107:223-5.
Sharma R, Francis DP, Pitt B, et al. Haemoglobin predicts survival in patients with chronic heart failure: a
substudy of the ELITE II trial. Eur Heart J. 2004;25:1021-8.
von Haehling S, van Veldhuisen DJ, Roughton M, et al. Anaemia among patients with heart failure and preserved
or reduced ejection fraction: results from the SENIORS study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2011;13:656-63.
Kalra PR, Bolger AP, Francis DP, et al. Effect of anemia on exercise tolerance in chronic heart failure in men. Am
J Cardiol. 2003;91:888-91.
O'Meara E, Clayton T, McEntegart MB, et al. Clinical correlates and consequences of anemia in a broad spectrum
of patients with heart failure: results of the Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality
and Morbidity (CHARM) Program. Circulation. 2006;113:986-94.
Mozaffarian D, Nye R, Levy WC. Anemia predicts mortality in severe heart failure: the prospective randomized
amlodipine survival evaluation (PRAISE). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:1933-9.
Westenbrink BD, Voors AA, de Boer RA, et al. Bone marrow dysfunction in chronic heart failure patients. Eur J
Heart Fail. 2010;12:676-84.
Silverberg DS, Wexler D, Blum M, et al. The use of subcutaneous erythropoietin and intravenous iron for the
treatment of the anemia of severe, resistant congestive heart failure improves cardiac and renal function and
functional cardiac class, and markedly reduces hospitalizations. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:1737-44.
Silverberg DS, Wexler D, Sheps D, et al. The effect of correction of mild anemia in severe, resistant congestive
heart failure using subcutaneous erythropoietin and intravenous iron: a randomized controlled study. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 2001;37:1775-80.
Mancini DM, Katz SD, Lang CC, et al. Effect of erythropoietin on exercise capacity in patients with moderate to
severe chronic heart failure. Circulation. 2003;107:294-9.
Palazzuoli A, Silverberg D, Iovine F, et al. Erythropoietin improves anemia exercise tolerance and renal function
and reduces B-type natriuretic peptide and hospitalization in patients with heart failure and anemia. Am Heart J.
2006;152:1096-15.
Parissis JT, Kourea K, Panou F, et al. Effects of darbepoetin alpha on right and left ventricular systolic and
diastolic function in anemic patients with chronic heart failure secondary to ischemic or idiopathic dilated
cardiomyopathy. Am Heart J. 2008;155:751-7.
van Veldhuisen DJ, Dickstein K, Cohen-Solal A, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to
evaluate the effect of two dosing regimens of darbepoetin alfa in patients with heart failure and anaemia. Eur Heart
J. 2007;28:2208-16.
Ghali JK, Anand IS, Abraham WT, et al. Randomized double-blind trial of darbepoetin alfa in patients with
symptomatic heart failure and anemia. Circulation. 2008;117:526-35.
McMurray JJ, Anand IS, Diaz R, et al. Design of the Reduction of Events with Darbepoetin alfa in Heart Failure
(RED-HF): a Phase III, anaemia correction, morbidity-mortality trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2009;11:795-801.
Singh AK, Szczech L, Tang KL, et al. Correction of anemia with epoetin alfa in chronic kidney disease. N Engl J
Med. 2006;355:2085-98.
Drueke TB, Locatelli F, Clyne N, et al. Normalization of hemoglobin level in patients with chronic kidney disease
and anemia. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2071-84.
Page 159
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
838. Desai A, Lewis E, Solomon S, et al. Impact of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on morbidity and mortality in
patients with heart failure: an updated, post-TREAT meta-analysis. Eur J Heart Fail. 2010;12:936-42.
839. Szczech LA, Barnhart HX, Sapp S, et al. A secondary analysis of the CHOIR trial shows that comorbid conditions
differentially affect outcomes during anemia treatment. Kidney Int. 2010;77:239-46.
840. Anker SD, Comin CJ, Filippatos G, et al. Ferric carboxymaltose in patients with heart failure and iron deficiency.
N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2436-48.
841. Holzapfel N, Lowe B, Wild B, et al. Self-care and depression in patients with chronic heart failure. Heart Lung.
2009;38:392-7.
842. Jiang W, Krishnan R, Kuchibhatla M, et al. Characteristics of depression remission and its relation with
cardiovascular outcome among patients with chronic heart failure (from the SADHART-CHF Study). Am J
Cardiol. 2011;107:545-51.
843. Bekelman DB, Havranek EP, Becker DM, et al. Symptoms, depression, and quality of life in patients with heart
failure. J Card Fail. 2007;13:643-8.
844. Freedland KE, Rich MW, Skala JA, et al. Prevalence of depression in hospitalized patients with congestive heart
failure. Psychosom Med. 2003;65:119-28.
845. Moser DK, Dracup K, Evangelista LS, et al. Comparison of prevalence of symptoms of depression, anxiety, and
hostility in elderly patients with heart failure, myocardial infarction, and a coronary artery bypass graft. Heart
Lung. 2010;39:378-85.
846. York KM, Hassan M, Sheps DS. Psychobiology of depression/distress in congestive heart failure. Heart Fail Rev.
2009;14:35-50.
847. Unpublished data provided by the Office of Information Products and Data Analytics-CMS. CMS Administrative
Claims Data, Jan 2011 - Dec 2011, from the Chronic Condition Warehouse. 2012.
848. Caracciolo EA, Davis KB, Sopko G, et al. Comparison of surgical and medical group survival in patients with left
main coronary artery disease. Long-term CASS experience. Circulation. 1995;91:2325-34.
849. Eighteen-year follow-up in the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for stable
angina. The VA Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Cooperative Study Group. Circulation. 1992;86:121-30.
850. Eleven-year survival in the Veterans Administration randomized trial of coronary bypass surgery for stable angina.
The Veterans Administration Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med.
1984;311:1333-9.
851. Cleland JG, Calvert M, Freemantle N, et al. The Heart Failure Revascularisation Trial (HEART). Eur J Heart Fail.
2011;13:227-33.
852. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients.
N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187-98.
853. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who
cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1597-607.
854. Feldman T, Foster E, Glower DD, et al. Percutaneous repair or surgery for mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med.
2011;364:1395-406.
855. Chan KM, Punjabi PP, Flather M, et al. Coronary artery bypass surgery with or without mitral valve annuloplasty
in moderate functional ischemic mitral regurgitation: final results of the Randomized Ischemic Mitral Evaluation
(RIME) trial. Circulation. 2012;126:2502-10.
856. Fattouch K, Guccione F, Sampognaro R, et al. POINT: Efficacy of adding mitral valve restrictive annuloplasty to
coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with moderate ischemic mitral valve regurgitation: a randomized trial. J
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;138:278-85.
857. Franzen O, van der Heyden J, Baldus S, et al. MitraClip(R) therapy in patients with end-stage systolic heart
failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2011;13:569-76.
858. Jones RH, Velazquez EJ, Michler RE, et al. Coronary bypass surgery with or without surgical ventricular
reconstruction. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1705-17.
859. Cleveland JC, Jr., Naftel DC, Reece TB, et al. Survival after biventricular assist device implantation: an analysis of
the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support database. J Heart Lung Transplant.
2011;30:862-9.
860. Klotz S, Meyns B, Simon A, et al. Partial mechanical long-term support with the CircuLite Synergy pump as
bridge-to-transplant in congestive heart failure. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;58 Suppl 2:S173-S178.
861. Coronary artery surgery study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Survival data.
Circulation. 1983;68:939-50.
862. Takaro T, Peduzzi P, Detre KM, et al. Survival in subgroups of patients with left main coronary artery disease.
Veterans Administration Cooperative Study of Surgery for Coronary Arterial Occlusive Disease. Circulation.
1982;66:14-22.
Page 160
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
863. Hu S, Liu S, Zheng Z, et al. Isolated coronary artery bypass graft combined with bone marrow mononuclear cells
delivered through a graft vessel for patients with previous myocardial infarction and chronic heart failure: a singlecenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:2409-15.
864. Perin EC, Silva GV, Henry TD, et al. A randomized study of transendocardial injection of autologous bone
marrow mononuclear cells and cell function analysis in ischemic heart failure (FOCUS-HF). Am Heart J.
2011;161:1078-87.
865. Strauer BE, Yousef M, Schannwell CM. The acute and long-term effects of intracoronary Stem cell
Transplantation in 191 patients with chronic heARt failure: the STAR-heart study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2010;12:7219.
866. Zipes DP, Camm AJ, Borggrefe M, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for management of patients with
ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: a report of the American College of
Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for
Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for Management of Patients With Ventricular
Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death). Circulation. 2006;114:1088-132.
867. Gelsomino S, La Meir M, Luca F, et al. Treatment of lone atrial fibrillation: a look at the past, a view of the
present and a glance at the future. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;41:1284-94.
868. Maybaum S, Kamalakannan G, Murthy S. Cardiac recovery during mechanical assist device support. Semin
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;20:234-46.
869. Burkhoff D, Klotz S, Mancini DM. LVAD-induced reverse remodeling: basic and clinical implications for
myocardial recovery. J Card Fail. 2006;12:227-39.
870. Coleman EA, Boult C. Improving the quality of transitional care for persons with complex care needs. J Am
Geriatr Soc. 2003;51:556-7.
871. Stewart S, Pearson S, Horowitz JD. Effects of a home-based intervention among patients with congestive heart
failure discharged from acute hospital care. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:1067-72.
872. Stewart S, Marley JE, Horowitz JD. Effects of a multidisciplinary, home-based intervention on unplanned
readmissions and survival among patients with chronic congestive heart failure: a randomised controlled study.
Lancet. 1999;354:1077-83.
873. Sochalski J, Jaarsma T, Krumholz HM, et al. What works in chronic care management: the case of heart failure.
Health Aff (Millwood ). 2009;28:179-89.
874. Laramee AS, Levinsky SK, Sargent J, et al. Case management in a heterogeneous congestive heart failure
population: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:809-17.
875. Clark RA, Inglis SC, McAlister FA, et al. Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients
with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2007;334:942.
876. Chaudhry SI, Phillips CO, Stewart SS, et al. Telemonitoring for patients with chronic heart failure: a systematic
review. J Card Fail. 2007;13:56-62.
877. Riegel B, Carlson B, Kopp Z, et al. Effect of a standardized nurse case-management telephone intervention on
resource use in patients with chronic heart failure. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:705-12.
878. Riegel B, Carlson B, Glaser D, et al. Randomized controlled trial of telephone case management in Hispanics of
Mexican origin with heart failure. J Card Fail. 2006;12:211-9.
879. Krumholz HM, Currie PM, Riegel B, et al. A taxonomy for disease management: a scientific statement from the
American Heart Association Disease Management Taxonomy Writing Group. Circulation. 2006;114:1432-45.
880. Faxon DP, Schwamm LH, Pasternak RC, et al. Improving quality of care through disease management: principles
and recommendations from the American Heart Association's Expert Panel on Disease Management. Circulation.
2004;109:2651-4.
881. Rich MW, Beckham V, Wittenberg C, et al. A multidisciplinary intervention to prevent the readmission of elderly
patients with congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1190-5.
882. McAlister FA, Lawson FM, Teo KK, et al. A systematic review of randomized trials of disease management
programs in heart failure. Am J Med. 2001;110:378-84.
883. Riegel B, LePetri B. Heart failure disease management models. In: Moser D, Riegel B, editors. Improving
Outcomes in Heart Failure: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen Publishers, Inc; 2001:26781.
884. Coleman EA, Mahoney E, Parry C. Assessing the quality of preparation for posthospital care from the patient's
perspective: the care transitions measure. Med Care. 2005;43:246-55.
885. Lorenz KA, Lynn J, Dy SM, et al. Evidence for improving palliative care at the end of life: a systematic review.
Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:147-59.
886. Hauptman PJ, Havranek EP. Integrating palliative care into heart failure care. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:374-8.
Page 161
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
887. Adler ED, Goldfinger JZ, Kalman J, et al. Palliative care in the treatment of advanced heart failure. Circulation.
2009;120:2597-606.
888. Qaseem A, Snow V, Shekelle P, et al. Evidence-based interventions to improve the palliative care of pain,
dyspnea, and depression at the end of life: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians.
Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:141-6.
889. Bernheim SM, Grady JN, Lin Z, et al. National patterns of risk-standardized mortality and readmission for acute
myocardial infarction and heart failure. Update on publicly reported outcomes measures based on the 2010 release.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3:459-67.
890. Coleman EA. Falling through the cracks: challenges and opportunities for improving transitional care for persons
with continuous complex care needs. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51:549-55.
891. Bernheim SM, Spertus JA, Reid KJ, et al. Socioeconomic disparities in outcomes after acute myocardial
infarction. Am Heart J. 2007;153:313-9.
892. Rahimi AR, Spertus JA, Reid KJ, et al. Financial barriers to health care and outcomes after acute myocardial
infarction. JAMA. 2007;297:1063-72.
893. Smolderen KG, Spertus JA, Reid KJ, et al. The association of cognitive and somatic depressive symptoms with
depression recognition and outcomes after myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2:328-37.
894. Subramanian D, Subramanian V, Deswal A, et al. New predictive models of heart failure mortality using timeseries measurements and ensemble models. Circ Heart Fail. 2011;4:456-62.
895. Foraker RE, Rose KM, Suchindran CM, et al. Socioeconomic status, Medicaid coverage, clinical comorbidity, and
rehospitalization or death after an incident heart failure hospitalization: Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities
cohort (1987 to 2004). Circ Heart Fail. 2011;4:308-16.
896. Allen LA, Hernandez AF, Peterson ED, et al. Discharge to a skilled nursing facility and subsequent clinical
outcomes among older patients hospitalized for heart failure. Circ Heart Fail. 2011;4:293-300.
897. Dunlay SM, Eveleth JM, Shah ND, et al. Medication adherence among community-dwelling patients with heart
failure. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86:273-81.
898. National Quality Forum (NQF). Preferred Practices and Performance Measures for Measuring and Reporting Care
Coordination: A Consensus Report. 2010.
899. Federal Register, Rules and Regulations. 2011;76:
900. Grady KL, Dracup K, Kennedy G, et al. Team management of patients with heart failure: A statement for
healthcare professionals from The Cardiovascular Nursing Council of the American Heart Association.
Circulation. 2000;102:2443-56.
901. Desai MM, Stauffer BD, Feringa HH, et al. Statistical models and patient predictors of readmission for acute
myocardial infarction: a systematic review. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2:500-7.
902. Verouden NJ, Haeck JD, Kuijt WJ, et al. Prediction of 1-year mortality with different measures of ST-segment
recovery in all-comers after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. Circ
Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3:522-9.
903. Allen LA, Yager JE, Funk MJ, et al. Discordance between patient-predicted and model-predicted life expectancy
among ambulatory patients with heart failure. JAMA. 2008;299:2533-42.
904. Goodlin SJ. Palliative care in congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:386-96.
905. Nicholas LH, Langa KM, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Regional variation in the association between advance directives and
end-of-life Medicare expenditures. JAMA. 2011;306:1447-53.
906. Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung
cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:733-42.
907. Swetz KM, Freeman MR, AbouEzzeddine OF, et al. Palliative medicine consultation for preparedness planning in
patients receiving left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86:493-500.
908. Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, Weinberger SE, et al. Diagnosis and management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease: a clinical practice guideline update from the American College of Physicians, American College of Chest
Physicians, American Thoracic Society, and European Respiratory Society. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:179-91.
909. Harper SA, Bradley JS, Englund JA, et al. Seasonal influenza in adults and children--diagnosis, treatment,
chemoprophylaxis, and institutional outbreak management: clinical practice guidelines of the Infectious Diseases
Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:1003-32.
910. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic
Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis.
2007;44 Suppl 2:S27-S72.
911. American Heart Association. AHA Family & Friends CPR.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/CPRAndECC/CommunityTraining/CommunityProducts/Family-FriendsregCPR_UCM_303576_Article.jsp. 2013; Accessed 5/28/13.
Page 162
Yancy, CW et al.
2013 ACCF/AHA Heart Failure Guideline
912. Mosca L, Benjamin EJ, Berra K, et al. Effectiveness-based guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease
in women--2011 update: a guideline from the american heart association. Circulation. 2011;123:1243-62.
913. Levine GN, Steinke EE, Bakaeen FG, et al. Sexual activity and cardiovascular disease: a scientific statement from
the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;125:1058-72.
914. Screening for depression in adults: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern
Med. 2009;151:784-92.
915. 2012 National Patient Safety Goals. 2012;
916. National Quality Forum (NQF). A Comprehensive Framework and Preferred Practices for Measuring and
Reporting Cultural Competency: A Consensus Report. NQF, 2009.
917. Jencks SF, Huff ED, Cuerdon T. Change in the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, 1998-1999 to
2000-2001. JAMA. 2003;289:305-12.
918. U.S.Department of Health and Human Services. U.S.Department of Health and Human Services: Hospital
Compare. 2012;
919. Spertus JA, Eagle KA, Krumholz HM, et al. American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association
methodology for the selection and creation of performance measures for quantifying the quality of cardiovascular
care. Circulation. 2005;111:1703-12.
920. Spertus JA, Bonow RO, Chan P, et al. ACCF/AHA new insights into the methodology of performance
measurement: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force
on performance measures. Circulation. 2010;122:2091-106.
921. Bonow RO, Ganiats TG, Beam CT, et al. ACCF/AHA/AMA-PCPI 2011 performance measures for adults with
heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force
on Performance Measures and the American Medical Association-Physician Consortium for Performance
Improvement. Circulation. 2012;125:2382–401.
922. Bonow RO, Masoudi FA, Rumsfeld JS, et al. ACC/AHA classification of care metrics: performance measures and
quality metrics: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on
Performance Measures. Circulation. 2008;118:2662-6.
923. Krumholz HM, Normand SL, Spertus JA, et al. Measuring performance for treating heart attacks and heart failure:
the case for outcomes measurement. Health Aff (Millwood ). 2007;26:75-85.
924. Krumholz HM, Brindis RG, Brush JE, et al. Standards for statistical models used for public reporting of health
outcomes: an American Heart Association Scientific Statement from the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research
Interdisciplinary Writing Group: cosponsored by the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention and the Stroke
Council. Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation. 2006;113:456-62.
Page 163
2013 Heart Failure Guideline Data Supplements
(Section numbers correspond to the full-text guideline.)
Table of Contents
Data Supplement 1. HFpEF (Section 2.2)............................................................................................................................... 3 Data Supplement 2. NYHA and AHA/ACC Class (Section 3) .............................................................................................. 4 Data Supplement 3. Prognosis – Mortality (Section 4.1)........................................................................................................ 5 Data Supplement 4. Health-Related Quality of Life and Functional Capacity (Section 4.4) ................................................. 7 Data Supplement 5. Stress Testing (Initial and Serial Evaluation) of the HF Patient (Section 6.1.1) .................................. 11 Data Supplement 6. Clinical Evaluation – History (Orthopnea) (Section 6.1.1) .................................................................. 13 Data Supplement 7. Clinical Evaluation – Examination (Section 6.1.1) .............................................................................. 13 Data Supplement 8. Clinical Evaluation – Risk Scoring (Section 6.1.2) .............................................................................. 16 Data Supplement 9. Imaging Echocardiography (Section 6.4) ............................................................................................. 18 Data Supplement 10. Biopsy (Section 6.5.3) ........................................................................................................................ 21 Data Supplement 11. Stage A: Prevention of HF (Section 7.1) ............................................................................................ 22 Data Supplement 12. Stage B: Preventing the Syndrome of Clinical HF With Low EF (Section 7.2) ................................ 28 Data Supplement 13. Stage C: Factors Associated With Outcomes, All Patients (Section 7.3)........................................... 30 Data Supplement 14. Nonadherence (Section 7.3.1.1) ......................................................................................................... 38 Data Supplement 15. Treatment of Sleep Disorders (Section 7.3.1.4) ................................................................................. 47 Data Supplement 16. Cardiac Rehabilitation-Exercise (Section 7.3.1.6) ............................................................................. 49 Data Supplement 17. Diuretics Versus Ultrafiltration in Acute Decompensated HF (Section 7.3.2.1) ............................... 60 Data Supplement 18. ACE Inhibitors (Section 7.3.2.2) ........................................................................................................ 76 Data Supplement 19. ARBs (Section 7.3.2.3)....................................................................................................................... 82 Data Supplement 20. Beta Blockers (Section 7.3.2.4) .......................................................................................................... 85 Data Supplement 21. Anticoagulation (Section 7.3.2.8.1).................................................................................................... 89 Data Supplement 22. Statin Therapy (Section 7.3.2.8.2) ...................................................................................................... 94 Data Supplement 23. Omega 3 Fatty Acids (Section 7.3.2.8.3) ......................................................................................... 101 Data Supplement 24. Antiarrhythmic Agents to Avoid in HF (7.3.2.9.2) .......................................................................... 104 Data Supplement 25. Calcium Channel Blockers to Avoid in HF (Section 7.3.2.9.3) ....................................................... 105 Data Supplement 26. NSAIDs Use in HF (Section 7.3.2.9.4) ............................................................................................ 106 Data Supplement 27. Thiazolidinediones in HF (Section 7.3.2.9.5)................................................................................... 107 Data Supplement 28. Device-Based Management (Section 7.3.4) ..................................................................................... 108 Data Supplement 29. CRT (Section 7.3.4.2)....................................................................................................................... 109 Data Supplement 30. Therapies, Important Considerations (Section 7.4.2) ....................................................................... 114 Data Supplement 31. Sildenafil (Section Section 7.4.2) ..................................................................................................... 120 1 © American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Data Supplement 32. Inotropes (Section 7.4.4) .................................................................................................................. 123 Data Supplement 33. Inotropic Agents in HF (Section 7.4.4) ............................................................................................ 135 Data Supplement 34. Mechanical Circulatory Support (Section 7.4.5) .............................................................................. 136 Data Supplement 35. LVADs (Section 7.4.5) ..................................................................................................................... 138 Data Supplement 36. Transplantation (Section 7.4.6) ........................................................................................................ 149 Data Supplement 37. Comorbidities in the Hospitalized Patient (Section 8.1) .................................................................. 159 Data Supplement 38. Worsening Renal Function, Mortality and Readmission in Acute HF (Section 8.5) ....................... 161 Data Supplement 39. Nesiritide (Section 8.7)..................................................................................................................... 165 Data Supplement 40. Hospitalized Patients – Oral Medications (Section 8.8) ................................................................... 177 Data Supplement 41. Atrial Fibrillation (Section 9.1) ........................................................................................................ 186 Data Supplement 42. HF Disease Management (Section 11.2) .......................................................................................... 187 Data Supplement 43. Telemonitoring (Section 11.2) ......................................................................................................... 189 Data Supplement 44. Quality Metrics and Performance Measures (Section 12) ................................................................ 191 References ........................................................................................................................................................................... 192 © American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 2 Data Supplement 1. HFpEF (Section 2.2)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Aim of Study
Study Type
Study
Size
Patient Population
Endpoints
Statistical Analysis
(Results)
Study Limitations
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
Medicare beneficiary;
hospitalized with
principal discharge
diagnosis of HF; acute
care hospitalization;
hospitalized between
4/1998-3/1999
Consecutive pts admitted
to Mayo Clinic hospitals;
Discharge code for HF;
1987-2001
No documentation of
LVEF
Preserved LVSF
Multivariable logistic
regression to assess
factors associated with
preserved LVSF
Limited to Medicare
population; limited to
hospitalized pts; missing
LVEF in a portion of the
population
Factors associated with
preserved LVSF, which
included gender, advanced
age, HTN, AF; and absence
of coronary disease
No documentation of
LVEF
Proportion of pts with
preserved LVSF;
survival
Linear regression and
survival analysis
Limited to Olmsted County,
MN; limited to hospitalized
pts; missing LVEF in a
portion of the population
Overall, more than half the
population had preserved
LVSF; this proportion
increased overtime; survival
in pts with HFpEF was only
slightly better than for those
with HFrEF (HR:0.96)
31% had HFpEF; HFpEF
more often female, older, with
AF, and HTN; Unadjusted
mortality similar (22% for
HFpEF vs. 26% for HFrEF);
adjusted mortality also similar
(aHR:1.13); readmission rates
also similar between groups.
Factors associated with
HFpEF included female
gender; elevated SBP; AF;
and absence of CAD. Longterm prognosis equally poor
(overall cohort median
survival of 2.1 y; 5-y mortality
74%).
Masoudi JACC
2003;41:217223
12535812 (1)
To assess factors
associated with
preserved LVSF in
pts with HF
Cross
sectional
cohort study
19,710
Owan NEJM
2006;355:251259
16855265 (2)
Define temporal
trends in prevalence
of HF with preserved
LVEF over 15 y
period
Retrospective
cohort study
4,596
Bhatia NEJM
2006;355:260269
16855266 (3)
Evaluate the
epidemiological
features and
outcomes of pts with
HFpEF vs. HFrEF
Retrospective
cohort study
2,802
Pts admitted to 103
Ontario hospitals;
4/1999-3/2001;
discharge diagnosis of
HF
No documentation of
LVEF
Death within 1 y;
readmission for HF
Multivariable survival
analysis
Limited to Ontario; limited
to hospitalized pts; missing
LVEF in a portion of the
population
Lee Circulation
2009;119:30703077
19506115 (4)
Assess the
contribution of risk
factors and disease
pathogenesis to
HFpEF
Retrospective
cohort study
534
Framingham
participants; incident HF
N/A
Factors associated
with HFpEF; Mortality
Multivariable logistic
regression (risk
factors); multivariable
survival analysis
(mortality)
Limited to Framingham
cohort; relatively small
sample size
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Findings/ Comments
3 Kane JAMA
2011;306:856863
21862747 (5)
Measure changes in
diastolic function and
assess the
relationship between
diastolic
abnormalities and HF
risk
Retrospective
cohort study
2042
Random sample from
Olmsted County MN in
1997; age ≥45;
participating in baseline
and follow up
assessments
N/A
Diastolic function
grade; incident HF
Multivariable survival
analysis
Limited to Olmsted County,
MN; limited to those
following up for 2nd
examination
In 4 y between baseline and
follow-up, prevalence of
diastolic dysfunction
increased from 23.8% to
39.2%. Diastolic dysfunction
associated with incident HF
(HR:1.81)
AF indicates atrial fibrillation; CAD, coronary artery disease; HF, heart failure; HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; HTN, hypertension; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVSF, left ventricular
systolic function; MN, Minnesota; N/A, not applicable; pts, patients, and SBP, systolic blood pressure.
Data Supplement 2. NYHA and AHA/ACC Class (Section 3)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Aim of Study
Study Type
Study
Size
Patient Population
Endpoints
Inclusion
Criteria
N/A
Exclusion
Criteria
Must be
ambulatory
Primary
Endpoint
Death
Secondary
Endpoint
N/A
Statistical Analysis
(Results)
Study Limitations
Findings/
Comments
Kaplan-Meier
Mortality increased with
increased NYHA class and
with decreased EF
N/A
Conducted primarily
outside U.S.
MLHF
questionnaire and
death
Survival analysis
Readmission rate increased
with higher NYHA class
No clinician assessment
to compare to pt
assessment
Conducted primarily
outside U.S.
5-y survival rates
BNP
Retrospective
classification of stage
N/A
Reproducibility
testing
N/A
Survival analysis
HF stages associated with
progressively worsening 5-y
survival rates
NYHA classification
N/A
Reproducibility only
56%
Madsen BK, 1994
8013501 (6)
Predict CHF mortality
Longitudinal
registry
190
Holland R, 2010
20142027 (7)
Predict CHF mortality
using self-assessed
NYHA class
Longitudinal
registry
293
Adults with CHF
after CHF
admission
N/A
Readmission
over 6 mo
Anmar KA, 2007
17353436 (8)
Measure association of
HF stages with mortality
Crosssectional
cohort
2,029
Residents of
Olmsted Co, MN
N/A
Goldman L, 1981
7296795 (9)
Reproducibility for
assessing CV functional
class
Longitudinal
registry
75
All those referred
for treadmill
testing
N/A
BNP indicates B-type natriuretic peptide; CHF, congestive heart failure; CV, cardiovascular; EF, ejection fraction; HF, heart failure; MLHF, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure; N/A, not applicable; NYHA, New York Heart Association; and pt, patient.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 4 Data Supplement 3. Prognosis - Mortality (Section 4.1)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Aim of
Study
Study Type
Study Size
Patient Population
Inclusion Criteria
Endpoints
Primary
Endpoint
Exclusion Criteria
Statistical
Analysis
(Results)
P Values
& 95% CI:
Study Limitations
Findings/
Comments
Secondary
Endpoint
The Seattle HF
Model: Prediction
of Survival in HF
Levy, Wayne Circ
2006
16534009 (10)
Develop and
validate a risk
model for
1,2,and 3-y
mortality
Cohort
Derivation: 1,125
Validation: 9,942
Derivation Cohort: EF
<30%, NYHA class III-IV
Validation Cohort: EF
<40%, NYHA class II-IV
Both derivation and
validation cohorts primarily
out-pts (both clinical trial
populations)
N/A
Prediction of
1,2,3-y
mortality
N/A
Predicted vs.
actual survival for
1, 2, and 3 y:
88.2% vs 87.8%,
79.2% vs 77.6%,
71.8% vs. 68.0%
ROC:
0.729; 95%
CI: 0.7140.744
Population not
representative of HF
population in general:
clinical trial
populations, restricted
to HF with LVSD.
Estimation of risk
score is complex and
requires
computer/calculator.
24 variables
included in risk
score
Predicting
Mortality Among
Pts Hospitalized
with HF
(EFFECT) Lee,
Douglas JAMA
2003
14625335 (11)
Develop and
validate a risk
model for 30-d
and 1-y
mortality
Cohort
Derivation: 2,624
Validation: 1,407
No EF requirement;
Community-based pts
hospitalized with HF in
Canada (met modified
Framingham HF criteria)
Pts who developed HF after
admit, transferred from
different facility, over 105 y,
nonresidents
30-d and 1-y
mortality
N/A
ROC: 0.79
for 30-d
mortality;
ROC; 0.76
for 1-y
mortality
N/A
Variables in
Model: age,
SBP, resp rate,
Na <136, Hbg
<10, BUN, CVD,
COPD,
dementia,
cirrhosis, cancer
Predictors of
Mortality After
Discharge in pts
Hospitalized w/
HF (OPTIMIZEHF) O'Connor,
Christopher
AHJ 2008
18926148 (12)
Develop
models
predictive of
60 and 90 d
mortality
Cohort
study/registry
4,402
No EF criteria (49% with
LVSD), pts hospitalized
with HF at institutions
participating in OPIMIZEHF performanceimprovement program
N/A
Death at 6090 d
Hospitalization;
death or
rehospitalization
Derivation Cohort:
in-hospital
mortality: 8.9%,
30-d mortality:
10.7%; 1-y
mortality: 32.9%
Validation cohort:
in-hospital
mortality: 8.2%,
30-d mortality:
10.4%; 1-y
mortality:30.5%
60-90 d mortality:
8.6%; death or
rehospitalization:
36.2%
c index:
0.735;
biascorrected c
index:
0.723
Validity - assessed by
bootstraping
Developed a
nomogram.
Variables
included in
score: Age,
weight, SBP,
sodium, Cr, liver
disease,
depression,
RAD
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 5 Predictors of
Mortality and
Morbidity in Pts
with Chronic HF
Pocock, Stuart
EHJ 2006
16219658 (13)
Develop
prognostic
models for 2-y
mortality
Cohorts: used
pts in the
CHARM
program
7,599
No EF criteria; out-pts;
symptomatic HF
K >5.5; Cr >265 umol/L; MI or
stroke in prior 4 wk;
noncardiac disease limiting
survival
Mortality
CV death or
hospitalization
N/A
ROC:0.75,
bias
corrected:
0.74; ROC:
0.73 in low
EF and in
preserved
EF cohorts
Population studied
not representative of
HF in general (pts
enrolled in CHARM);
validity - assessed by
bootstrapping;
laboratory data not
available.
23 variables
included in
model
Risk Stratification
for Inhospital
Mortality in
Acutely
Decompensated
HF: Classification
and Regression
Tree Analysis
Fonarow, Gregg
JAMA 2005
15687312 (14)
A validated risk
score of inhospital mortality
in pts with HF
from the AHA
GWTG Program
Peterson, Pamela
CircCQO 2010
20123668 (15)
Predictors of
inhospital
mortality in pts
hospitalized for
HF. Insights from
OPTIMIZE-HF
Abraham, William
JACC 2008
18652942 (16)
Estimate
mortality risk in
pts
hospitalized
with HF
Cohort/registry
Derivation:33,046
Validation: 32,229
Pts admitted with HF to
hospital participating in the
ADHERE registry; no EF
criteria;
None
In-hospital
mortality
N/A
Classification and
regression tree
analysis;
In-hospital
mortality: 4.1%;
95% CI:2.1%21.9%
N/A
N/A
Classifies pts
into 5 risk
categories.
Discriminating
nodes: BUN;
SBP; Cr
Develop a risk
score for
inhospital
mortality
Cohort/registry
Derivation:27,850;
Validation:11,933
Pts admitted with HF to
hospitals participating in
the GWTG-HF program
Transfers, missing LVEF data
Inhospital
mortality
Inhospital mortality
2.86%; C index
0.75
N/A
Validation cohort from
same population.
GWTG is a voluntary
registry
Variables
included in risk
score: SBP,
BUN, Sodium,
age, heart rate,
race, COPD
Develop a
clinical
predictive
model of inhospital
mortality
Cohort/registry
40,201
Pts admitted to hospital
participating in OPTIMIZEHF (registry/performance
improvement program); no
EF criteria (LVSD in 49%
of those with measured
EF); included those
admitted with different
diagnosis than the
discharge diagnosis of HF
N/A
Inhospital
mortality
Inhospital
mortality: 3.8%; C
index 0.77
N/A
Validity - assessed by
bootstrapping
Risk prediction
nomogram: age,
HR, SBP,
sodium, Cr,
primary cause
for admit, LVSD
Predictors of fatal
and non-fatal
outcomes in the
CORONA:
Develop
prognostic
models in
elderly pts and
Cohort
3,342
Pts enrolled in the
CORONA study. Pts ≥60
y; NYHA class II-IV HF;
investigator reported
Recent CV event or
procedure/operation, acute or
chronic liver disease or ALT
>2x ULN; BUN >2.5 mg/dL;
Composite:
CV mortality,
nonfatal MI or
nonfatal
Total mortality: C
index of 0.719;
death due to HF:
C index of 0.80;
N/A
Used a clinical trial
population; limited to
ischemic etiology
Elderly pts on
contemporary
HF therapy; NTproBNP added
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 6 All-cause
mortality; CV
mortality; fatal or
nonfatal MI;
incremental value
of apolipoprotein
A-1, highsensitivity Creactive peptide
and NT proBNP
Wedel, Hans
EJHF 2009
19168876 (17)
Comparison of
Four Clinical
Prediction Rules
for Estimating
Risk in HF
Auble, Thomas E
Annals of
Emergency
Medicine 2007
17449141 (18)
ischemic etiology; EF
≤40% (or 35% if NYHA II)
evaluate the
relative
prognostic
significance of
new
biomarkers
chronic muscle disease or
unexplained CK >2.5x ULNl;
TSH >2x ULN; any condition
substantially reducing life
expectancy
stroke (time
to event)
death from any
cause or
hospitalization
for HF
predictive
information
all-cause mortality
or HF
hospitalization: C
index of 0.701 (all
models included
NT-proBNP)
N/A
N/A
Variability
N/A
Inhospital
N/A
Inhospital
Cohort
33,533
Pts with primary ICD-9
Examine the
among rules in
mortality: 4.5%;
mortality; indischarge diagnosis of HF
performance
the number of
Inhospital mortality
hospital
admitted at one of 2
of 4 clinical
pts assigned to
or serious medical
mortality or
Pennsylvania hospitals
prediction
risk groups and
complication:
serious
from the ED
rules
the observed
11.2%; 30-d
complication;
(ADHERE
mortality within
mortality: 7.9%
30-d mortality
decision tree,
risk group.
ADHERE rules
ADHERE
EFFECT
could not be used
regression
identified pts at
in 4.1% because
model,
the lowest risk,
BUN or SCr were
EFFECT,
ADHERE tree
N/A.
Brigham and
identified largest
Women's
proportion of pts
Hospital rule)
in the lowest risk
for inpatient
group
death, 30-d
death, and
inhospital
death or
serious
complications
ADHERE indicates Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry; AHA, American Heart Association; BUN, blod urea nitrogen; CHARM, Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity; COPD, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease; CORONA, Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in HF; CV, cardiovascular; CVD, cardiovascular disease; ED, emergency department; EF, ejection fraction; EFFECT, Enhanced Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment; GWTG, Get
With the Guidelines; HF, heart failure; Hgb, hemoglobin; HR, heart rate; ICD-9, international classification of diseases; LVSD, left ventricular systolic dysfunction; MI, myocardial infarction; Na, sodium, N/A, not applicable; NT-proBNP; n-terminal pro-B-type
natriuretic peptide; NYHA, New York Heart Association; OPIMIZE-HF, Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure; pts, patients; RAD, reactive airway disease; ROC, receiver operating characteristic curve;
SBP, systolic blood pressure; SCr, serum creatinine; TSH, thyroid stimulating hormone; ULN, upper limit of normal. Data Supplement 4. Health-Related Quality of Life and Functional Capacity (Section 4.4)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Aim of Study
Study Type
Study
Size
Patient Population
Inclusion
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Endpoints
Exclusion
Primary
Statistical Analysis (Results)
Secondary
7 Study Limitations
Findings/Comments
Criteria
Criteria
Endpoint
Endpoint
Improvement in
HRQoL after
hospitalization
predicts eventfree survival in
pts with advanced
HF. Moser et al
2009
19879462 (19)
To determine the
frequency,
durability, and
prognostic
significance of
improved
HRQoL after
hospitalization for
decompensated
HF.
Secondary
analysis of
data from the
ESCAPE trial
425
Hospitalized for
NYHA class IV, at
least 1 sign of fluid
overload
EF <30%
history of prior HF
hospitalization or
chronic high
maintenance
diuretic doses
survived to
discharge from
index admission
Significant
comorbid condition
that could shorten
life (e.g. cancer),
pulmonary artery
catheter,
mechanical
circulatory or
ventilatory support,
IV milrinone within
48 h, dobutamine/
dopamine within
24 h, listed for CTX
HRQoL
measured with
the MLHFQ
Event-free
survival
At baseline HRQoL was severely impaired
but improved on average at 1 mo (74.2 ±
17.4 vs 56.7 ± 22.7) and improved most at
6 mo. HRQOL worsened in 51 (16.3%) pts
and remained the same in 49 (15.7%).
OR: 3.3; p<.009
The only characteristic that distinguished
among these groups was whether or not
the pt was too ill to perform the 6-min
walk. There was a group by time
interaction; the degree of improvement
across time differed between pts who
survived without an event and those who
died or were rehospitalized by 6 mo. Pts
with events between 1 and 6 mo did not
experience as much improvement in
HRQoL. A decrease in MLHFQ of >5
points predicted better event-free survival.
(p<.0001 group time interaction)
Potential for survivor bias.
Self-reported HRQoL.
Relatively short follow-up
period of 6 mo.
In pts hospitalized with
severe HF
decompensation, HRQoL is
seriously impaired but
improves substantially
within 1 mo for most pts
and remains improved for 6
mo. Pts for whom HRQoL
does not improve by 1 mo
after hospital admission
merit specific attention both
to improve HRQoL and to
address high risk for poor
event-free survival
QoL and
depressive
symptoms in the
elderly: a
comparison
between pts with
HF and age and
gender matched
community
controls. LesmanLeegte et al,
2009.
19181289 (20)
To examine
whether there are
differences in
QoL and
depressive
symptoms
between HF pts
and an age and
gender matched
group of
communitydwelling elderly
and determine
how chronic
comorbid
conditions qualify
the answer
Secondary
analysis of
COACH trial
data plus
enrollment of
a community
sample from
Netherlands
781
NYHA II-IV, ≥18 y,
structural heart
disease.
Enrollment in a
study requiring
additional research
visits or invasive
intervention within
last 6 mo or next 3
mo, terminal
disease, active
psychiatric
diagnosis.
QoL measured
with Medical
Outcome Study
36-item General
Health Survey
and Cantril
Ladder of Life.
Depressive
symptoms with
CES-D.
Chronic
conditions
abstracted
from chart of
pts, selfreported by
community
sample.
QoL significantly impaired in HF pts
compared to matched elderly. Largest
differences were in physical functioning
and vitality. Role limitations due to
physical functioning very low in HF pts.
QoL was lower in HF pts with COPD or
diabetes.
Depressive symptoms higher in HF pts
(39% vs 21%) all p<0.001.
Manner in which comorbid
conditions were assessed
differed between HF pts
and controls. List used was
not all inclusive.
HF has a large impact on
QoL and depressive
symptoms, especially in
women with HF.
Differences persist, even in
the absence of common
comorbidities. Results
demonstrate the need for
studies of representative
HF pts with direct
comparisons to age- and
gender-matched controls.
Community sample
randomly selected
from population
≥55 y and not
living at same
address. 45%
response rate.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 8 Ethnic
Differences in
QoL in Persons
With HF.
Riegel et al 2008
18226772 (21)
To compare
HRQoL in nonHispanic white,
black, and
Hispanic adults
with HF
Longitudinal
comparative
study with
propensity
scoring
1,212
Established
diagnosis of
chronic HF
Recent MI, USA,
cognitive
impairment, severe
psychiatric
problems,
homeless, or
discharged to an
extended care or
skilled nursing
facility
HRQoL
measured with
the MLHFQ
N/A
HRQoL improved over time (baseline to 3and 6-mo) in all groups but most
dramatically among Hispanics. Hispanics
improved more than whites (p<0.0001).
Hispanics improved more than blacks
(p=0.004).
The impact of
chronic HF on
HRQoL data
acquired in the
baseline phase of
the CARE-HF
study. Calvert,
Melanie. 2005
15701474 (22)
To assess the
QoL of pts with
HF, due to LV
dysfunction,
taking optimal
medical therapy
using baseline
QoL assessments
from the CAREHF trial, and to
evaluate the
appropriateness
of using the EQ5D in pts with HF.
RCT
813
NYHA II-IV HF
None specified
QoL Euroquol
EQ-5D and
MLHFQ
N/A
There is a relationship between the EQ-5D
score and gender, on average females
enrolled had a worse QoL than male
participants.
r=-0.08; 95% CI: -0.13 to -04; p=0.00004
Mean EQ-5D score for NYHA III pts was
higher than for NYHA IV pts (mean
difference 0.17)
p<0.0001; 95% CI: 0.08-0.25
Association between MLWHF and EQ-5D
scores (increasing MLWFH associated
with a decrease in EQ-5D)
r=-0.00795;
95% CI: (-0.00885 to -0.00706); p<0.0001
HF is shown to have an important impact
on all aspects of QoL but particularly on
pts mobility and usual activities and leads
to significant reductions in comparison
with a representative sample of the UK
population.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 9 Secondary analysis of
existing data. Hispanic
sample was primarily
Mexican so results cannot
be generalized to all
Hispanics. Samples
received different
treatments at various sites;
treatment was controlled in
the analysis. Other factors
that could explain these
differences were not
measured. Cultural bias in
the data obtained from the
MLHFQ is possible.
Pts assessed in the study
are not a random sample of
pts with severe HF.
CARE-HF is an int’l study
but used available
normative data from a
representative sample of
the UK population to
evaluate burden of disease.
A study comparing UK and
Spanish time trade-off
values for EQ-5D health
states demonstrated that
although the general
pattern of value assignation
was similar, there were
differences in values
assigned to a number of
health states
Cultural differences in the
interpretation of and
response to chronic illness
may explain why
HRQoL improves more
over time in Hispanic pts
with HF compared with
white and black
pts.
The impact of HF varies
amongst pts but the overall
burden of disease appears
to be comparable to other
chronic conditions such as
motor neurone or
Parkinson’s disease. The
EQ-5D appears to be an
acceptable valid measure
for use in pts with HF
although further evidence of
the responsiveness of this
measure in such pts is
required.
Characterization
of HRQoL in HF
pts
with preserved vs
low EF in
CHARM, Lewis et
al, 2007
17188020 (23)
To characterize
HRQoL in a large
population of HF
pts with
preserved and
low LVEF and to
determine the
factors
associated with
worse HRQoL.
Secondary
analysis of
data from the
CHARM trial
2,709
The enigma of
QoL in pts with
HF. Dobre D,
2008
17400313 (24)
To review RCTs
that assessed the
impact of
pharmacologic
treatments on
QoL
Brief
communicatio
n
N/A
“CHARMAlternative” pts:
LVEF ≤40% and
not receiving an
ACE-I; “CHARMAdded” pts: LVEF
≤40% and taking
ACE-Is. Pts in
NYHA class II
required admission
to hospital with a
CV problem in
prior 6 mo (which
increased
proportion of
NYHA class III/IV
in CHARM-Added.
“CHARMPreserved” pts had
LVEF >40% with
or without ACEI
Clinical trials
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. N/A
QoL
N/A
9 independent clinical determinants of
worse HRQoL: younger age, higher BMI,
lower SBP, female sex, worse NYHA
class, angina, PND, rest dyspnea, lack of
ACE-I. Characteristics did not differ by
group. LVEF was NS.
Population was healthy
enough to enroll so may
have fewer comorbidities.
Asymptomatic pts were
excluded. Only enrolled in
Canada and US. Groups
without ACE-I therapy may
have affected HRQoL. No
gold standard for
measuring HRQoL.
Independent factors
associated with worse
HRQoL in both populations
included female sex,
younger age, higher BMI,
lower SBP, greater
symptom burden, and
worse functional status.
N/A
QoL
Survival
N/A
N/A
Life prolonging therapies,
such as ACE-Is and ARBs
improve modestly or only
delay the progressive
worsening of QoL in HF.
Beta blockers do not affect
QoL in any way. Therapies
that improve QoL (e.g.,
inotropic agents) do not
seem beneficial in relation
to survival.
10 QoL in individuals
with HF. Harrison,
Margaret. 2002
12021683 (25)
To evaluate
whether the use
of usual providers
and a
reorganization of
discharge
planning and
transition care
with improved
intersector
linkages
between nurses,
could improve
QoL and health
services
utilization for
individuals
admitted
to hospital with
HF.
Prospective
randomized
trial
192
Admitted to
hospital with a
diagnosis of CHF
Residing in the
regional home
care radius.
Expected to be
discharged with
home nursing care
English or French
speaking
Admitted for more
than 24 h to the
nursing units
Cognitively
impaired (score >8
on Short Portable
Mental Status
Exam)
The no. of allcause ED
visits, hospital
readmissions,
and QoL
measured with
a generic
measure,
Medical
Outcome Study
Short Form
HRQoL
(MLWHF),
symptom
distress and
function at 6and 12-wk
postdischarge
The overall MLHFQ score was better
among the Transitional Care pts than the
usual care pts:
At 6 wk after hospital discharge (p=0.002)
At 12 wk after hospital discharge
(p<0.001)
The MLHFQ’s Physical Dimension
subscale score was better among the
Transitional Care pts than the usual care
pts:
At 6 wk after hospital discharge (p=0.01)
At 12 wk after hospital discharge
(p<0.001)
The MLHFQ’s Emotional Dimension
subscale score was better among the
Transitional Care pts than the usual care
pts at 6 wk after hospital discharge
(p=0.006)
46% of the Usual Care group visited the
ED compared with 29% in the Transitional
Care group (p=0.03)
At 12 wk postdischarge, 31% of the Usual
Care pts had been readmitted compared
with 23% of the Transitional Care pts
(p=0.26).
Conducted the trial in a
naturalistic manner in the
usual setting of care with
usual providers.
Possibility of contamination
with the hospital nurses
providing usual care.
Pts may have inadvertently
alerted the research
coordinators of their
assignment to usual care or
transitional care.
With multiple interventions
it's not easy to assess
neither the relative
contribution of each
component nor the
synergistic effect of the sum
of the parts.
Transitional Care has an
important role to play in
altering the course of pts
hospitalized with HF. Our
results suggest that with
modest adjustments to
usual discharge and
transition from hospital-tohome, pts with CHF can
experience improved QoL,
and decreased use of ED,
for 3 mo after
hospitalization. This
approach will provide the
needed adjunct to current
management of HF.
ACEI; angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; BMI, body mass index; CARE-HF Cardiac Resynchronisation in Heart Failure; CES-D, Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale; CHARM, Candesartan in Heart
failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity; CHF, congestive heart failure; COACH, Comparative study on guideline adherence and patient compliance in heart failure patients; CTX, chest x-ray; CV, cardiovascular; ED, emergency
department; EF, ejection fraction; ESCAPE, Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and PulmonaryArtery Catheterization Effectiveness; HF, heart failure; HRQoL, health-related quality of life; MI, myocardial infarction; MLHFQ score, Minnesota Living
With Heart Failure; N/A, not applicable; NYHA, New York Heart Association; pts, patients; PND, Paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea; QoL, quality of life; RCT, randomized control trial; and SBP, systolic blood pressure.
Data Supplement 5. Stress Testing (Initial and Serial Evaluation) of the HF Patient (Section 6.1.1)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Aim of Study
Study
Type
Background
Therapy
Study Size
Etiology
Pre-trial
standard
treatment.
N (Total)
n
(Experimental)
n (Control)
Ischemic/
NonIschemic
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Patient Population
Inclusion
Criteria
Severity
Severity
of HF
Sympto
ms
Exclusio
n Criteria
Study
Entry
Sverity
Criteria
11 Endpoints
Primary
Endpoint
Secondary
Endpoint
Mortality
Annualize
d Mortality
1st Year
Mortality
Trial
Duration
Statistical
Analysis
(Results)
Study
Limitations
Defining the
Optimal
Prognostic
Window for CPX
in Pts with HF.
Arena et al. Circ
Heart Fail 2010;
3: 405-411
20200329 (26)
Assess the
change in
prognostic
characteristic
s of CPX at
different time
intervals
Cohort
1 year
791
51%
ischemic
HF and LV
dysfunction
NYHA
2.4 +/0.67
N/A
Major
cardiac
events mortality,
LV device
implantatio
n, urgent
heart
transplant
Cardiac
mortality
N/A
75
deaths
(of 791)
36 mo
FU
For 24 mo post
CPX (high vs.
low Ve/VCO2):
cardiac events
p<0.001 (95%
CI: 2.1 - 5.5);
cardiac
mortality
p<0.001 (95%
CI: 2.2 - 5.8)
HR:dichotomou
s3.4; 3.5
p<0.005
Observation
al
2 y FU
Wide
N/A
Survival
N/A
N/A
94%
70%
122
46%
Ambulatory Unable
Value of peak
To determine Observati Focus on
complex
NYHA
survival
onal
hemodynami 52
ischemic
pts referred to
exercise oxygen if maximal
tachycardia
in those
III
prospectiv c and NYHA (PKVO2>14)
for heart
perform
consumption for exercise
in 1 pt
with high
e cohort
class
35
transplant
exercise
optimal timing of testing and
PKVO2
(PKVO2=<14)
testing
measurement
cardiac
vs. 70%
due to
of PKVO2
transplantation
for those
angina
identifies pts
in ambulatory
with low
in whom heart
pts with HF.
PKVO2
transplant can
Mancini et al.
be safely
Circulation
deferred
1991;83;778786
1999029 (27)
2,105;
52%
Referral for Age <20, N/A
N/A
Death
Death or
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pts on beta
N/A
Peak Oxygen
To determine Observati Cutoff of 14
onal
mL/kg1
n=909 on beta ischemic
HF with
ESRD,
transplantatio
blockers:
Consumption as whether
prospectiv
blocker;
LVEF<35% prior
n
Death p<0.001,
PKVO2 is a
a Predictor of
e cohort
n=1,196 no
OHT
reliable
Death in Pts
(95% CI: 1.18–
beta blocker
indicator of
1.36); death
With HF
prognosis in
and transplant
Receiving Beta
p<0.001,
Blockers. O'Neill the beta
blocker era
(95% CI: 1.18–
JO et al.
1.32)
Circulation
aHR: 1.26;
2005;111;23131.25 per 12318
mL/min/kg
15867168 (28)
CPX indicates cardiopulmonary exercise testing; EF, ejection fraction; ESRD, end-stage renal disease; FU, follow up; HF, heart failure; pts, patients; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; N/A, not applicable; NYHA, New York Heart Association; OHT,
orthotopic heart transplantation; PKVO2; peak oxygen consumption; and RCT, randomized control trial.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 12 Data Supplement 6. Clinical Evaluation – History (Orthopnea) (Section 6.1.1)
Study Name, Author, Year
Study Type
Study Size
Stevenson, LW; Perloff
Single center, prospective
JAMA 1989:261:884-888
2913385 (29)
Chakko et al; Am J Medicine Single center, prospective
1991:90:353-9
1825901 (30)
Drazner et al Circ HF
Multicenter substudy of ESCAPE
2008:1:170-177
19675681 (31)
Patient Population
50
Stage D
42
Stage D
194 (with PAC)
Stage D
Utility in Detecting Elevated PCWP
Orthopnea within preceding wk
91% of 43 pts with PCWP ≥22
0/7 pts with PCWP <22
For PCWP >20
Sensitivity 66%, Specificity 47%, PPV 61%, NPV 37%
Orthopnea (≥ 2 pillows)
OR 2.1 (95% CI: 1.0-4.4); PPV 66%, NPV 51%; +LR 1.15, (-) LR 1.8; all for PCWP>22
OR 3.6 (95% CI: 1.02 -12.8) for PCWP>30
ESCAPE indicates Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness; LR, likelihood ratio; NPV, negative predictive value; OR, odds ratio; PAC, pulmonary artery catheter; PCWP, Pulmonary Capillary
Wedge Pressure; PPV, positive predictive value; and pts, patients.
Data Supplement 7. Clinical Evaluation - Examination (Section 6.1.1)
Study Name,
Study Type
Study Size
Patient Population
Author, Year
Jugular venous pressure for assessing right atrial pressure
Stevenson, LW;
Single center,
50
Stage D
Perloff
prospective
JAMA
1989:261:884-888
2913385 (29)
Butman et al
Single center,
52
Stage D
JACC
prospective
1993:22:968-974
8409071 (32)
Stein et al
AJC
1997;80:1615-1618
9416951 (33)
Drazner et al
Circ HF
2008:1:170-177
19675681 (31)
Single center
25
Class 3-4
Multicenter
substudy of
ESCAPE
194 (with
PAC)
Stage D
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Utility in Detecting Elevated PCWP
21/28 (75%) of pts with RAP ≥10 had elevated JVP
RAP associated with JVD and HJR
–HJR,-JVD: RAP 4 (2)
+HJR, -JVD: RAP 8 (5)
+HJR, +JVD: RAP 13 (5)
RAP estimated from JVP vs. measured RA: r=0.92.
Clinical estimates underestimate elevated JVP. Interaction between utility of estimated RAP and measured RAP (more of an
underestimate as measured RAP increased). Bias 0.1 (RAP 0-8), 3.6 (RAP 9-14), 5 (RAP ≥15).
Estimated RAP for RAP >12
AUC 0.74
13 Jugular Venous Pressure for Detecting Elevated PCWP
Stevenson, LW;
Single center,
50
Stage D
Perloff
prospective
JAMA
1989:261:884-888
2913385 (29)
Chakko et al
Am J Medicine
1991;90:353-359
1825901 (30)
Single center,
prospective
52
Stage D
“High JVP” for PCWP >20 mm Hg
Sensitivity 70%, Specificity 79%, PPV 85%, NPV 62%
Butman et al
JACC
1993:22:968-974
8409071 (32)
Single center,
prospective
52
Stage D
JVD at rest or with HJR for PCWP>18 mm Hg: Sens 81%, Spec 80%, PPV 91%, NPV 63%
Badgett et al
JAMA
1997; 277:17121719
9169900 (34)
Drazner et al
Circ HF
2008:1:170-177
19675681 (31)
Literature review
“Rational Clinical
Examination”
series
NA
Stage D citing above
3 studies
Suggested algorithm:
If known low LVEF, and population with high prevalence of increased filling pressure, then elevated JVP is “very helpful” and
associated with >90% chance of elevated filling pressures
Multicenter
substudy of
ESCAPE
194 (with
PAC)
Stage D
JVP≥12 mm Hg for PCWP>22
Sensitivity: 65%, Specificity: 64%, PPV 75%, NPV 52%, +LR 1.79, (-)LR 1.8
2569
Stage C
4102
Stage B
Multivariate analysis for elevated JVP
Mean f/u 32 months
Death RR 1.15 (95% CI: 0.95-1.38)
HF hospitalization 1.32 (95% CI: 1.08-1.62)
Death/HF hospitalization 1.30 (95% CI: 1.11-1.53)
Multivariate analysis for elevated JVD
Mean follow-up 34 mo
Development of HF RR 1.38 (95% CI: 1.1-1.7)
Death or Development of HF RR 1.34 (95% CI: 1-1,1.6)
Prognostic Utility of JVP
Drazner et al
Retrospective
NEJM
analysis of
2001;345:574-81
SOLVD
11529211 (35)
Treatment Trial
Drazner et al
Am J Med
2003;114:431-437
12727575 (36)
Retrospective
analysis of
SOLVD
Prevention Trial
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Elevated JVP associated with PCWP ≥22
58% sensitivity
100% specificity (0/7 with PCWP ≤18 mm Hg)
However 8/18 pts with PCWP ≥35 mm Hg without elevated JVP
14 Drazner et al
Circ HF
2008:1:170-177
19675681 (31)
Multicenter
substudy of
ESCAPE
194 (with
PAC)
Meyer et al
AJC
2009 103:839-844
19268742 (37)
Retrospective
analysis of DIG
trial
7788
Stage D
Multivariate analysis
Enrollment estimated RAP associated with survival outside hospital at 6 mo (Referent RAP<13)
RAP 13-16 HR 1.2 (95% CI: 0.96-1.5)
RAP >16 HR 1.6 (95% CI: 1.2-2.1)
Stage C
Mean follow-up 34 mo
Univariate analysis
Elevated JVP associated with
Death: HR 1.7 (95% CI: 1.54-1.88)
All-cause hosp: HR 1.35 (95% CI: 1.25-1.47)
After adjusting for propensity score associations no longer significant; aHR: 0.95 (death), aHR:0.97 (hosp),
p>0.5
Utility of Valsalva Maneuver for Detecting Elevated PCWP
Schmidt et al
Prospective
38
Unknown
AJC 1993;71:462-5 single center
(%HF not stated)
8430644 (38)
Rocca et al
Single center,
45
Stage C
Chest
prospective
1999; 116:861-7
study
10531144 (39)
30 men
Class 3/4
Givertz et al
Single center,
AJC
prospective
2001 1213-1215
study of Vericor
11356404 (40)
system
57 pts (2
Unknown
Sharma et al
Prospective
women)
Majority pts with CAD
Arch Intern Med
study of
2002:162:2084commercial
2088
device (VeriCor)
12374516 (41)
at 2 centers
Felker et al
Review paper
N/A
N/A
Am J Medicine
2006;119:117-132
16443410 (42)
Utility of square wave for LVEDP ≥15 mm Hg: sens 100%, spec 91%, PPV 82%, NPV 100%
Pulse amplitude ratio by Valsalva correlated with BNP (r=0.6, p<0.001)
Predicted PCWP by Valsalva vs measured PCWP: r=0.9, p<0.001.
Mean difference 0.07 ±2.9 mm Hg
Predicted PCWP had sensitivity: 91%, specificity: 100% for PCWP ≥18 mm Hg
Pulse amplitude ratio correlated with LVEDP (r=0.86)
84% of measurements within 4 mm Hg of LVEDP
Significant correlation between CV response to Valsalva and LV filling pressures
AUC indicates area under the concentration curve; BNP, B-Type Natriuretic Peptide; CAD, coronary artery disease; CV, cardiovascular; DIG, Digitalis Investigation Group; f/u, follow-up; ESCAPE, Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart
Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness HJR, hepatojugular reflux; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVEDP, Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Pressure; JVD, jugular venous distension; JVP, jugular venous pressure;
N/A, not applicable; NPV, negative predictive value; PCWP, Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure; PPV, positive predictive value, Pts, patients; r, Pearson’s correlation coefficient; RAP, right arterial pressure; and SOLVD, Studies of left
ventricular dysfunction.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 15 Data Supplement 8. Clinical Evaluation – Risk Scoring (Section 6.1.2)
Study Name, Author,
Year
Stage C
Levy et al
Circulation
2006;113:1424-1433
Seattle HF score
16534009 (10)
Pocock et al
Eur Heart J
2006;27:65-75
CHARM
16219658 (13)
Stage D
Aaronson et al
Circulation
1997;95:2660-7
HF Survival Score
9193435 (2)
Lucas et al
Am Heart J
2000;140:840-7
“Congestion Score”
11099986 (43)
Nohria et al
JACC
2003:41:1797-1804
“Stevenson profiles”
12767667 (44)
Drazner et al
Circ HF
2008;1:170-7
“Stevenson profiles”
19675681 (31)
Levy et al
J Heart Lung Tx
Study Type
Study Size
Variables
Utility
Derivation cohort (PRAISE
1); then tested in 5
additional trial databases
1125
(Derivation)
9942
(Validation)
Largely Stage C
Available on website
2 year survival for scores 0, 1,2,3,4 was:
93%, 89%, 78% 58%, 30%, 11%
AUC 0.729 (0.71 to 0.74)
Analysis of CHARM
7,599
Stage C HF
21 variables
2 year mortality
Lowest to highest deciles 2.5% to 44%
C statistic 0.75
Derivation and Validation
2 transplant centers
268
(Derivation)
199
(Validation)
Stage D
Ischemic cardiomyopathy, resting
heart rate, LVEF, IVCD (QRS
duration 0.12 sec of any cause),
mean resting BP, peak O2, and
serum sodium PCWP (invasive)
3 strata
Event-free survival rates at 1 y for the low-, medium-, and high-risk
HFSS strata were 93±2%, 72±5%, and 43±7%
AUC 1 y 0.76-0.79
Retrospective, single center
146
Stage D
Congestion score: orthopnea, JVD,
edema, weight gain, new increase
diuretics
Post discharge (4-6 wk) score vs. 2 y death
0: 54%
1-2: 67%
3-5: 41%
Prospective, single center
452 pts
Stage D
Stevenson classification
Profiles A,B,C,L
Profile B associated with death+urgent transplant in multivariate
analysis (HR: 2.5, p=0.003).
Substudy of ESCAPE
388
Stage D
Stevenson classification
Discharge profile “wet or cold” HR 1.5 (1.1, 2.1) for number of d
alive outside hosp at 6 mo in multivariate analysis
Retrospective analysis of
REMATCH
129
REMATCH
Stage D
Seattle HF Score
The 1-y ROC was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.62-0.80).
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Patient population
16 2009:28: 231-236.
Seattle HF Score
19285613 (45)
Gorodeski et al
Circ Heart Fail
2010;3:706-714
Seattle HF Score
20798278 (46)
Hospitalized Patients
Lee et al
JAMA
2003:290:2581-2587
14625335 (11)
Fonarow et al
JAMA
2005:293:572-580
ADHERE
15687312 (14)
Rohde et al
J Cardiac Failure
2006;12:587-593
“HF Revised Score”
17045176 (47)
Abraham et al
JACC
2008;52:347-356
OPTIMIZE-HF
18652942 (16)
Single center study of
ambulatory pts presented to
transplant committee
215 (between
2004-2007)
Stage D
Seattle HF score
ACM, VAD, Urgent HT
2 y f/u
C index 0.68 (1 yr), 0.65 (2 yr)
Calibration overestimated survival among UNOS 2 pts
Retrospective study of
multiple hospitals in Ontario
Canada
2624
(derivation
1999-2001)
1407
(validation
1997-1999)
Hospitalized pts
Age, SBP, RR, Na<136, Hgb <10,
BUN, CVA, Dementia, COPD,
cirrhosis, Cancer
Predicted and observed mortality rates matched well
1 y mortality
AUC
Derivation 0.77
Validation 0.76
In-hospital mortality
AUC 67-69%
Morality ranges from 1.8(low risk) to ~25% (high risk)
CART analysis of ADHERE
national registry 2001-2003
33,046
(derivation)
32,229
(Validation)
Hospitalized pts
BUN ≥43, SBP<115, SCr ≥2.75
Single center study 20002004
779
Hospitalized pts
Cancer, SBP ≤124, Cr >1,4m
BUN>37, Na <136, Age>70
In-hospital mortality
Bootstrap C=0.77 (0.689-0.85)
6 increasing groups: 0,5%, 7%, 10%, 29%, 83%
Analysis of OPTIMIZE-HF
registry
2003-2004
48,612 pts
Validated in
ADHERE
Hospitalized pts
19 variables
In-hospital mortality
C statistic 0.77
Validation C statistic 0.746
Excellent reliability for mortality
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 30 d mortality
AUC derivation 0.82
Validation 0.79
17 Peterson et al
Circ Cardiovasc Qual
Outcomes
2010:3:25-32
GWTG
20123668 (15)
Other
Gheorghiade et al
Eur J of Heart Failure
2010:12:423-433
ESC Congestion Score
20354029 (48)
Analysis of GWTG admitted
2005-2007
27,850
(Derivation)
11,933
(Validation)
Hospitalized pts
Age, SBP, BUN, HR, Na, COPD,
nonblack race
In-hospital mortality
C index 0.75
Predicted probability mortality over deciles ranged from 0.4% - 9.7%
and corresponded with true mortality
Scientific Statement from
Acute HF Committee of HF
Association of ESC
N/A
N/A
Congestion score
Bedside assessment (Orthopnea,
JVD, HM, Edema)
Lab (BNP or NT proBNP)
Orthostatic BP
6 min walk test
Valsalva
Needs to be tested
ACM indicates all cause mortality; ADHERE, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry; AUC, area under the curve; BNP, B-type natriuretic peptide; BP, blood pressure; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; CART, Classification and
regression trees; CHARM, Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CVA, Cerebrovascular Accident; ESC, European Society of Cardiology; ESCAPE,
Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness; GWTG, Get With the Guidelines; HF, heart failure; HFSS, heart failure survival score; Hgb, hemoglobin; HR, heart rate; HT, heart
transplantation; HM, hepatomegaly; IVCD, intraventricular conduction delay; JVD, jugular venous distension; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; N/A, not applicable; Na, sodium; NT proBNP, n-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide;
OPTIMIZE-HF, Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Pts with HF; PCWP, Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure; PRAISE, Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Evaluation; pts, patients; REMATCH,
Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure; ROC, receiver operating characteristic curve; RR, respiratory rate; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SCr, serum creatinine; UNOS, United
Network of Organ Sharing; and VAD, ventricular assist device.
Data Supplement 9. Imaging Echocardiography (Section 6.4)
Study
Name,
Author,
Year
IS. Syed
2010
20159642
(49)
Aim of Study
Evaluate LGE-CMR
in identifying CA;
investigate
associations
between LGE and
clinical, morphologic,
functional, and
biochemical
features.
Study Type
Observational
Study Size
120 (35 with
positive cardiac
histology, 49
without cardiac
histology but with
echo evidence of
CA, 36 without
histology or echo
evidence of CA)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Patient Population
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
Histologically proven
amyloidosis and, in the
case of AL amyloidosis,
confirmatory evidence of
monoclonal protein in the
serum or urine and/or a
monoclonal population of
plasma cells in the bone
marrow.
Prior MI, myocarditis,
prior peripheral blood
stem cell
transplantation, or
prior heart
transplantation
Endpoints
Statistical Analysis (Results)
Study Limitations
LGE-CMR presentation
in pts with amyloidosis;
associations between
LGE and clinical,
morphologic, functional,
and biochemical
features.
Of the 35 pts with histology, abnormal LGE was present in
97% of the 49 with echo evidence, abnormal LGE was
present in 86% of the 36 without histology or ECHO evidence
of CA, abnormal LGE was present in 47%.
In all pts, LGE presence and pattern was associated with
NYHA functional class, ECG voltage, LV mass index, RV wall
thickness, troponin-T, and BNP levels.
No control group,
cardiac histology was only
present in a subset of pts
contraindication to the use of
Gd
18 V Rizzello
2009
19443475
(50)
Evaluate the
prognosis of viable
pts with and without
improvement of
LVEF after coronary
revascularisation.
Observational
90; group 1:
viable pts with
LVEF
improvement
(n = 27); group 2,
viable pts without
LVEF
improvement
(n = 15), group 3,
non-viable pts
(n = 48)
Kevin C
Allman
2002
11923039
(51)
Examines late
survival with
revascularization vs
medical therapy after
myocardial viability
testing in pts with
severe CAD and LV
dysfunction
Meta-analysis of
observational
studies
3,088 (viability
demonstrated in
42%)
Beanlands
RS. 2002
12446055
(52)
Whether the extent
of viability or scar is
important in the
amount of recovery
of LV function
and to develop a
model for predicting
recovery after
revascularization
that could be tested
in a randomized trial.
Prospective
multicenter
cohort
82; Complete
follow-up was
available on 70
pts.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Pts were already
scheduled for coronary
revascularization
according to clinical
criteria of reduced LVEF
(40%), symptoms of HF
and/or angina,
presence/absence of
ischemia and presence of
critical coronary disease
at angiography.
Only pts who had
undergone coronary
revascularisation alone
were included in the study
Pts with CAD and LV
dysfunction who were
tested for myocardial
viability with cardiac
imaging procedures from
24 viability studies
reporting pt survival using
thallium perfusion
imaging, F-18
fluorodeoxyglucose
metabolic imaging or
dobutamine ECHO.
Pts CAD and severe LV
dysfunction with EF 35%
by any quantitative
technique, who were
being scheduled for
revascularization
Pts who had
undergone mitral
valvuloplasty or
aneurismectomy in
association with
revascularisation
were excluded.
Cardiac events were
evaluated during a 4-y
follow-up (cardiac death,
new MI, admission to
hospital for HF)
Cardiac event rate was low (4%) in group 1, intermediate
(21%) in group 2 and high (33%) in group 3.
After revascularization, the mean (SD) LVEF improved from
32 (9)% to 42 (10)% in group 1, but did not change
significantly in group 2 and in group 3, p,0.001 by ANOVA.
HF symptoms improved in both groups 1 (mean (SD) NYHA
class from 3.1 (0.9) to 1.7 (0.7)) and 2 (from 3.2 (0.7)-1.7
(0.9)), but not in group 3 (from 2.8 (1.0)-2.7 (0.5)), p=0.001
by ANOVA.
The difference in event rate was not statistically significant
between groups 1 and 2 -small number of pts- but it was
significant between the 3 groups using Kaplan–Meier p=0.01
N/A
Those not reporting
deaths or where
deaths could not be
apportioned to pts
with vs without
viability were
excluded
Annual mortality rates,
pts followed for 25±10
mo.
For pts with defined myocardial viability, annual mortality rate
was 16% in medically treated pts but only 3.2% in
revascularized pts (χ2 =147, p<0.0001). This represents a
79.6% relative reduction in risk of death for revascularized
pts. For pts without viability, annual mortality was not
significantly different by treatment method: 7.7% with
revascularization vs 6.2% for medical therapy (p=NS).
The individual studies are
observational,
nonrandomized,
unblinded and subject to
publication and other biases.
In this metaanalysis, viability
could only be interpreted as
“present” or “absent” based
on individual studies’
definitions
PTs with MI within the
preceding 6 wk,
severe valve disease
requiring valve
replacement,
requirement for
aneurysm resection,
and inability to obtain
informed consent.
Absolute change in EF
determined by
radionuclide angiograms
3 mo
postrevascularization
Amount of scar was a significant independent predictor of LV
function recovery after revascularization.
Across tertiles of scar scores (I, small: 0% to 16%; II,
moderate: 16% to 27.5%; III, large: 27.5% to 47%), the
changes in EFs were 9.0±1.9%, 3.7±1.6%, and 1.3±1.5%
(p=0.003: I vs. III), respectively.
Pt population in this study
included pts who were
predominantly men,
predominately between 5371 y of age (1 SD from the
mean), had multivessel
disease, and had bypassable
vessels.
Although improvement in LV
function has been noted at 3
mo of follow-up in many
previous studies, recent data
suggest that more recovery
may be observed with longer
follow-up time
19 Paul R.
Pagley 1997
9264484
(53)
Senior R,
1999
10362184
(54)
Kwon DH
2009
19356530
(55)
Ordovas
KG. 2011
22012903
(56)
Hypothesized that
pts with poor
ventricular function
and predominantly
viable myocardium
have a better
outcome after
bypass surgery
compared with those
with less viability.
To evaluate the
effect of
revascularization on
survival in pts with
CHF due to ischemic
LV systolic
dysfunction based
on the presence of
myocardial viability
To determine
whether the extent of
LV scar, measured
with DHE-CMR
predicts survival in
pts with ischemic
cardiomyopathy ICM
and severely
reduced LVEF.
Retrospective
cohort
70
Pts with EFs <40%
without significant valvular
disease who were
referred for a first
coronary bypass surgery
and underwent
preoperative quantitative
planar 201Tl imaging for
viability determination.
Prior CABG,
coexisting valvular
disease and
underwent concurrent
aortic or MV
replacement, or those
with SPECT imaging
CV death or cardiac
transplantation; median
time to follow-up was
1177 d (range, 590 to
1826)
The viability index was significantly related to 3-y survival
free of cardiac event (cardiac death or heart transplant) after
bypass surgery (p=0.011) and was independent of age, EF,
and number of diseased coronary vessels. Survival free of
cardiac death or transplantation was significantly better in
group 1 pts on Kaplan-Meier analysis (p=0.018).
N/A
Observational
prospective
87
CHF (NYHA class II-IV)
for at least 3 mo that was
treated medically;
LVEF ≤35%;
clinical evidence of CAD
Significant valvular
disease, unstable
angina, MI within
three months,
sustained ventricular
tachycardia or AF
349
Pts with documented ICM
(on the basis of 70%
stenosis in at least 1
epicardial coronary vessel
on angiography and/or
history of MI or coronary
revascularization), who
were referred for the
assessment of myocardial
viability with CMR
Pts with standard
CMR
contraindications
including severe
claustrophobia, AF,
and the presence of
pacemakers,
defibrillators, or
aneurysm clips
Pts with at least 5 segments showing myocardial viability
underwent revascularization, mortality was reduced by an
average of 93% which was associated with improvement in
NYHA class as well as LVEF.
Pts with
<5 segments showing myocardial viability who underwent
revascularization (and thus, showing mostly scar), and those
with at least 5 segments demonstrating myocardial viability
who were treated medically, had a much higher mortality.
(95% CI: 22%-99%)
Mean scar percentage and transmurality score were higher in
pts with events vs those without
(39±22 vs 30±20, p=0.003, and 9.7±5 vs. 7.8±5, p=0.004).
*On Cox proportional hazard survival analysis, quantified
scar was greater than the median (30% of total myocardium),
and female gender predicted events
(RR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.02-3.03 and RR:1.83; 95% CI: 1.063.16, respectively, both p=0.03).
Single-center study where
selection bias is unavoidable.
Selection bias may have
favored taking one group to
surgery over another.
Observational
Cardiac deaths were
defined as those
resulting from acute MI,
refractory CHF or
occurring suddenly and
not being attributed to
other known causes
after a mean follow-up of
40 ± 17 mo
All-cause mortality was
ascertained by social
security death index
after a mean of follow-up
2.6 ± 1.2 y (median 2.4
y)
N/A
Review paper
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
An international multicenter study (54) reported a sensitivity
of 99% for detection of acute infarction and 94% for detection
of chronic infarction.
Delayed enhancement occurs in both acute and chronic
(scar) infarctions and in an array of other myocardial
processes that cause myocardial necrosis, infiltration, or
fibrosis. These include myocarditis, hypertrophic
cardiomyopathy, amyloidosis, sarcoidosis, and other
myocardial conditions.
In several of these diseases, the presence and extent of
delayed enhancement has prognostic implications.
Selection bias of an
observational study
conducted at a large tertiary
referral center.
Only the
pts with no contraindications
to CMR underwent the
examination.
N/A
AF, atrial fibrillation; AL, Amyloid Light-chain; ANOVA, analysis of variance; CA, cardiac amyloidosis; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; CAD, coronary artery disease; CHF, congestive heart failure; CMR, cardiovascular magnetic resonance; CV, cardiovascular; DHE-CMR, delayed
hyperenhancement cardiac magnetic resonance; ECHO, echocardiography; EF, ejection fraction; Gd, gadolinium; ICM, ischemic cardiomyopathy; LGE-CMR, late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance; LV, left ventricular; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MI,
myocardial infarction; N/A, not applicable; NS, not significant; NYHA, New York Heart Association; pts, patients; RV, right ventricular; SD, standard deviation; and SPECT, single-photon emission computed tomography.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 20 Data Supplement 10. Biopsy (Section 6.5.3)
Study Name, Author, Year
Cooper LT, Baughman KL, Feldman AM et al. The role of
endomyocardial biopsy in the management of CV disease:
Circulation 2007 November 6;116(19):2216-33.
17959655 (57)
Aim of Study
Role of
endomyocadial
biopsy for
management of CV
disease
Study Type
A scientific statement
from the AHA, ACC, &
ESC
Study Size
N/A
Patient Population
N/A
Kasper EK, Agema WR, Hutchins GM, Deckers JW, Hare
JM, Baughman KL. The causes of dilated cardiomyopathy: a
clinicopathologic review of 673 consecutive pts. J Am Coll
Cardiol 1994 March 1;23(3):586-90.
8113538 (58)
To document causes
of DCM in a large
group of adult HF pts
Retrospective Cohort
673
DCM pts with symptoms
within 6 mo, evaluated at
Johns Hopkins Hospital
1982-1991
Most common causes of DCM: idiopathic (47%), myocarditis (12%)
and CAD (11%), other causes (31%)
Fowles RE, Mason JW. Endomyocardial biopsy. Ann Intern
Med 1982 December;97(6):885-94.
6756241 (59)
Complication risk
with RV biopsies
Review
N/A
N/A
Deckers JW, Hare JM, Baughman KL. Complications of
transvenous right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy in adult
pts with cardiomyopathy: a seven-year survey of 546
consecutive diagnostic procedures in a tertiary referral
center. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992 January;19(1):43-7.
1729344 (60)
To determine the
incidence, nature and
subsequent
management of
complications
occurring during RV
endomyocardial
biopsy in pts with
cardiomyopathy
To evaluate the utility
of RV biopsy in
confirming or
excluding a clinically
suspected diagnosis
Prospective Cohort
546
546 consecutive biopsies
for DCM pts at single
center,
Complication rate of 1% in 4000 biopsies (performed in
transplantation and CMP pts)
4 tamponade (0.14%), 3 pneumothorax, 3 AF, 1 ventricular
arrhythmia, and 3 focal neurological complications
33 total complications (6%):
15 (2.7%) during catheter insertion: 12 arterial punctures (2%), 2
vasovagal reactions (0.4%) and 1 prolonged bleeding (0.2%),
18 (3.3%) during biopsy: 6 arrhythmias (1.1%), 5 conduction
abnormalities (1%), 4 possible perforations (0.7%) and 3 definite
perforations (0.5%).
2 (0.4%) of the 3 pts with a perforation died
Retrospetive chart
review
845
Pts with initially
unexplained
cardiomyopathy (19821997) at The Johns
Hopkins Hospital.
Clinical assessment of the etiology inaccurate in 31%
EMBx helps establish the final diagnosis in most
Cohort
2415
1919 pts underwent 2505
endomyocardial biopsy
retrospectively (19952003), and 496 pts
underwent 543
Major complications cardiac tamponade requiring pericardiocentesis
or complete AV block requiring permanent pacing rare: 0.12% in the
retrospective study and 0% in the prospective study.
Minor complications such as pericardial effusion, conduction
abnormalities, or arrhythmias in 0.20% in the retrospective study
Ardehali H, Qasim A, Cappola T et al. Endomyocardial
biopsy plays a role in diagnosing pts with unexplained
cardiomyopathy. Am Heart J 2004 May;147(5):919-23.
15131552 (61)
Holzmann M, Nicko A, Ku¨hl U, et al. Complication rate of
right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy via the femoral
approach. A retrospective and prospective study analyzing
3048 diagnostic procedures over an 11-year period.
Circulation 2008;118:1722–8.
To determine
complication rate of
RV biopsy
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 21 Results
N/A
18838566 (62)
Elliott P, Arbustini E. The role of endomyocardial biopsy in
the management of CV disease: a commentary on joint
AHA/ACC/ESC guidelines. Heart 2009 May;95(9):759-760.
19221107 (63)
N/A
Commentary
endomyocardial biopsy
prospectively (20042005) to evaluate
unexplained LV
dysfunction
N/A
N/A
and 5.5% in the prospective study
Emphasizes genetic causes of CMP
ACC indicates American College of Cardiology; AHA, American Heart Association; AF, atrial fibrillation; AV, atrioventricular; CAD, coronary artery disease; CMP, cardiomyopathy; DCM, dilated cardiomyopathy; EMBx, endomyocardial biopsy; ESC, European
Society of Cardiology; LV, left ventricular; N/A, not applicable; pts, patients; and RV, right ventricular.
Data Supplement 11. Stage A: Prevention of HF (Section 7.1)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Lloyd-Jones et al, The
lifetime risk for
developing HF;
Circulation, 2002;
106:3068-3072
12473553 (64)
Vasan et al, Residual
lifetime risk for
developing HTN in
middle-aged women
and men; JAMA,
2002:287:1003-1010.
11866648 (65)
Levy et al, The
progression from HTN
to CHF; JAMA,
1996;275:1557-62
8622246 (66)
Aim of Study
Study Type
Examine lifetime risk of
developing CHF among
those without incident
or prevalent disease
Prospective
cohort
Quantify risk of HTN
development
Prospective
cohort
Analysis of expected
rates of HF associated
with diagnosis of HTN
Prospective
cohort
Study Size
N (Total)
n (Experimental)
n (Control)
8229
Endpoints
Trial
Duration
(Years)
Statistical Analysis (Results)
Study Limitations
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
Free of CHF at
baseline
N/A
N/A
N/A
Lifetime risk is 1 in 5 for men and
women; significant association
between MI and HTN in lifetime
risk of CHF.
Subjects mostly white and results not
generalizable to other races.
1298
Ages 55-65 y and
free of HTN at
baseline.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Residual lifetime risk for
developing HTN was 90%. Risk
did not differ by sex or age,
lifetime risk for women vs men
aged 55 y, HR: 0.91 (95% CI,
0.80-1.04); for those aged 65 y,
HR:0.88 (95% CI, 0.76-1.04)
5,143
Free of CHF at
baseline.
N/A
Developmen
t of HF
20
Those with HTN at a higher risk
for CHF:
Men, HR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.502.78;
Women, HR: 3.21; 95% CI: 2.204.67
Measured HTN in middle age, when a
large portion of people develop HTN at
younger ages so actual risk may be
different for younger people. Did not take
into account other risks for HTN like
obesity, family history of high BP, dietary
sodium and potassium intake, and
alcohol consumption
Subjects mostly white and results not
generalizable to other races. Possible
misclassification bias as some subjects
diagnosed w/HTN before use of
echocardiography.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Patient Population
22 PAR for CHF in those with HTN:
39% for men and 59% in women.
CAD and HTN were the most
common concomitant diseases in
HF pts (79.1%).
Wilhelmsen et al, HF in
the general population
of men: morbidity, risk
factors, and prognosis;
J Intern Med
2001;249:253-261
11285045 (67)
Kostis, et al, Prevention
of HF by
antihypertensive drug
treatment in older
persons with isolated
systolic HTN; JAMA
1997;278:212-216.
9218667 (68)
Identification of risk
associated with HTN
Populationbased
intervention
trial
7,495
N/A
N/A
Developmen
t of HF
27
To assess the effect of
antihypertensive care
on the incidence of HF
in older pts with systolic
HTN
RCT
4,736; 2,365; 2,371
Age ≥60y, Isolated
systolic HTN: SBP
160-219 mm Hg with
DBP <90 mm Hg.
Fatal and
non-fatal HF
4.5
49% reduction
RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.37-0.71;
p<.001
Noteworthy that pts with prior MI had an
80% risk reduction.
Staessen, Wang and
Thijs; CV prevention
and BP reduction: a
quantitative overview
updated until 1 March
2003; J Hypertens
2003;21:1055-1076
12777939 (69)
Assessment of various
drugs and their
reduction of HF
Meta analysis
120,574
N/A
Recent MI, CABG,
DM, alcohol abuse,
demential stroke, AF,
AV block, multiform
premature ventricular
contractions,
bradycardia <50
beats/min; diuretic
therapy.
N/A
CV events
N/A
N/A
Sciaretta, et al;
Antihypertensive
treatment and
development of HF in
hypertension: a
Bayesian network metaanalysis of studies in
pts with HTN and high
CV risk.
Arch Intern Med. 2011
Mar 14;171(5):384-94.
21059964 (70)
Compare various drugs
and risk for HF
Meta analysis
223,313
Studies had to be
RCTs from 19972009; pts with HTN
or a population
characterized as
having a “high” CV
risk profile and a
predominance of pts
with HTN (>65%); the
sample size ≥200
pts; and information
on the absolute
incidence of HF and
N/A
HF
N/A
CCB, resulted in better stroke
protection than older drugs:
including (-8%, p=0.07) or
excluding verapamil (-10%,
p=0.02), as well as ARB (-24%,
p=0.0002). The opposite trend
was observed for ACEI (+10%,
Pp=0.03). The risk of HFwas
higher (p< 0.0001) on CCB
(+33%) and alpha blockers
(+102%) than on conventional
therapy involving diuretics
Diuretics vs. placebo: OR: 0.59;
95% CrI: 0.47-0.73;
ACE-I vs. placebo: OR: 0.71; 95%
CrI: 0.59-0.85;
ARB: OR: 0.71; 95% CrI: 0.590.85.
Beta blockers and CCB less
effective
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 23 N/A
N/A
Lind et al, Glycaemic
control and incidence of
HF in 20985 pts with
type 1 diabetes: an
observational study.
Lancet 2011; Jun 24.
21705065 (71)
Pfister, et al, A clinical
risk score for HF in pts
with type 2 diabetes
and macrovascular
disease: an analysis of
the PROactive study.
Int J Cardiol. 2011;May
31.
21636144 (72)
Kenchaiah et al,
Obesity and the risk of
HF. NEJM,
2002;347:305-313.
12151467 (73)
Kenchaiah, Sesso,
Gaziano, Body mass
index and vigorous
physical activity and the
risk of HF among men.
Circulation,
2009;119:44-52.
19103991 (74)
N/A
HF
N/A
A1C ≥10.5% vs A1C <6.5%:
aHR: 3.98; 95% CI: 2.23-7.14;
p<.001;
Used hospital admissions and did not
include asymptomatic HF pts, so true
incidence of HF underestimated.
Assessment of glycemic
control and risk for HF
Meta analysis
20,985
or higher
A1C <6.5%
Identification of risk
associated with DM
RCT
4,951
Type 2 DM
N/A
HF
3
Medium risk: HR: 3.5; 95% CI:
2.0-6.2; p<0.0001
High risk: HR: 10.5; 95% CI: 6.317.6; p<0.0001
HF was pre-defined by investigator, but
rather reported as SAE in the trial. Trial
population may not be generalizable to
clinical population.
Assessment of HF risk
associated with obesity
Prospective
cohort
5,881
≥30 y; BMI
≥18.5;free of HF at
baseline
N/A
HF
14
Women, HR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.512.97
Men, HR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.30-2.79
Possible misclassification of HF and
subjects mostly white and results not
generalizable to other races.
Assessment of risk
associated with obesity
and effect of exercise
Prospective
cohort,
secondary
analysis of
RCT
21,094
Free of known heart
disease at baseline.
N/A
Incidence of
HF
20.5
Every 1 kg/m2 increase in BMI is
associated with 11% (95% CI: 913) increase in risk of HF.
Compared to lean active men:
Lean inactive: HR:1.19; 95% CI:
0.94-1.51, Overweight active:
HR:1.49; 95% CI: 1.30-1.71),
Overweight inactive: HR: 1.78;
95% CI: 1.43- 2.23),
Obese active: HR: 2.68; 95% CI:
2.08-3.45, Obese inactive: HR:
3.93; 95% CI: 2.60-5.96
Low incidence of HF as cohort comprised
of physicians who are healthier than the
general population. BMI measures and
physical activity were self-reported.
These measures were only taken at
baseline and tend to change over time.
This cohort consisted only of men and
results not generalizable to women.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. other major CV
events
Type 1 DM
24 Telmisartan vs placebo:
OR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.68-0.91;
p=0.0017.
Telmisartan vs. ramipril:
OR: 0.92; 95% CI; 0.83-1.01;
p=0.07
Telmisartan + ramipril vs. ramipril:
OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.84-1.02;
p=0.12)
Telmisartan vs telmisartan +
ramipril:
OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.91-1.12
HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.88-1.06;
p=0.43
Diagnosis of LVH was based on ECG,
which is less sensitive than
echocardiography and was binary
(yes/no) instead of quantitative.
N/A
RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.77-0.95;
p=0.004
N/A
All-cause
mortality and
fatal/nonfatal
CVD
N/A
All-cause mortality:
RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.73-0.96)
Fatal/non-fatal CVD:
RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.61-0.79
N/A
New HF
N/A
No alcohol: aRR: 1.00 (referent),
1-20 oz: aRR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.601.02),
21-70 oz: aRR: 0.53; 95% CI:
0.32-0.88.
(p for trend=0.02)
Observational study, could not account
for all possible confounders, alcohol
consumption was self-reported.
Verdecchia et al,
Effects of telmisartan,
ramipril and their
combination on LVH in
individuals at high
vascular risk in
ONTARGET and
TRANSCEND.
Circulation
2009;120:1380-1389.
19770395 (75)
Evaluate effects of
ACE, ARB, or both on
development of LVH in
pts with atherosclerotic
disease.
RCT
23,165 for
ONTARGET,
5,343 in
TRANSCEND
Hx of CAD, PAD,
cerebrovascular
disease.
N/A
LVH
5
Braunwald et al; ACE
inhibition in stable
coronary artery disease.
NEJM 2004;351:20582068.
15531767 (76)
Mills et al, Primary
prevention of
cardiovascualr mortality
and events with statin
treatments. J Am Coll
Cardiol; 2008;52:17691781
19022156 (77)
Taylor et al, Statins for
the primary prevention
of CV disease.
Cocrane Database Syst
Rev, 2011; CD004816
21249663 (78)
Evaluate the effect of
trandolapril on vascular
events
RCT
8,290;
4,158 (trandolpril);
4,132 (placebo)
Stable CAD
N/A
Major CV
events
4.8
Evaluation of primary
prevention of CV events
with statins
Meta analysis
53,371
N/A
N/A
Major CV
events
Assess benefit and risk
of statins for prevention
of CVD
Meta analysis
34,272
N/A
Assessment of risk
associated with alcohol
use in older adults.
Prospective
cohort
2,235
RCTs of statins with
minimum duration of
1 y and f/u of 6 mo, in
adults with no
restrictions on their
total LDL or HDL
cholesterol levels,
and where ≤10% had
a hx of CVD, were
included.
Age ≥65 y; lived in
New Haven, Conn,
and free of HF at
baseline
Heavy alcohol
consumption (>70
oz.)
Abramson et al;
Moderate alcohol
consumption and risk fo
HF among older
persons. JAMA,
2001;285:1971-1977.
11308433 (79)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 25 Results not significant possibly because
the pts enrolled were at lower risk for CV
events compared to other trials of ACEI.
Assessment of risk
associated with alcohol
use
Community
based cohort
7,223
N/A
N/A
New CHF
N/A
Choueiri et al, CHF risk
in pts with breast
cancer treaated with
bevacizumab. J Clin
Oncol, 2011; 29:632638.
21205755 (81)
Du et al; Cardiac risk
associated with the
receipt of anthracycline
and trastuzumab in a
alarge nationwide
cohort of older women
with breast cancer,
1998-2005. Med Oncol,
2010;Oct 22.
20967512 (82)
Sawaya et al; Early
detection and prediction
of cardiotoxicity in
chemotherapy treated
pts. Am J Cardiol,
2011; 107:1375-80.
21371685 (83)
Risk of CHF pts with
breast cancer receiving
bevacizumab
Meta analysis
3,784
RCTs published
between January
1966-March 2010 in
English.
N/A
New CHF
N/A
New HF
Registry
47,806
Women with breast
cancer ≥65 y
N/A
New HF
N/A
HR: 1.19 anthracycline alone, HR:
1.97 trastuzumab alone, HR: 2.37
combo
N/A
To assess whether
early ECHO
measurements of
myocardial deformation
and biomarkers (hsTnI
and NT-proBNP)
could predict the
development of
chemotherapy-induced
cardiotoxicity in pts
treated with
anthracyclines and
trastuzumab.
Prospective
cohort
43
>18 y of age
diagnosed with HER2-overexpressing
breast cancer and
either scheduled to
receive treatment
including
anthracyclines and
trastuzumab or
scheduled to receive
trastuzumab after
previous
anthracycline
treatment.
Pts with LVEFs
≤50%
Cardiotoxicit
y
N/A
Elevated hsTnI at 3 mo (p =0.02)
and a decrease in longitudinal
strain
between baseline and 3 mo (p
=0.02) remained independent
predictors of later cardiotoxicity.
Neither the change in NT-proBNP
between baseline and 3 mo nor
an NT-proBNP level higher than
normal limits at 3 mo predicted
cardiotoxicity
Small sample size
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 26 Compared to men who consumed
<1 drink/wk, men who consumed
8-14 drinks/wk: HR for CHF: 0.41;
95% CI: 0.21-0.81.
In women: those who consumed
3-7 drinks/wk HR: 0.49; 95% CI:
0.25-0.96, compared with those
who consumed <1 drink/wk.
RR: 4.74; 95% CI; 1.84-12.19;
p=0.001)
Self-reported alcohol consumption.
Walsh et al; Alcohol
consumption and risk
for CHF in the
Framingham Heart
Study. Ann Intern Med,
2002; 136:181-191.
11827493 (80)
Data on other risk factors for CHF were
not collected or unavailable.
McKie et al; The
NT-proBNP as a
Cohort
1,991
Age ≥45 y, lives in
Symptomatic
Death, HF,
8.9 years
HR:1.26 per log increase in fully
Underpowered to detect association of
prognostic value of NT- predictor of death, CV
Olmsted County,
HF (stages C and D
CVA, MI
adjusted model in stage A/B pts
NT-proBNP with adverse outcomes in the
proBNP for death and
events
Minnesota
HF)
(95% CI: 1.05–1.51; p=0.015).
healthy normal subgroup.
CV events in healthy
NT-proBNP was not predictive of
normal and stage A/B
death or CV events in the healthy
HF subjects. J Am Coll
normal subgroup.
Cardiol, 2010;55:21402147.
20447539 (84)
Velagaleti et al;
Evaluation of markers
Cohort
2,754
Free of HF
N/A
HF
N/A
BNP: aHR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.24–
Subjects mostly white and results not
1.87; p<0.0001
generalizable to other races.
Multimarker approach
for HF development in
for the prediction of HF
the community
UACR: aHR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.11–
incidence in the
1.66; p=0.004
community. Circulation,
2010;122:1700-1706.
20937976 (85)
N/A
Blecker et al; High
Evaluation of
Cohort
10,975
Free of HF
N/A
HF
8.3
aHR: 1.54 (95% CI,:1.12-2.11)
normal albuminuria and albuminuria as risk for
UACR normal to intermediaterisk of HF in the
new HF
normal; aHR: 1.91 (95% CI: 1.38community. Am J
2.66) high-normal; aHR: 2.49
Kidney Dis, 2011;
(95% CI: 1.77-3.50) micro; aHR:
58:47-55.
3.47 (95% CI: 2.10-5.72) macro
21549463 (86)
(p<0.001)
deFilippi et al;
Assessment as to
Cohort
4,221
N/A
N/A
HF
11.8
Complex
Samples were available in ~3/4 of the
Association of serial
whether baseline cTnT
>99th percentile at baseline: 6.4;
cohort at baseline, and differential
change from neg to pos: 1.61
absence of cTnT measures may have
measures of cardiac
or changes predict HF
increase.
introduced bias into the estimates of
troponin T using a
sensitive assay with
associations with HF and CV death.
incident HF and CV
mortality in older adults.
JAMA, 2010; 304:24942502.
21078811 (87)
Did not evaluate other
Heidenreich, et al, Cost- Cost effectiveness of
Cost benefit
N/A
Asymptomatic pts.
N/A
N/A
N/A
BNP testing followed by
blood tests such as pro-BNP as
effectiveness of
BNP screening
analysis
echocardiography is a costprevalence and outcome data were not
screening with BNP to
effective screening
available.
identify pts with reduced
strategy for men and possibly
LVEF. J Am Coll
women at age 60 y - for every
Cardiol, 2004;43:1019125 men screened,1 y of life
1026.
would be gained at a cost of
15028361 (88)
$23,500.
ACEI indicates angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; AF, atrial fibrillation; AV, atrioventricular; BMI, body mass index; BP, blood pressure; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; CAD, coronary artery disease; CCB, calcium channel blocker; CHF, congestive
heart failure; cTnT, cardiac troponin T; CV, cardiovascular; CVA, cerebrovascular accident; CVD, cardiovascular disease; DM, diabetes mellitus; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; ECG, electrocardiography; HDL, high density lipoprotein; HF, heart failure; hsTnI,
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 27 high-sensitivity troponin I; HTN, hypertension; LDL, low density lipoprotein; Hx, history; LVH, left ventricular hypertrophy; MI, myocardial infarction; N/A, not applicable; N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide; ONTARGET, Ongoing Telmisartan Along and in
Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial; PAD, peripheral arterial disease; PAR, population attributable risk; pro-BNP, pro–B-type natriuretic peptide; pts, patients; RCT, randomized clinical trial; SAE, serious adverse event; SBP, systolic blood
pressure; TRANSCEND, Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE Intolerant Subjects with CV Disease; and UACR, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.
Data Supplement 12. Stage B: Preventing the Syndrome of Clinical HF With Low EF (Section 7.2)
Study Name,
Author, Year
ACE Inhibitors
Effect of
Captopril on
Mortality and
Morbidity in Pts
with LVD after MI
Pfeffer, Marc A;
NEJM 1992
(SAVE)
1386652 (89)
Effect of Enalapril
on Mortality and
the Development
of HF in
Asymptomatic
Pts with Reduced
LVEF. The
SOLVD
Investigators.
NEJM 1992
(SOLVD
Prevention)
1463530 (90)
Aim of Study
Study
Type
Study
Size
Patient Population
Inclusion
Exclusion
Criteria
Criteria
Investigate
whether captopril
could reduce
morbidity and
mortality in pts
with LVSD after
an MI
RCT
2,331
Within 3-60 d of
MI; EF <40%; no
overt HF or
ischemic
symptoms; age
21-80 y;
Cr > 2.5 mg/dL;
relative
contraindication to
ACEI; need for
ACEI to treat
symptomatic HF or
HTN; other
conditions limiting
survival; "unstable
course" after MI
Study the effect
of an ACEI,
enalapril, on
outcomes in pts
with LVSD not
receiving drug
therapy for HF
RCT
4228
EF<35%; not
receiving
diuretics, digoxin
or vasodilators for
HF (asymptomatic
LVSD)
N/A
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Endpoints
Primary
Secondary
Endpoint
Endpoint
All-cause
mortality; CV
mortality;
mortality &
derease in EF of
9 units;
development of
overt HF (despite
diuretics and
digoxin therapy);
hospitalization for
HF; fatal or
nonfatal MI; mean
f/u 42 months
All-cause
mortality; mean
f/u 37.4 months
Statistical
Analysis
(Results)
P Values &
95% CI:
OR: HR:
RR:
Study
Limitations
Findings/
Comments
N/A
N/A
Risk Reduction:
All-cause mortality 19% (95%
CI: 3-32% p=0.019);
death from CV cause 21% (95%
CI: 5-35%; p<0.001);
development of severe HF 37%
(95% CI: 20-50%; p<0.001);
HF hospitalization 22% (95% CI:
4-37%; p= 0.019); recurrent MI
25% (95% CI: 5-40%; p=0.015)
Low rate of beta
blocker use;
Recruitment 19871990: significant
changes in
revascularization
strategies
Reduction in
severe HF and
HF
hospitalization
among pts with
MI and LVSD
without
symptoms of HF
Development of
HF & mortality; HF
hospitalization &
mortality
N/A
Risk Reduction:
All-cause mortality 8% (95% CI:
95% CI -8 - 21%; p=0.3); CV
mortality 12% (95% CI: -3 26%; p=0.12);
mortality & development of HF
29% (95% CI: 21-36%;
p<0.001);
mortality & HF hospitalization
20% (95% CI: 9-30%; p<0.001)
Low rate of betablocker use
Reduction in
combined
endpoints of
development of
HF & mortality
and HF
hospitalization
and mortality
among pts with
asymptomatic
LVSD
28 12-y follow-up of
SOLVD to
establish if the
mortality
reduction with
enalapril among
pts with HF was
sustained and
wheather
susequent
reduction in
mortality would
emerge among
those with
asymptomatic
ventricular
dysfunction
Cohort
5,165
SOLVED
prevention and
treatment trial
populations alive
at completion of
RCTs
N/A
All-cause
mortality
N/A
In combined trials
(Prevention and
Treatment),
enalapril
extended median
survival 9.4 mo
(95% CI 2.8-16.5;
p=0.004)
In the Prevention Trial mortality
50.9% in enalapril group vs.
56.4% in placebo group;
p=0.001.
In overall cohort, HR for
mortality 0.9 (0.84-0.95);
p=0.0003 for enalapril vs.
placebo
N/A
Mortality benefit
of enalapril
among pts with
asymptomatic
LVSD
Intensive Statin
Therapy and the
Risk of
Hospitalization
for HF After an
ACS in the
PROVE IT-TIMI
22 Study
Scirica, Benjamin
M
JACC
2006
16750703 (92)
Determine
whether
intensive satin
therapy reduces
hospitalization
for HF in high
risk pts (intensive
statin therapy
simvastatin 80
vs. moderate
statin therapy
pravastatin
40mg)
RCT
4,162
ACS (AMI or highrisk UA) within 10
d; total cholesterol
<240 mg/dL;
stable condition;
Life-expectancy <2
y; PCI within the
prior 6 mo (other
than for qualifying
event); CABG
within 2 mo;
planned CABG
Hospitalization for
HF (time to first
HF hospitalization
that occurred 30 d
or longer after
randomization)
MI
Meta-analysis of
4 large RCTs of
statin therapy
(TNT, A to Z,
IDEAL, PROVEIT) N=27,546
Reduction in HF
hospitalization:
OR: 0.73; 95%
CI: 0.63-0.84;
p<0.001 [x2 for
heterogeneity =
2.25, p=0.523)
Atorvastatin 80mg associated
with reduction in HF
hospitalization: 1.6% vs. 3.1%;
HR 0.55; 95% CI: 0.35-0.85;
p=0.008
when adjusted for history or
prior HF HR 0.55; 95% CI: 0.350.36; p=0.008
Sub-study of
PROVE IT-TIMI 22.
Did not exclude
those with prior HF
(low rates)
Early Intensive vs
a Delayed
Conservative
Simvastatin
Strategy in Pts
with ACS. Phase
Z of the A to Z
Trial.
To compare
early initiation of
an intensive
statin regimen
with delayed
initiation of a less
intensive
regimen in pts
RCT
4,479
STEMI or
NSTEMI; total
cholesterol ≤250
mg/dL; age 21-80;
at least 1 high-risk
characteristic
(>70, DM, hx of
CAD, PVD or
Receiving statin
therapy, planned
CABG, PCI
planned within 2
wks of enrollment,
ALT level >20%
ULN, Cr
>2.0mg/dL,
Composite: CV
death, non-fatal
MI, readmission
for ACS, stroke
Individual
components of
primary endpoint
and
reascularization
due to
documented
ischemia, all-cause
N/A
New onset HF reduced with
intensive therapy: 5% vs 3.7%;
HR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.53-0.98;
p=0.04
Primary endpoint did not
achieve significance: 16.7% vs
14.4%; HR 0.89; 95% CI: 0.761.04; p=0.14
Development of HF
was a secondary
endpoint
Did
not achieve primary
endpoint
In pts with ACS,
intensive statin
therapy reduced
new onset HF
Also perfomred
meta-analysis of
4 large statin
trials (2 ACS, 1
hx of MI, 1
clinically evident
CHD)
demonstrating
benefit of
intensive stating
therapy in
preventing HF
hospitalizaiton
In pts with ACS,
intensive statin
therapy reduced
new onset HF
Effect of enalapril
on 12-y survival
and life
expectancy in pts
with LVSD: a
follow-up study.
Jong, P
Lancet 2003
12788569 (91)
Statins
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 29 mortality, newconcomitant
stroke, elevated
onset HF
therapy with
CKMB or
(requiring
agents known to
trooponin levels,
medications or
enhance myopathy
recurrent angina
hospitalization),
with ST changes, risk; prior hx of
CV hosptialization
non-exercise
ECG evidence of
related elevations
ischemia on prein CK or
discharge stress
nontraumatic
test, multivessel
rhabdomyolysis
disease)
ACEI indicates angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; ACS acute coronary syndrome; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CABG, coronary artery bypass surgery; CAD, coronary artery disease; CHD, chronic heart disease;
CKMB, creatine kinase-MB; Cr, creatinine; CV, cardiovascular; DM, diabetes mellitus; ESG, electrocardiogram; EF, ejection fraction; f/u, follow-up; HF, heart failure; HTN, hypertension; hx, history; LVSD, left ventricular systolic dysfunction; LVD, left
ventricular dysfunction; MI, myocardial infarction; NSTEMI, non-ST elevation mysocardial infarction; PCI, Percutaneous coronary intervention; PROVE IT-TIMI 22, Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy -- Thrombolysis in Myocardial
Infarction 22; Pts, patients; PVD, Peripheral artery disease; RCT, randomized control trial; SAVE, The Survival and Ventricular Enlargement trial; SOVLD, Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction; STEMI, ST elevation myocardial infarction; UA, unstable angina;
and ULN, upper limit of normal.
de Lemos, James
A.
JAMA
2004
15337732 (93)
with ACS
Data Supplement 13. Stage C: Factors Associated With Outcomes, All Patients (Section 7.3)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Aim of Study
Study Type
Study
Size
Patient Population
Inclusion
Criteria
Endpoints
Exclusion
Criteria
Primary
Endpoint
Statistical Analysis (Results)
Secondary
Endpoint
Education
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 30 Study Limitations
Findings/Comments
Long-term
prospective RCT
using repetitive
education at 6-mo
intervals and
monitoring for the
adherence in HF
outpt (The
REMADHE Trial).
Bocchi, Edimar
Alcides. 2008
12196335 (94)
Effect of discharge
instructions on
readmission of
hospitalized pts with
HF: do all of the
joint commission on
accreditation of
healthcare
organizations HF
core measures
reflect better care?
VanSuch, M. 2006
17142589 (95)
To determine
whether a
disease
management
program with
repeated
multidisciplinary
education and
telephone
monitoring
benefits HF
outpt already
under the care
of a with HF
experience
cardiologist.
RCT
To determine
whether
documentation
of compliance
with any or all of
the 6 required
discharge
instructions is
correlated with
readmissions to
hospital or
mortality.
Retrospective
study
350
Hospitalization,
Combined death
or unplanned first
hospitalization
and QoL
changes
death and
adherence.
In the intervention group:
QoL improved and
Lower: deaths (p<0.003) or unplanned
hospitalizations (p=0.008; 95% CI:
0.43- 0.88) , hospitalizations(p<0.001) ,
total hospital d during follow-up
(p<0.001), and ED visits (p<0.001)
Absence of blinding.
Perception of better QoL in
the intervention group due
healthcare provider support
as needed. Confouding by
social conditions.
Despite modest adherence
program reduced unplanned
hospitalization, total hospital
d, the need for emergency
care and improved QoL.
Discharge instructions given
but not documented.
Discharge instructions could
be a surrogate indicator for
another intervention such as
higher quality nursing care.
Pt factor could have
influenced confounding
results.
Generalizability limited.
No active follow-up.
Not all quality of care
outcomes were assessed.
Documentation of discharge
information
and pt education appears to
be associated with reductions
in both mortality and
readmissions.
No difference in estimated total
mortality (p=ns; 95% CI: 0.55-1.13) or
death during hospitalization (p=ns;
95%CI: 0.53-1.41)
782
Age >18 y,
principal
diagnosis of HF,
hypertensive
heart disease
with HF, or
hypertensive
heart and renal
disease with HF,
discharged to
home, home
care or home
care with IV
treatment
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. N/A
Diagnosed with
HF
Pts discharged
to skilled
nursing facilities
or other acutecare hospitals.
N/A
Time to:
death and
readmission for
HF or
readmission for
any cause
68% of pts received all instructions, and
6% received no instructions.
Pts with all instructions (compared to
those who missed at least one type of
instruction) were significantly less likely
to be readmitted for any cause or HF
(p= 0.003)
Documentation of discharge
instructions was correlated with
reduced readmission rates.
No association between documentation
of discharge and instructions and
mortality.
31 Discharge
education improves
clinical outcomes in
pts with chronic HF.
Koelling, T. 2005
15642765 (96)
Effects of an
interactive CDprogram on 6 mo
readmission rate in
pts with HF- a RCT.
Linne, A. 2006
16796760 (97)
To assess
whether a pt
discharge
education
program (the
study
intervention)
improves clinical
outcomes in
chronic HF pts.
RCT
223
Admitted to
hospital with a
diagnosis of HF
and documented
left ventricular
systolic
dysfunction (EF
<40%)
Evaluation for
cardiac surgery,
Noncardiac
illness likely to
increase 6-mo
mortality or
hospitalization
risk, Inpatient
cardiac
transplantation
evaluation
Total number of d
hospitalized or
dead in the 180-d
follow-up period.
Clinical events,
symptoms, and
self-care practices.
The intervention group versus controls
had fewer d hospitalized or dead in the
180-d follow-up period (p= 0.009),
lower risk of rehospitalization or death
(RR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.45-0.93, p=
0.018), as well as lower costs of care,
including cost of the intervention (lower
by $2823 per pt, p= 0.035).
May not be generalizableonly 223 (38%) participated.
pts being evaluated for
transplantation not studied.
Pts followed by the UMHFP
not enrolled. Nurse
coordinator unblined. Lack of
reliability of self-reported
self-care measures.
A 1-h teaching session at the
time of hospital discharge
resulted in improved clinical
outcomes, increased selfcare and adherence, and
reduced cost of care in pts
with systolic HF.
To evaluate the
impact of added
CD-ROM
education on
readmission rate
or death during
6 mo.
RCT
230
Diagnosis of HF
(either LVEF <
40% by ECHO or
at least 2 of
these criteria:
pulmonary rates,
peripheral
edema, a 3rd
heart sound and
signs of HF on
chest x-ray).
Somatic
disease,
physical
handicap with
difficulty
communicating
or handling
technical
equipment,
inability to speak
Swedish,
incompliance
due to
alcohol/drug
abuse or major
psychiatric
illness,
Participation in
another trial
Difference in rate
of all cause
readmission and
death within 6 mo
after discharge.
N/A
Intervention group achieved better
knowledge and a marginally better
outcome (p=NS).
Only 37% completed
questionnaire, pts had to
come twice to the CD-based
education, first as inpts, then
2 wk after discharge.
Returning to the hospital may
have discouraged
participation,
especially in sicker pts.
Additional education of HF
pts with an interactive
program had no effect on
readmission rate or death
within 6 mo after discharge.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 32 Computer-based
education for pts
with chronic HF. A
randomized,
controlled,
multicenter trial of
the effects on
knowledge,
compliance and
QoL. Stromberg, A.
2006
16469469 (98)
Long-term result
after a telephone
intervention in
chronic HF.
Ferrante, D. 2010
20650358 (99)
HF selfmanagement
education: a
systematic review of
the evidence.
Boren, S. 2009
21631856 (100)
To evaluate the
effects of a
single-session,
interactive
computer-based
educational
program on
knowledge,
compliance and
QoL in HF pts.
To assess
gender
differences.
RCT
To assess rate
of death and
hospitalization
for HF 1 and 3 y
after a
randomized trial
of telephone
intervention with
education to
improve
compliance in
stable HF pts
with HF.
Follow-up after
a RCT
To identify
educational
content and
techniques that
lead to
successful selfmanagement
and improve
outcomes.
Systematic
review of RCTs
154
Diagnosis of HF
N/A
Knowledge of
HF, treatment
compliance, selfcare and QoL.
Computer-based group (intervention),
knowledge increased: After 1 mo: p=
0.07,
After 6 mo: p= 0.03
Data on knowledge collected
through questionnaire,
small sample size.
Computer-based education
increased knowledge about
HF compared to traditional
teaching alone.
Classification bias of events
due to open trial design.
Benefit observed during the
intervention period persisted
and was sustained 1 and 3 y
after the intervention ended.
This maybe due to the
intervention impact on pt
behavior and habits.
Unable to combine all the
results. Difficult to compare
interventions due to poor
descriptions, and lack of
transparency. All
interventions not
reproducible.
Review supports the benefits
of educational interventions
in chronic HF and suggests
that some topics are related
to certain outcomes.
Women: significantly lower QoL and did
not improve after 6 mo as men did (p=
0.0001).
No differences between groups in
compliance, self-care or QoL.
1,518
None specified
Outpt with
stable, chronic
HF
Long term benefits
Death and
hospitalization for
HF, 1 and 3 y
after intervention
ended.
Rate of death or hospitalization for HF
lower in the intervention group:
1 y: RR: 0.81; p= 0.013 95% CI: 0.690.96
3 y : RR: 0.72; p= 0.0004 95% CI:
0.60-0.87
Benefit caused by a reduction in
admission for HF after 3 y
Functional capacity better in
intervention group
Pts who showed improvement in 1 or
more of 3 key compliance indicators
(diet, weight control, and medication)
had lower risks of events (p< 0.0001).
7,413 pts
from 35
trials
Not randomized,
No control
group,
Not in English,
Failure to
identify the
content of the
program,
Providing similar
educational
content in all
study arms,
RCTs evaluating
a selfmanagement
education
program with
patient-specific
outcome
measures.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. None specified
N/A
Satisfaction,
learning, selfcare behavior,
medication,
clinical
improvement,
social
functioning,
hospital
admissions and
readmissions,
mortality, and
Programs incorporated 20 educational
topics in 4 categories- knowledge and
self-management, social interaction
and support, fluid management, and
diet and activity. 113 unique outcomes
were measured and 53% showed
significant improvement in at least one
study.
Education on: sodium restriction
associated with decreased mortality
(p=0.07), appropriate follow-up
associated with decreased cost
33 Effect of sequential
education and
monitoring program
on QoL components
in HF. Cruz, Fatima
das Dores. 2010
20670963 (101)
To determine if
a DMP applied
over the longterm could
produce
different effects
on each of the
QoL
components.
Retrospective
analysis
(Extension of
REMADHE
trial, a RCT)
412
Under
ambulatory care
in a tertiary
referral center
and followed by
a cardiologist
with experience
in HF.
Age >18
Irreversible HF
based on the
modified
Framingham
criteria for at
least 6-mo
Did not identify
educational
techniques
used,
Measured only
knowledge as
an outcome.
cost.
Unable to attend
educational
sessions or who
could not be
monitored due
to lack of
transportation,
or social or
communication
barriers,
MI or unstable
angina within
past 6 mo,
cardiac surgery
or angioplasty
within past 6
mo,
hospitalized or
recently
discharged,
any severe
systemic
disease that
could impair
expected
survival,
procedures that
could influence
follow-up,
pregnancy or
child-bearing
potential
Change in QoL
components
during follow-up
(p=0.10), management and recognition
of worsening function associated with
lower social functioning (p= 0.10).
Discussion of fluids associated with
increased hospitalization (p=0.01)
and increased cost (p=0.10).
Influence of the
QoL score at
baseline on pt
survival.
Social Support
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 34 Improved in the DMP intervention
group:
Global QoL scores: p<0.01
Physical component: p<0.01
Emotional component: p<0.01
QoL can be confounding.
Loss of data due to morality
during follow-up may have
influenced QoL scores.
Retrospective analysis of
quality of life components.
Improvement of QoL is a
fundamental target for the
success of treatment of pts
with HF. Specific components
of the QoL assessment can
behave differently over time
and should stimulate the
identification and
development of new
strategies and interventions.
Targeting male pts and the
emotional components of the
QoL assessment in DMPs
may be important in order to
achieve a greater early
improvement in QoL.
Long-term effect of
social relationships
on mortality in pts
with CHF. Murberg,
Terje. 2004
15666956 (102)
The importance and
impact of social
support on
outcomes in pts with
HF: An overview of
the literature. Luttik,
M.L. 2005
15870586 (103)
Social deprivation
increases cardiac
hospitalisations
in chronic HF
independent of
disease
severity and diuretic
non-adherence.
Struthers, A. 2000
10618326 (104)
To evaluate the
effects of social
relationships on
morality risk in
pts with stable,
symptomatic
HF.
Follow-up
study
119
Diagnosed with
HF
Unable to
complete
the
questionnaires
due to mental
debilitation,
previous heart
transplantation
Perceived social
support and
isolation.
N/A
Social isolation a significant predictor
of mortality (controlling for neuroticism,
HF severity, functional status, gender,
age): RR= 1.36; 95% CI: 1.04-1.78;
p<0.03
Small sample size
Perceived social
isolation an independent
predictor of mortality in HF
pts during a 6-y follow-up
period. Experience of social
isolation seems to be more
critical than lack of social
support.
To review the
literature on
what is
scientifically
known about the
impact of social
support on
outcomes in
pts with HF.
Review
17
studies
Studies that
investigated the
relationship
between social
support and
different
outcomes in HF.
None specified
Social support
and different
outcomes in HF
(readmission,
mortality, QoL
and depression).
N/A
4 studies found clear relationships
between social support and
rehospitalizations and mortality; the
relationship between QoL and
depression was less clear.
None noted
Social support is a strong
predictor of hospital
readmissions and mortality in
HF pts. Emotional support in
particular is important. Some
studies show that support is
also related to the prevalence
of depression and with
remission of major
depression in HF. Less
evidence to support a
relationship between social
support and QoL.
To examine
whether social
deprivation has
an independent
effect on
emergency
cardiac
hospitalization in
pts with chronic
HF.
Cohort study
478
Admitted with an
MI between
January 1989December 1992
and
subsequently
admitted for
chronic HF
between January
1989- December
1992, ≥3 diuretic
prescriptions had
to have been
dispensed
between January
1993- January
1994.
None specified
Emergency
hospital
admissions (all
causes and for
cardiac causes
only)
N/A
Social deprivation significantly
associated with an increase in the
number of cardiac hospitalizations
(p=0.007).
Assessed adherence by
whether pt had enough
tablets in the
house to cover the
appropriate time periodmeasuring pt’s maximum
possible level of adherence.
Poor adherence was
associated with being male
versus female but not with
age, social deprivation, or
diuretic dose. It is possible
that diuretics caused more
troublesome
urinary symptoms in men
because of prostatism,
leading to poorer adherence.
Social deprivation increases
the chance of
rehospitalization
independent of disease
severity. Possible
explanations are that doctors
who look after socially
deprived pts have a lower
threshold for cardiac
hospitalization or that social
deprivation alters the way a
HF pt accesses medical care
during decompensation.
Understanding how social
deprivation influences both
doctor and pt behavior in the
prehospital phase is crucial to
reduce the amplifying effect
that social deprivation has
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Effect mainly caused by increasing the
proportion of pts hospitalized in each
deprivation category. 26% in
deprivation category 1–2 vs. 40% in
deprivation category 5–6 (p= 0.03).
Effect of deprivation: independent of
disease severity (as judged by the
dose of prescribed diuretic), death
rate, and duration of each hospital
stay. Non-adherence with diuretic
treatment could not account for these
findings either.
35 cardiac hospitalizations.
Social support and
self-care in HF.
Gallager, R. 2011
21372734 (105)
To determine
the types of
social support
provided to HF
pts and the
impact
of differing
levels of social
support on HF
pts’ self-care
Crosssectional,
descriptive
(COACH substudy )
333
To explore how
comorbidity
influences HF
self-care
Qualitative
meta-analysis
99 pts
from 3
trials
N/A
Admitted to
hospital for HF at
least once
before the initial
hospitalization of
the original study
Age >18 y
NYHA II-IV;
evidence of
underlying
structural heart
disease
Undergone
cardiac surgery
or PCI in the
previous 6 mo,
or if these
procedures or
heart
transplantation
was planned,
Unable to
participate in the
COACH
intervention or
to complete the
data collection
forms
Self-care and
social support
Mixed method
studies.
Included pts with
HF with at least
1 comorbid
condition
None specified
Perceptions about
HF and HF selfcare
High level of support, compared to low
or moderate levels reported
significantly better self-care (p= .002)
High level of social support, compared
medium or low levels, significantly
more likely to: consult with a health
professional for weight gain (p= 0.011),
limit fluid intake (p= 0.02), take their
medication (p= 0.017), get a flu
shot(p= 0.001), and exercise on a
regular basis (p< 0.001).
Secondary analysis. Social
support not prespecified in
COACH trial.
The measure and categories
of social support have not
been used previously either
separately or as a composite
measure.
It is likely that other important
factors influence HF self-care
behavior as the multivariate
model was not adequate.
The presence of social
support by a partner is not
sufficient to influence HF pts’
self-care. Social support
provided by partners needs
to be of a quality and content
that matches HF pts’
perception of need to
influence self-care.
Generalizability limited due to
homogeneous sample.
Interpretation of findings
relied on interview data
available from the primary
studies.
Findings may be baised
because samples were
recruited from HF specialty
settings, possibly better
managed clinically than
community samples.
Individuals with multiple
chronic conditions are
vulnerable to poor self-care
because of difficulties
prioritizing and integrating
multiple protocols. Adherence
to a low-salt diet, symptom
monitoring, and differentiating
symptoms of HF from other
chronic conditions are
particularly challenging.
Difficulty integrating self-care
of different diseases and
fragmented instructions
regarding those conditions
may contribute to poor
outcomes.
Comorbidities
A qualitative metaanalysis of HF selfcare practices
among individuals
with multiple
comorbid
conditions. Dickson,
V. 2011
N/A
Narrative accounts revealed the most
challenging self-care skills: adherence
to diet, symptom monitoring, and
differentiating symptoms of multiple
conditions.
Emerging themes included: 1)
attitudes drive self-care prioritization
and 2) fragmented self-care instruction
leads to poor self-care integration and
self-care skill deficits.
21549299 (106)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 36 Psychiatric
comorbidity and
greater
hospitalization risk,
longer length of stay
and higher
hospitalization costs
in older adults with
HF. Sayers, Steven.
2007
To explore
associations
between
psychiatric
comorbidity and
rehospitalization
risk, length of
hospitalization,
and costs in
adults with HF.
Cohort study
21429
Medicare
beneficiaries
hospitalized
during 1999.
Psychiatric
comorbidity and
rehospitalization risk,
length of
hospitalization, and
costs.
HF was not a
primary cause of
any admission
during 1999,
Comorbid
dementia or
organic brain
syndrome
diagnosis
N/A
Overall, 15.8% of pts hospitalized for
HF had a coded psychiatric
comorbidity.
Most commonly coded comorbid
psychiatric disorder was depression
(8.5% of the sample) (p< 0.001).
Most forms of psychiatric comorbidity
were associated with greater inpatient
utilization, including risk of additional
hospitalizations, d of stay, and
hospitalization charges (p< 0.001).
17714458 (107)
Claims usage based
administrative data.
Information unavailable
regarding the severity of HF
in the sample.
The possibility that outcomes
may be worse for pts with
coded comorbid psychiatric
diagnoses
as opposed to the presence
of the conditions themselves
cannot be excluded. Crosssectional design.
Psychiatric comorbidity
appears in a significant
minority of pts hospitalized
for HF and may affect their
clinical and economic
outcomes. The associations
between psychiatric
comorbidity and use of
inpatient care are likely to be
underestimated because
psychiatric illness is known to
be under detected in older
adults and in hospitalized
medical pts.
Drug regimens defined to
make comparisons within
levels of similar treatment
intensity possible.
Adherence rates depend on
the indicators used.
Pt characteristics have a
clear impact on prescribing in
European primary care. Up to
56% of drug regimens were
rational, taking pt
characteristics into account.
Situations of insufficient
prescribing, such as pts post
MI, need to be addressed
specifically.
Additional hospitalization costs
associated with psychiatric comorbidity
ranged up to $7,763, and additional
length of stay ranged up to 1.4 d (p<
0.001).
The relevance of
comorbidities for HF
treatment in primary
care: A European
survey. Sturm, H.
2006
16084761 (108)
To determine
the impact of pt
characteristics
and
comorbidities on
chronic HF
management,
and to identify
areas of
prescribing that
could be
improved.
Descriptive
study
11,062
None specified
Diagnosis of
chronic HF
and/or a history
of MI during a 2mo period in
1999
Influence of pt
characteristics on
drug regimens
Combined drug regimens given to 48%
of HF pts (2.2 drugs on average). Pt
characteristics accounted for 35%,
42% and 10% of the variance in 1-, 2and 3-drug regimens, respectively.
MI, AF, DM, HTN, and lung disease
influenced prescribing most (OR=1.3;
95% CI: 1.2-1.4)
AF made all combinations containing
beta blockers more likely.
For single drug regimes, MI increased
the likelihood of non-recommended
beta blocker monotherapy while for
combination therapy, recommended
regimes were most likely.
For both HTN and DM, ACEI were the
most likely single drug, while the most
likely second drugs were beta blockers
in HTN and digoxin in DM.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 37 Frequent noncardiac
comorbidities in pts
with chronic HF.
Dahlstrom, Ulf.
2005
15718170 (109)
To discuss in
more detail the
impact of coexisting
HTN, DM,
COPD in pts
with HF.
Review
37
studies
None specified
None specified
N/A
N/A
About 50% of pts with untreated HTN
will develop HF. Pressure overload
leads to the development of LV
hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction.
No limitations addressed.
DM occurs in about 20–30% of pts
with HF.
COPD occurs in approximately 20–
30% of HF pts.
Anemia occurs in 20–30% of HF pts
and is associated with functional
impairment and increased mortality
and morbidity. Combined treatment
with erythropoietin and intravenous
iron has shown beneficial effects on
clinical symptoms and morbidity.
This review of the literature
clearly demonstrates that
noncardiac comorbidities are
common in pts with HF and
that it is important to
recognize these conditions
and
take them into consideration
when selecting treatment for
these pts. Appropriate
treatment of the HF as well
as the concomitant diseases
will improve the prognosis of
these pts.
ACEI indicates angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; AF, atrial fibrillation; CHF, congestive heart failure; COACH, Community Outreach and Cardiovascular Health; DM, diabetes mellitus; DMP, disease management program; ECHO, echocardiogram; ED,
emergency department; EF, ejection fraction; HF, heart failure; HTN, hypertension; IV, intravenous; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MI, myocardial infarction; N/A, not applicable; NS, not significant; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PCI; percutaneous
coronary intervention; pts, patients; QoL, quality of life; RCT, randomized control trial; REHMADE, Repetitive Education at Six-Month Intervals and Monitoring for Adherence in Heart Failure; UMHFP, University of Michigan Heart Failure Program
Data Supplement 14. Nonadherence (Section 7.3.1.1)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Aim of Study
Study Type
Study
Size
Patient Population
Inclusion
Criteria
Endpoints
Exclusion
Criteria
Primary
Endpoint
Secondary
Endpoint
Noncompliance
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 38 Statistical Analysis (Results)
Study Limitations
Findings/
Comments
Use of telehealth by
older adults to
manage HF. Dansky,
K. 2008
20078015 (110)
To investigate the
influence of telehealth
on self-management of
HF in older adults.
RCT
Characteristics and
inhospital outcomes
for nonadherent pts
with HF: findings
from GWTG-HF.
Ambardekar, A. 2009
19781426 (111)
To determine the
characteristics,
treatments, quality of
care, and inhospital
outcomes of pts
nonadherent to dietary
and medication advice
as precipitating factors
for HF hospitalization.
Cohort study
284
54,322
Admitted to a
home health
agency,
Primary or
secondary
diagnosis of HF
None specified
Ages >18, pts
reported in the
GWTG-HF
database from
January 1, 2005December 30,
2007
Pts with new
diagnoses of HF
Self-management
of HF.
N/A
Confidence is a predictor of selfmanagement behaviors.
Pts using a video-based telehealth
system showed the greatest gain
in confidence levels with time (p=
0.035).
2 groups: Those
in whom
nonadherence
contributed to HF
admission and
those without
nonadherence.
Hospital outcomes
and quality of care
among
nonadherent pts
vs. those who were
adherent.
Multivariate analysis of
characteristics of nonadherence:
Younger age (per y decrease)
p<0.0001; 95% CI: 1.019-1.026;
Male gender (vs. female)
p<0.0001; 95% CI: (1.196-1.358);
Nonwhite race (vs. white)
p<0.0001; 95% CI: 1.358-1.632
No health insurance (vs.
insurance)
p<0.0001; 95% CI: 1.236-1.633
Multivariate analysis of outcomes
with vs. without nonadherence:
Mortality 1.55% v. 3.49%;
p<0.0001 95% CI: 0.51-0.86
Mean length of stay 4.99 d vs. 5.63
p= 0.0017; 95% CI: 0.92-0.97
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 39 Small sample size.
The home health agencies may
have limited the external
validity of the study.
Examination of the effects of
the telehealth interventions on
specific behaviors was not
possible.
Confidence is a
positive predictor of
self-management,
which should
encourage the
development of
interventions that
focus on building selfcare confidence in HF
pts. These results
contradict the
stereotype that older
adults are unable or
unwilling to use
technology.
Rates of nonadherence may be
underestimated due to self
reporting and biased based on
pt characteristics. GWTG-HF is
a voluntary program so could
over-represent high-performing
hospitals. Data collected by
chart reviews, only in-hospital
measures were tracked so long
term follow-up unknown.
Nonadherence is a
common precipitant
for HF admission.
Medication
nonadherence
greater in younger
pts, ethnic minorities
and uninsured
whereas dietary
nonadherence was
observed in older,
overweight and
diabetic pts.
Nonadherent pts
present with evidence
of lower EF and
greater volume
overload yet have an
inhospital course
characterized by a
shorter LOS and
lower mortality. Care
of nonadherent pts
conformed with Joint
Commission core
measures but at
lower rates with other
guideline-based
therapies.
Utilization of and
adherence to drug
therapy among
Medicaid
beneficiaries with
CHF. Bagchi, A.
2007
17919558 (112)
To determine the
number of Medicaid
beneficiaries with HF,
identify the rate of HF
drug use, estimate
adherence rates,
examine factors
associated with HF
drug use and treatment
adherence, and explore
policy implications.
N/A
45,572
Living in
Arkansas,
California, Indiana
or New Jersey,
enrolled in fee-for
service Medicaid
with pharmacy
benefit coverage
during 1998 and
1999 or until
death
HF (hospitalized
and diagnosed
during 1998 or
diagnosed on ≥ 2
ambulatory visits
during 1998)
Stays in nursing
home facilities at
any time during
1999
Adherence based
on:
MPR (no. of d a pt
is supplied with
>1 HF drug in
relation to the no.
of dbetween the
pt's first and last
prescription
dates),
MP (no.of d of
continuous use of
HF medications
per mo)
N/A
Odds of having a HF prescription
claim were higher with people:
Age 65-74 vs. <65:
p<0.01; 95% CI: 1.193- 1.344
Age 75-84 vs. <65:
p<0.01; 95% CI: 1.458- 1.676
Age >85 vs. <65:
p<0.01; 95% CI: 1.162, 1.353
Dual Eligible :
p<0.01; 95% CI: 1.466-1.580
Disabled:
p<0.01; 95% CI: 1.388-1.537
Had CAD :
p<0.01; 95% CI: 3.309-3.676
Had DM:
p<0.01 95% CI: 2.085- 2.284
Hospitalized for HF in 1998:
p<0.01; 95% CI: 1.579-1.701
Odds of having a HF prescription
claim were lower among Blacks vs. whites:
p<0.01; 95% CI: 0.735-0.795
Other /unknown ethnic group vs.
whites:
p<0.01 95% CI: 0.840,-0.919
Men vs. women:
p<0.01 95% CI: 0.722-0.775
Adherence better among age >85
y than <64 y, men than women,
racial and ethnic minorities, dual
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 40 Measures of use and
adherence are proxies based
on prescriptions filled versus
observations; findings may
overestimate adherence to HF
medications.
Diagnoses recorded in claims
may be incomplete, resulting in
the omission of some pts from
the study.
Limited number of states may
lead to biased results if
Medicaid beneficiaries in study
states are different than other
states.
15.2% of diagnosed
beneficiaries were not
using any HF
medications. Adults
<65 y, men, ethnic
minorities with
hospital admissions
for conditions other
than HF, and
beneficiaries with
high CDPS scores
had lower adherence.
eligible and disabled, those with
CAD or DM, those with HF related
hospitalization (p<0.01).
Adherence lower among those with
larger proportions of claims for
generic HF drugs, higher CDPS
risk scores and those with non-HFrelated Hospitalizations (p<0.01).
Drug copayment and
adherence in chronic
HF: effect on cost
and outcomes. Cole,
A. 2006
16863491 (113)
To measure the
associations among
prescription copayment,
drug adherence and
subsequent health
outcomes in pts with HF
Retrospective
Cohort Study
5,259
receiving
ACE
inhibitor
5,144
receiving
Beta
Blockers
2,373
receiving
both
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. In Ingenix
Research Data
Mart, diagnosed
with HF, and
enrolled in
commercial
and/or Medicare
supplemental
plans in 2002;
≥2 physician
visits or
hospitalizations
related to HF in
2002;
$100-10,000 in
costs associated
with HF
diagnoses in
2002;
continuously
enrolled in health
plan for all of
2002 and at least
1 d in 2003.
ACEI and/or beta
blockers
dispensed at least
twice.
Receiving 1
dispensing of
ACEI,
receiving 1
dispensing of beta
blockers, had
switched ACEI,
had switched beta
blockers, MPR
<20% or >120%,
had conflicting
data in their
dispensing
records
Total cost of
health care and
hospitalization for
HF MPR:
proportion of d a
pt was exposed to
a drug while
receiving a
regimen
N/A
For pts taking ACEI, a $10
increase in copayment was
associated with a 2.6% decrease
in MPR (95% CI: 2.0 - 3.1%)
This change in adherence was
associated with:
a predicted 0.8% decrease in
medical costs (95 %CI: -4.2 2.5%)
a predicted 6.1% increase in the
risk of hospitalization for chronic
HF (95% CI: 0.5 - 12%).
For pts taking beta blockers, a $10
increase in copayment was
associated with a 1.8% decrease
in MPR (95% CI: 1.4 - 2.2%)
This change in adherence was
associated with:
a predicted 2.8% decrease in
medical costs (95% CI: -5.9 0.1%).
a predicted 8.7% increase in the
risk of hospitalization for chronic
HF (95% CI: 3.8 - 13.8%)
41 Using prescription dispensing
data to assess drug adherence
eliminates pts to whom a drug
is dispensed only once so may
have contributed to high
adherence observed.
Dispensing data does not
capture actual usage.
ACEI more expensive than
beta blockers resulting in
higher copayment.
Total medical costs might have
been insensitive to specific
changes in adherence to HF
therapies.
Among pts with HF,
higher drug
copayments were
associated with
poorer adherence,
although the
magnitude of change
was small and did not
affect total health
care costs. It was
sufficient to increase
risk of hospitalization
for HF though.
The impact of
perceived adverse
effects on medication
changes in HF pts.
De Smedt, R. 2010
20142025 (114)
To evaluate the impact
of perceived adverse
HF drug effects
Retrospective
Cohort Study
754
Hospitalized for
symptomatic HF
NYHA class II-IV
Age >18
Evidence of
structural
underlying heart
disease
Invasive
procedures in the
mo before or
planned within 3
mo after baseline
Already enrolled in
other studies
Follow-up
treatment at
another HF clinic
Risk of a related medication
change significantly increased after
dry cough, nausea, dizziness, or
diarrhea. Dry cough showing the
highest increase in risk (83%; 95%
CI: 1.35-2.49)
Impact of
perceived adverse
effects on
likelihood and
type of changes of
potential causal
cardiovascular
medication &
initiation of
medication to
alleviate the
adverse effect.
Pts with gout had a 4-fold higher
likelihood of having alleviating
medication started or intensified
(95% CI: 2.23-8.05)
Cannot be certain that the
reported problems resulted
from medication. Focused on
specific medication changes
and did not take all possible
adequate actions into account.
Recall bias possible- pts may
not have reported all perceived
problems in the questionnaires.
A considerable
number of HF pts
perceived possible
AEs. The likelihood of
medication being
changed after pts
perceived AEs was
low. A high number of
pts perceive
medication AE.
Errors and omissions in the
medical chart review process
could have occurred.
NYHA functional status was not
quantified in many of the
records, and was instead
based on qualitative
description. This study
analyzed medications
prescribed rather than actual pt
adherence. Follow-up on vital
status was not achieved for all
pts. Race/ethnicity,
socioeconomic status or pt
adherence may be confounding
variables. Findings may not
apply to practices that differ
from the IMPROVE HF outpt
cardiology practices in this
These data
demonstrate that
adherence to HF
process measures for
ACEI/ARB, beta
blocker,
anticoagulation for
AF, and HF education
is significantly
associated with
survival in outpts with
HF. These HF
measures may be
useful for assessing
and improving HF
care.
With dry cough, a 10-fold increase
in the likelihood of having ACE
inhibitor switched to an ARB (95%
CI: 3.2-35.55)
Pts with gout had a 3-fold higher
likelihood of having diuretics
temporarily discontinued and
reinitiated at a lower dosage (95%
CI: 1.09-10.04)
Associations
between outpt HF
process-of-care
measures and
mortality. Fonarow,
G. 2011
21464053 (115)
To examine the
relationships
between adherence to
several current and
emerging
outpt HF process
measures and clinical
outcomes.
Longitudinal/
Registry
15,177
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Clinical diagnosis
of HF or post-MI,
LVEF <35%, ≥2
office visits with a
cardiologist in the
last 2 y
Noncardiovascular
medical condition
associated with an
estimated survival
of <1 y, received
cardiac
transplantation
Each 10% improvement in
composite care was associated
with a 13% lower odds of 24-mo
mortality (p <0.0001; 95% CI: 0.840.90)
Process-of-care
HF measures:
ACE inhibitor or
ARB use, beta
blocker use,
aldosterone
antagonist use,
anticoagulant
therapy for AF or
flutter, CRT with
defibrillator or
pacemaker, ICD,
and HF education
for eligible pts.
All process measures, except
aldosterone antagonist use, were
each independently associated
with improved 24-mo survival (p
<0.01 for all except aldosterone
antagonist use).
42 study.
A nurse-based
management
program in HF pts
affects females and
persons with
cognitive dysfunction
most. Karlsson, M.
2005
16009290 (116)
To assess the effect of
a nurse-based
management program
aimed at increasing HF
pts' knowledge about
disease and self-care
and to relate the results
to gender and cognitive
function.
Substudy of
the OPTIMAL
project- a
RCT
208
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. None specified
Age >60
Systolic
dysfunction
EF <45%
NYHA II-IV
Pt knowledge of
HF and self-care.
N/A
At baseline men knew more about
HF compared to women (p<0.01).
Females in the intervention group
increased their knowledge of selfcare between baseline and 6 mo
compared to the female control
group (p <0.05).
Pts with cognitive dysfunction
(MMSE <24) presented lower
scores on knowledge as compared
to those with a MMSE of >24 at
baseline. These differences
disappeared after the intervention
(p<0.01).
43 Some pts were included one d
after hospitalization and
some the d before discharge;
condition improvement may
explain low number of pts
scoring low on the MMSE; The
drop-out rate was high in the
MMSE sub-study.
Nurse-based outpt
clinic with specially
trained nurses
effective in increasing
pt knowledge about
self-care. Females
and those with
cognitive impairment
gain from such
programs.
Pharmacist
intervention to
improve medication
adherence in HF.
Murray, M. 2007
10030506
(117)
To determine whether a
pharmacist intervention
improves medication
adherence and health
outcomes compared
with usual care for lowincome pts with HF.
RCT
314
Age >50 y,
confirmed
diagnosis of HF,
regularly used at
least 1 CV
medication for
HF, not using or
not planning to
use a medication
container
adherence aid,
access to a
working
telephone, and
adequate hearing
Dementia
Medication
adherence
(tracked by using
electronic
monitors) and
clinical
exacerbations that
required visits to
the ED or
hospitalization.
Health-related
QoL, satisfaction
with pharmacy
services, and total
direct health care
costs.
Medication adherence greater in
the intervention group 78.8% vs.
67.9% usual care group (95% CI:
5.0-16.7).
At 3 mo, adherence decreased
70.6% in intervention and 66.7 in
usual care (95% CI: -5.9-6.5).
Medications were taken on
schedule 47.2% in the usual care
and 53.1% in the intervention
group (95%CI: 0.4-11.5).
Pts were not permitted to use
medication container
adherence aids.
Intervention involved 1
pharmacist and a single study
site that served a large,
indigent, inner-city population
of pts.
Because the intervention had
several components, results
could not be attributed to a
single component.
A pharmacist
intervention for outpts
with HF can improve
adherence to
cardiovascular
medications and
decrease health care
use and costs, but
the benefit probably
requires
constant intervention
because the effect
dissipates when the
intervention ceases.
Results cannot be extrapolated
to all HF pts since the study
included pts discharged from a
cardiology service, who are
usually younger and with fewer
co-morbidities.
This intervention can
reduce HF morbidity
and mortality and
improve quality of life
but favorable effects
decrease after
program ends. Longterm programs are
required to maintain
beneficial effects.
At the end of intervention, taking of
medication on schedule decreased
48.9% for usual care and 48.6% in
intervention (95% CI: -5.9-6.5)
ED visits and hospital admissions
were 19.4% less in the intervention
group (95% CI: 0.73-0.93).
Annual direct health care costs
were lower in the intervention
group (95% CI: $-7603-$1338)
Short and long-term
results of a program
for the prevention of
readmissions and
mortality in pts with
HF: are effects
maintained after
stopping the
program? Ojeda, S.
2005
16051519
(118)
To evaluate whether
improvement obtained
during an intervention
program were
maintained after the
program was stopped.
RCT
153
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Discharged with a
primary diagnosis
of HF from the
hospital
cardiology ward.
Terminal disease,
expected survival
<6 mo, possibility
of specific etiology
treatment, wait list
for heart
transplant
Decrease in
readmissions due
to HF and in allcause mortality
event-free
survival, defined
on the basis of
time to death or
HF readmission.
Changes in
pharmacological
treatment and
changes in quality
of life MLHFQ
During the 16 +8 mo treatment
period, intervention group had:
Lower rate of HF readmissions
(p <0.01), and Less all-cause
mortality Improvement in QoL
(p=0.03)
1 y after the intervention, there
were no differences between the
groups (p=0.03).
44 Excessive daytime
sleepiness is
associated with poor
medication
adherence in adults
with HF. Riegel, et al
2011
21440873 (119)
To determine if
medication adherence
differs in adults with HF
and EDS compared to
those without EDS and
to test cognition as the
mechanism of the
effect.
Prospective
cohort
comparison
study
280
Chronic stage C
HF confirmed,
able to complete
the protocol
(vision, hearing,
English literacy),
no more than mild
cognitive
impairment
Living in a long
term care setting,
working nights or
rotating shifts,
renal failure
requiring dialysis,
imminently
terminal illness,
plans to move out
of the area, history
of serious drug or
alcohol abuse in
prior y, major
depression
Self-reported
medication
adherence
Cognition
measured with a
battery of
neuropsychological
tests
62% were nonadherent with
medication regimen.
Medication nonadherence was
significantly more common in those
with EDS
Subjects with EDS and cognitive
decline were >2 times more likely
to be nonadherent (aOR 2.36,
95%CI: 1.12-4.99; p=.033).
Secondary models using the
Epworth Sleepiness score:
The odds of nonadherence
increased by 11% for each unit
increase in ED (aOR 1.11, 95%CI:
1.04-1.19; p=.025).
Subjects with EDS and mild
cognitive decline were 1.6 times
more likely to be nonadherent over
6 mo follow-up (aOR 1.61; 95%CI:
1-03-2.50; p=.001).
The group with EDS but without
cognitive decline was twice as
likely to be nonadherent (p=.014).
9% increase in the odds of
nonadherence for each unit
increase in EDS (p=.001).
Lack of cognitive vigilance
associated with nonadherence.
(p=.024)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 45 Medication adherence was
self-reported.
HF pts who are
sleepy have difficulty
paying attention and
thus forget to take
their medications.
Compliance with nonpharmacological
recommendations
and outcome in HF
pts, van der Wal et
al, 2010
20436049 (120)
To investigate the
association between
compliance with nonpharmacological
recommendations (diet,
fluid restriction,
weighing, exercise) and
outcome in pts with HF.
Secondary
analysis of
data from the
COACH trial
830
Recently
hospitalized for
symptomatic HF,
confirmed by the
cardiologist, with
evidence for
underlying heart
disease.
Nonpharmacologic
Measures and Drug
Compliance in Pts
with HF: Data from
the EuroHF Survey,
Lainscak et al, 2007
17378994 (121)
To describe the recall of
and adherence to
nonpharmacologic
advice of pts enrolled in
the European HF
Survey
Descriptive
survey of pts
from 115
hospitals
from 24
European
countries
2,331
Clinical diagnosis
of HF
Invasive
intervention within
the last 6 mo or
planned for the
next 3 mo,
inclusion in
another study with
additional visits to
provider, or
evaluation of CTX.
Composite of
death or HF
readmission and
the number of
unfavorable d.
mortality and
readmission for HF
Self-reported
adherence to
nonpharmacologic
advice
Pts non-compliant with ≥1
recommendations had a higher risk
of mortality or HF readmission
(p=0.01).
Non-compliance with exercise was
associated with an increased risk
for mortality or HF readmission
(p<0.01).
Non-compliance with daily
weighing was associated with an
increased risk of mortality (p=0.02).
Non-compliance (overall) and noncompliance with exercise were
associated with a higher risk for HF
readmission (p<0.05).
Pts who were overall noncompliant or with weighing and
exercise had more unfavourable d
than compliant pts (p= 0.01).
Almost half had a first
diagnosis of HF during the
index hospitalization and then
compliance was evaluated 1
mo after discharge, which
could have influenced rates.
'Unfavorable d' difficult to
evaluate. Self-report instrument
used to measure compliance.
Socially desirable responses
possible.
HF pts who follow
prescribed
nonpharmacologic
therapy have better
outcomes than those
who do not. Exercise
and monitoring of
daily weights are
particularly important.
After hospitalization for HF, pts
recalled receiving 4.1 ± 2.7 items
of advice with some regional
differences. Recall of dietary
advice was higher (63%) than for
influenza vaccination (36%) and
avoidance of NSAIDS (17%).
Among those who recalled the
advice, many did not follow it
completely (cholesterol and fat
intake 61%; dietary salt 63%;
influenza vaccination 75%;
avoidance of NSAIDS 80%). A few
indicated they ignored the advice
completely. Pts who recalled >4
items versus <4 items were
younger and more often received
ACE-I (71% vs 62%), beta
blockers (51% vs 38%), and
spironolactone (25% vs 21%).
Younger pts who were more
mobile and had greater social
support were more likely to
attend interview. Possible
response bias.
Younger age and
prescription of
appropriate
pharmacologic
treatment are
associated with
higher rates of recall
and implementation.
ACEI indicates angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; AE, adverse event; AF, atrial fibrillation; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; CAD, coronary artery disease; CDPS, Chronic illness and disability payment system; CHF, congestive heart failure; COACH,
Community Outreach and Cardiovascular Health; CTX, chest x-ray; CRT, Cardiac resynchronization therapy; CV, cardiovascular; DM, diabetes mellitus; ED, emergency department; EDS, excessive daytime sleepiness; EF, ejection fraction; GWTG-HF; Get
with the Guidelines-Heart Failure; HF, heart failure; ICD, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; IMPROVE-HF, The Registry to Improve the Use of Evidence-Based Heart Failure Therapies in the Outpatient Setting; LOS, length of stay; LVEF, left ventricular
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 46 ejection fraction; MI, myocardial infarction; MLHFQ, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire; MMSE, Mini Mental State Examination; MP, Medication Persistence; MPR, medication possession ratio, N/A, not applicable; NSAID, nonsteroidal
antiinflammatory drugs; NYHA, New York Heart Association; OPTIMAL, optimising congestive heart failure outpatient clinic project; pts, patients; QoL, quality of life; and RCT, randomized clinical trial.
Data Supplement 15. Treatment of Sleep Disorders (Section 7.3.1.4)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Aim of study
Study
Type
Study
Size
Patient Population
Inclusion Criteria
Continuous positive
airway pressure for
central sleep apnea
and HF (CANPAP).
Bradley, T.D. et al
2005
16282177 (122)
Suppresion CSA by
CPAP and transplantfree survival in HF.
Arzt, M. 2007
17562959 (123)
To test the
hypothesis that
long-term
treatment of CSA
with CPAP in HF
pts receiving
optimal medical
therapy reduces
the combined
rates of death and
heart transplant.
To investigate
whether
suppression of
CSA below
threshold by
CPAP would
improve LVEF and
heart transplant–
free survival.
Exclusion
Criteria
Primary Endpoint
Statistical Analysis
(Results)
Study Limitations
Findings/
Comments
Secondary
Endpoint
11 center
RCT
258
18-79 y, NYHA II-IV, HF
due to ischemia, HTN, or
idiopathic DCM, stable
condition, optimal
medical therapy for 1+
mo, LVEF <40%, CSA
with ≥15 apneahypopnea index (AHI)
and >50% of AHI had to
be central.
Pregnancy, MI,
USA, cardiac
surgery within
prior 3 mo, OSA
Death and heart
transplantation
Hospitalizations,
EF, exercise
capacity, QoL,
neurohormones
No difference between control
(n=130) and CPAP (n=128)
groups in number of
hospitalizations, QoL, ANP
levels. No difference in overall
event rates (p=0.54).
Underpowered
because trial stopped
early for low
enrollment
CPAP did not extend
life, decrease
transplant rate in CSA
but may be indicated
for OSA.
Post-hoc
analysis of a
randomized
trial.
210
Age 18 to 79 y,
NYHA II-IV
HF due to ischemic,
hypertensive, or
idiopathic DCM,
stabilized with optimal
medical therapy for at
least 1 month
LVEF <40%,
Central sleep apnea
Pregnancy,
MI, Unstable
angina, cardiac
surgery within 3
mo of enrollment,
OSA
Combined rate of allcause mortality or heart
transplantation
Apnea-hypopnea
index (AHI) mean
nocturnal SaO2,
and LVEF
Despite similar CPAP pressure
and hours of use in the 2 groups,
CPAP-CSA– suppressed
subjects, compared to controls,
experienced:
A greater increase in LVEF at 3
mo (p=0.001)
Stratification of
CPAP-treated pts
based on
polysomnogram
performed 3 mo after
randomization.
Because suppressed
and unsuppressed
status could not be
ascertained until
completion of PSG,
events that occurred
during the first 3 mo
could not be
included; more
deaths occurred in
the pts randomized to
CPAP than control (5
vs. 3).
The CPAP-CSA–
These results suggest
that in HF pts, CPAP
may improve both
LVEF and heart
transplant–free
survival if CSA is
suppressed soon after
it begins.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Endpoints
Significantly better transplantfree survival (HR: 0.37; 95% CI:
0.142-0.967; p=0.043)
47 Effect of continuous
positive airway
pressure on sleep
structure in heart
failure pts with central
sleep apnea.
Ruttanaumpawan, P.
2009
19189783 (124)
To determine
whether
attenuation of CSA
by CPAP in pts
with HF reduces
the frequency of
arousals from
sleep or improves
sleep structure.
RCT
Relationship between
beta blocker treatment
and the severity of
CSA in chronic HF.
Tamura, A. 2007
17218566 (125)
To examine the
relationship
between use of
beta blockers and
the severity
of CSA in HF.
Cohort study
Influence of CRT on
different types of SDB.
Oldenburg, O. 2007
17467333 (126)
To investigate the
influence of CRT
on SDB in pts with
severe HF.
Prospective
nonrandomized
study
205
45
77
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Age 18 to 79 y;
NYHA II -IV
HF due to ischemic,
hypertensive,
oridiopathic DCM,
stabilized on optimal
medical therapy ≥ 1 mo,
LVEF <40% by
radionuclide
angiography, CSA
defined as an AHI ≥ 15,
with >50% of apneas
and hypopneas central
in nature
Pregnancy,
MI,
UA or cardiac
surgery within 3
mo of enrollment,
obstructive sleep
apnea
Apnea-hypopnea index
and frequency of
arousals.
N/A
Chronic HF NYHA II-III
LVEF <50%.
Previous
cerebrovascular
disease,
Recent (<6 mo)
acute coronary
syndrome,
chronic
respiratory
disease
Polysomnography,
echocardiography,
plasma BNP levels
N/A
Eligible for CRT,
present with dyspnea,
NYHA III-IV
LBBB with QRS ≥150
None specified.
In controls, there no change in
AHI or frequency of arousals.
In CPAP group, AHI decreased
significantly but neither the
frequency of arousals nor sleep
structure changed significantly
(p<0.001).
Pts receiving beta blockers
compared to pts not receiving
beta blockers had:
lower AHI, lower CAI.
Negatively correlated with the
dose of carvedilol were: AHI
CAI
suppressed group
was younger, had a
lower AHI, and had a
slightly lower
proportion of central
events than the
CPAP CSA–
unsuppressed group
Did not classify
arousals as being
respiratory or nonrespiratory related,
and did not examine
their timing.
Small sample size.
Did not measure
central
chemosensitivity to
CO2.
In pts with chronic HF,
CAI was lower
according to the dose
of beta blockers. No
use of beta blockers
was independently
associated with CAI. 6
mo of treatment with
carvedilol decreased
CAI. These results
suggest that beta
blocker therapy may
dose-dependently
suppress CSA in pts
with chronic HF.
Categorization of
hemodynamic
response based on a
novel scoring system
In pts with severe HF
eligible for CRT, CSA
is common and can be
influenced by CRT.
Multiple regression analysis
selected no use of beta blockers
as an independent factor of CAI.
Cardiorespiratory
polygraphy. NYHA
class, frequency of
nycturia,
48 N/A
In 5 pts with CAI >5 who
underwent serial sleep studies,
CAI decreased significantly after
6 mo of treatment with
carvedilol.
CSA was documented in 36
(47%) pts, OSA in 26 (34%), and
no SDB in 15 (19%).
Attenuation of CSA by
CPAP does not reduce
arousal frequency in
HF pts. Arousals not
mainly a consequence
of CSA and may not
have been a defense
mechanism to
terminate apneas in
the same way they do
in OSA.
Improvement depends
not prospectively
cardiopulmonary
Sleep disordered parameters
msec, LVEDD ≥60mm,
on good clinical and
validated.
exercise, 6-min walk
improved in CSA pts only:
LVEF of ≤35%,
hemodynamic
test, and
AHI, SaO2min, Desaturation (p< Prospectively
peak VO2 during
response to CRT.
followed CRT pts
echocardiography
0.001)
standardized
without calculating
parameters.
cardiopulmonary
statistical power
Daytime capillary pCO2 was
exercise testing, ≤18
needed
significantly lower in CSA pts
ml/kg/min, during initial
to show results for
compared to those without SDB
testing of several LVpts without SDB,
with a trend towards increase
lead positions
those with OSA, or
with CRT (p=0.02).
(posterolateral veins),
CSA in advance.
RV-stimulation sites
After classifying short term
(apex vs. RVOT)
clinical and hemodynamic CRT
and LV vs. biventricular
effects, improved SDB
pacing, pulse pressure
parameters in CSA occurred in
as a surrogate
responders only (p=0.004).
parameter of
haemodynamic acute
response had to
increase by >10%.
AHI indicates apnea hypopnoea index; ANP, atrial natriuretic peptide; BNP, B-Type natriuretic peptide; CAI, central apnea index; CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure; CRT, cardiac resynchronisation therapy; CSA, central sleep apnea; DM, dilated
cardiomyopathy; EF, ejection fraction; HF, heart failure; HTN, hypertension; LBBB, left bundle branch block; LVEDD, left ventricular end diastolic diameter; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MI, myocardial infarction; N/A, not applicable; NYHA, New York
Heart Association; OSA, obstructive sleep apnea; pts, patients; QoL, quality of life; RV, right ventricular; RVOT, right ventricular outflow tract; SDB, sleep disordered breathing; UA, unstable angina.
Data Supplement 16. Cardiac Rehabilitation-Exercise (Section 7.3.1.6)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Aim of Study
Study
Type
Study
Size
Patient Population
Inclusion Criteria
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Endpoints
Exclusion Criteria
Primary Endpoint
49 Statistical Analysis (Results)
Secondary
Endpoint
Findings/Comments
Antiremodeling
effect of longterm exercise
training in pts
with stable
chronic HF.
Giannuzzi,
Pantaleo. 2003
12860904 (127)
Combined
enduranceresistance
training vs.
endurance
training in pts
with chronic HF:
a prospective
randomized
study. Beckers,
Paul. 2008
18515805 (128)
To determine whether
long-term exercise
training may influence
LV volume and
function in a large
cohort of pts with
stable chronic HF.
To compare the
effects of combined
endurance-resistance
training with
endurance
training only on
submaximal and
maximal exercise
capacity, ventilatory
prognostic
parameters, safety
issues,
and QoL in pts with
chronic HF.
RCT
Prospective
randomized
study
90
58
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. HF secondary to idiopathic
DCM, IHD or valvular
disease
LVEF <35% by ECHO.
Clinical stability for at least
3 mo under optimized
therapy
NYHA II-III
Peak oxygen uptake (VO2)
< 20mL/kg/min at
ergospirometry
Echocardiographic images
of adequate quality for
quantitative analysis
Chronic HF due to ischemic
or dilated cardiomyopathy
LVEF <40%
NYHA II-III.
Optimal and stable
pharmacological treatment
Any systemic disease
limiting exercise,
hypertrophic
cardiomyopathy,
Valvular disease requiring
surgery,
Angina pectoris,
Sustained ventricular
arrhythmias,
Severe hypertension,
Excess variability >10% at
baseline cardiopulmonary
exercise test
Cardiopulmonary
exercise testing,
6MWT,
echocardiography,
and QoL.
Recent ACS or
revascularization in the
past 3 mo,
actively listed on the
transplant list,
logistic problems,
exercise limited by angina
or peripheral arterial
occlusive disease,
cerebrovascular or
musculoskeletal disease
preventing exercise
training,
respiratory limitation
Steady-state workload
N/A
Differences from baseline to 6 mo
improved in the intervention group for:
EF (p<0.001);
Work capacity (p<0.001);
Peak VO2 (p<0.006);
Walking distance (p<0.001);
QoL (p<0.01);
LV volumes (diminished) (p<0.001);
Trend to fewer readmissions for
worsening dyspnea (p< 0.05)
LV volumes increased in control group
(p= 0.05)
50 VO2 peak,
ventilatory
prognostic
parameters,
upper and
lower limb
strength, and
QoL
In the combined endurance-resistance
training (compared to the endurance
training group):
SSW increased: p=0.007;
Decrease in heart rate at SSW:
p=0.002;
VO2 peak halftime was reduced:
p=0.001
Maximal strength in upper limbs
increased: p<0.001
HRQoL improved (reported decrease of
cardiac symptoms): p= 0.003; 95% CI:
1.11-12.46.
In stable chronic HF,
long-term moderate
exercise training has no
detrimental effect on left
ventricular volumes and
function; rather, it
attenuates abnormal
remodeling. Furthermore,
exercise training is safe
and effective in
improving exercise
tolerance and QoL.
In chronic HF pts,
combined enduranceresistance training had a
more pronounced effect
on submaximal exercise
capacity, muscle
strength, and quality of
life. The absence of
unfavorable effects on
left ventricular
remodelling and outcome
parameters is reassuring
and might facilitate
further implementation of
this particular training
modality.
Comparison of
hospital-based
versus homebased exercise
training in pts
with HF: effects
on functional
capacity, QoL,
psyhcological
symptoms, and
hemodynamic
parameters.
Karapolat, Hale.
2009
19641843 (129)
To compare the
effects of homebased and
hospital-based
exercise programs on
exercise capacity,
QoL, psychological
symptoms, and
hemodynamic
parameters in HF pts.
Randomized
study
Endurance
exercise training
in older pts with
HF: results from
a randomized,
controlled, singleblind trial.
Brubaker, Peter.
2009
20121952 (130)
To determine whether
exercise training
improves exercise
capacity and HRQoL
in older persons with
HFrEF.
RCT
74
59
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Diagnosed with HF for at
least 3 mo,
HF as a result of ischemic
and dilated
cardiomyopathy,
clinical stability for at least 3
mo, LVEF <40%
NYHA II-III, optimal and
standard pharmacological
treatment, ability to speak
and understand Turkish,
absence of psychiatric
disease, ability to remain
stable during exercise tests
Neurological, orthopedic,
peripheral vascular, or
severe pulmonary disease,
NYHA class IV,
UA pectoris,
poorly controlled or
exercise-induced cardiac
arrhythmias,
recent ACS or
revascularization (<3 mo),
significant valvular heart
disease, AF, uncontrolled
arterial HTN, performing
exercise training at regular
intervals during the
previous 6 wk.
Exercise capacity,
QoL, psychological
symptoms, and
hemodynamic
parameters
Age >60 y,
diagnosed with HfrEF,
LVEF <45%
Valvular disease as the
primary etiology of HFrEF,
recent stroke or MI,
uncontrolled HTN,
any other condition limiting
exercise duration
Exercise
performance, LV
structure and function,
neuroendocrine
activation and
HRQoL.
N/A
After the exercise programs, significant
improvement was observed in both
groups (all p<0.05) including:
Peak VO2; 6MWT; Subscales of
physical function, general health, and
vitality of short form 36
Beck Depression Inventory
LVEF
A comparison of the 2 exercise groups
revealed no significant differences
between them regarding the analyzed
variables.
51 N/A
Better in Exercise Training Group:
Mean cycle ergometer distance per
session (p=0.001)
Combined walking & cycling distance
(p=0.001)
Peak exercise workload (watts)
(p=0.007)
Exercise time (seconds) on the bike
(p=0.002)
All other outcome measures did not
show significance.
Both the hospital-based
and home-based
exercise groups
improved significantly in
functional
capacity, QoL,
depression symptoms,
and LVEF. Based on
these results, we believe
that physicians can
recommend home-based
exercise under strict
supervision for stable HF
pts.
Failed to produce
consistent benefits in a
cohort or elderly pts with
HFrEF that included a
significant portion of
women. Exercise time
and peak workload
increased but VO2 peak,
the primary outcome, did
not. Exercise training
failed to provide benefits
in any of the 4 primary
endpoints.
Effects of
exercise training
on health status
in pts with
chronic HF.
Flynn, Kathryn.
2009
19351942 (131)
To test the effects of
exercise training on
health status among
pts with HF.
RCT
2,331
Medically stable, HF outpt,
LVEF <35%,
NYHA II-IV,
ability and willingness to
undergo exercise training
Unable to exercise,
already exercising
regularly (>1/wk),
had experienced a major
CV event in the previous 6
wk
Health status
(assessed by the
KCCQ)
At 3 mo the KCCQ overall summary
score improved by a greater degree in
the exercise training group (p< 0.001;
95% CI: 0.84-3.01)
At 3 mo there were no further significant
changes in KCCQ score for either
group (p= 0.85), resulting in sustained,
greater improvement overall for the
exercise group (p< 0.001).
Exercise training
conferred modest but
statistically significant
improvements in selfreported health status
compared with usual
care without training.
Improvements occurred
early and persisted over
time.
Changes from baseline to 12 mo in the
KCCQ overall summary score were
associated with changes in exercise
time:
Cardiopulmonary exercise test: (r=0.28;
p< 0.001)
Peak O2 consumption: (r=0.21; p<
0.001)
6-min walk distance (r=0.18; p<0.001)
Based on these relationships, a 49.7-m
change in distance walked corresponds
to an individual's change of 5 points on
the KCCQ overall summary score.
Resistance
training increases
6-min walk
distance in
people with
chronic HF: a
systematic
review. Hwang,
Chueh-Lung.
2010
20482475 (132)
To determine if
resistance training
improves heart
function, exercise
capacity and QoL in
people with chronic
HF more than no
intervention or usual
care.
Systematic
review with
metaanalysis of
randomized
trials
241 pts
from 8 trials
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Adults with chronic HF
Diagnosis based on clinical
signs or LVEF <40%
None specified
Cardiac function,
exercise capacity,
QoL.
52 N/A
Resistance training significantly
increased 6-min walk distance: WMD:
52m; 95% CI: 19-85
Resistance training
increased 6-min walk
distance compared to no
training, but had no other
benefits on cardiac
function, exercise
capacity, or QoL if used
along or as an adjunct to
aerobic training in people
with chronic HF.
A randomized
trial of the
addition of homebased exercise to
specialist HF
nurse care: the
Birmingham
Rehabilitation
Uptake
Maximization
study for pts with
CHF (BRUMCHF) study.
Jolly, Kate. 2009
19168520 (133)
Exercise training
in older pts with
HF and
preserved EF.
Kitzman, Dalane.
2010
20852060 (134)
To assess the
effectiveness of a
home-based exercise
program in addition to
specialist HF nurse
care.
To test the hypothesis
that supervised
exercise training in
older pts with HFpEF
would improve the
primary
outcome of peak
exercise VO2 and the
secondary outcome of
disease-specific QoL.
RCT
RCT
169
53
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. LVEF <40% on ECHO;
had a severity of at least
NYHA II in the previous 24
mo;
clinically stable for 4 wk; in
receipt of optimal medical
treatment and in the care of
a specialist HF nurse team
from 2 acute hospital trusts
and 1 primary care trust in
the West-Midlands region,
UK;
not considered high-risk for
a home-based exercise
program.
Stable with no medication
changes for >6 wk;
HFpEF defined as history,
symptoms and signs of HF
Preserved LVEF (>50%);
no evidence of significant
coronary, valvular or
pulmonary disease or any
other medical condition that
could mimic HF symptoms.
NYHA IV
MI;
revascularization within the
past 4 mo;
hypotension;
UA;
ventricular or symptomatic
arrhythmias;
obstructive aortic valvular
disease;
COPD;
hypertrophic obstructive
cardiomyopathy;
severe musculoskeletal
problems preventing
exercise;
case-note reported
dementia;
current severe psychiatric
disorder
Disease-specific QoL
measured by the
MLHFQ
Contraindication to
exercise testing or training;
unable to perform a
valid baseline exercise
test;
currently exercising
regularly;
had known cancer;
significant renal
dysfunction;
substance abuse;
uncontrolled diabetes;
dementia,
History of noncompliance;
any other disorder that
would preclude
participation in the
intervention and follow-up.
Peak exercise oxygen
uptake
Composite
outcome of
death or
admission with
HF or
myocardial
infarction.
Psychological
wellbeing, selfreported
physical
activity, blood
pressure,
generic
HRQoL, and
health care
utilization.
At 6 mo, there was no between-group
difference in the disease-specific QoL
MLHFQ (95% CI: -7.87-2.80)
QoL; LV
morphology
and function,
and
neuroendocrine
function
Peak exercise oxygen uptake increased
significantly in the exercise treatment
group compared to the control group
(p= 0.0002).
At 12 mo, there was no between-group
difference in the disease-specific QoL
MLHFQ (95% CI: -5.87-4.76)
The only secondary outcomes
significant for exercise group:
Higher generic QoL scores at 6 mo
(95% CI: 0.04-0.18)
Lower hospital anxiety and depression
scale score at 12 mo (95% CI: -2.00 - 0.14)
At 6 mo, the control group showed
deterioration in physical activity,
exercise capacity and generic QoL.
There were significant improvements in
peak power output, exercise time, 6minute walk distance, and ventilatory
anaerobic
threshold (all p< 0.002).
There was improvement in the physical
quality of life score (but not in the total
score) (p= 0.03).
53 This study failed to
demonstrate a benefit
from the addition of a
home-based exercise
program in a communitybased HF population.
Further evidence is
needed to assess the
suitability
of home-based exercise
programs in this
population.
This randomized,
controlled, single-blind
study showed that
16 wk of exercise training
was safe and
significantly improved
peak and submaximal
exercise performance in
older pts with
HFpEF. These results
suggest that this
nonpharmacological
intervention may be a
worthwhile consideration
for pts with this common
and increasingly
prevalent disorder.
Effects of
exercise training
in pts with HF:
the exercise
rehabilitation trial
(EXERT).
McKelvie,
Robert. 2002
12094184 (135)
To examine the
effects of exercise
training on functional
capacity in pts with
HF.
RCT
181
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Documented clinical signs
and symptoms of HF
LVEF <40%,
NYHA I-III,
6MWT distance <500
meters
Inability to attend regular
exercise training sessions;
exercise testing limited by
angina or leg claudication;
abnormal blood pressure
response to exercise
testing;
cerebrovascular or
musculoskeletal
disease preventing
exercise testing or training;
respiratory limitation;
poorly controlled
cardiac arrhythmias;
any noncardiac condition
affecting regular exercise
training or decreasing
survival.
6MWT
Peak oxygen
uptake,
dynamic
muscle
strength, QoL,
and cardiac
function
Significant increase in 6-min walk
distance at 3 and 12 mo (p= 0.026) but
no between-group differences (p=
0.081).
Incremental peak oxygen uptake
increased in the exercise group
compared with control group:
At 3 mo: (p=0.014);
At 12 mo: (p=0.014)
At 3 mo, compared with the control
group, increases were seen in exercise
group for:
Arm Curl and
Knee Extension: (p=0.014)
No significant changes observed in
cardiac function or QoL.
54 Exercise training
improves peak oxygen
uptake and strength
during supervised
training. Over the final
9 mo of the study, there
was little further
improvement, suggesting
that some supervision is
required for these pts.
There were no adverse
effects on cardiac
function or clinical
events.
Combined
endurance and
muscle strength
training in female
and male pts with
chronic HF.
Miche, Eckart.
2008
18432395 (136)
To evaluate the effect
of a combined
endurance and
muscle strength
training program on
clinical performance
data and healthrelated psychosocial
factors in women and
men.
Nonrandomized
study of men
vs. women.
285
Stable chronic HF;
LVEF <45%;
Peak VO2 <20 ml/min/kg;
capable of answering
questions on HRQoL and
psychological well-being.
Severe pulmonary
disorders;
neurological deficits;
cognitive disorders and
physical disabilities which
prevented pts from
participating in a training
program.
LVEF,
cardiopulmonary
performance, QoL
N/A
Women had a diagnosis of non-IHD
and valvular heart disease more
commonly than men.
LVEF increased:
Female: p<0.001
Male: p<0.001
LVEDV decreased:
Female: p<0.05
Male: p<0.05
LVESV:
Female: p<0.001
Male: p<0.001
Peak VO2:
Female: p NS
Male: p<0.001
Wattmax (W):
Female: p<0.001
Male: p<0.001
6MWT (m):
Female: p<0.001
Male: p<0.001
Muscle strength training:
Female: p<0.001
Male: p<0.001
Physical Health:
Female: p<0.001
Male: p<0.001
Mental Health:
Female: p<0.01
Male: p<0.05
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 55 The results of our study
confirm the feasibility of a
combined endurance and
resistance program,
especially for women.
Our findings show a
considerably reduced
cardiopulmonary
performance, negatively
affecting physical health.
In contrast, no essential
restrictions were reported
by our groups regarding
mental health. This
underlines the
importance of a physical
training program and its
continuation at home
following the hospital
stay in order to influence
performance data
favorably.
Long-term effects
of a group-based
high-intensity
aerobic intervaltraining program
in pts with
chronic HF.
Nilsson, Birgitta.
2008
18940296 (137)
To evaluate the longterm effects of a 4mo, group-based,
high-intensity aerobic
interval training
program on functional
capacity and the QoL
in pts with chronic HF.
RCT
Efficacy and
safety of exercise
training in pts
with chronic HF.
O'Connor,
Christopher.
2009
19351941 (138)
To test the efficacy
and safety of exercise
training among pts
with HF.
RCT
80
2331
Stable chronic HF;
NYHA II-IIIB;
receiving optimal medical
treatment;
LVEF <40% or >40% with
clinical symptoms of
diastolic HF
Acute MI within 4 wk; UA
pectoris;
serious rhythm
disturbance;
symptomatic peripheral
vascular disease;
severe obstructive
pulmonary disease;
6MWT <550 m;
workload on the cycle
ergometer test >110 W;
significant comorbidities
that would prevent study
entry due to terminal
disease or an inability to
exercise In a long-term
care establishment
Functional capacity,
evaluated by 6-min
walking distance.
HF
LVEF <35%,
NYHA II-IV,despite optimal
HF therapy for at least 6 wk
Major comorbidities or
limitations that could
interfere with exercise
training, recent or planned
major CV events or
procedures,
performance of regular
exercise training,
use of devices that limited
the ability to achieve target
heart rates.
Composite of allcause mortality or allcause hospitalization.
QoL
After 4 mo, in the exercise group:
Functional capacity improved
(p<0.001),
QoL improved (p<0.001).
After 12 mo, in the exercise group:
Functional capacity still improved
(p<0.001).
QoL still improved (p=0.003).
All-cause
mortality, the
composite
of CV mortality
or CV
hospitalization,
and the
composite of
CV mortality
or HF
hospitalization.
NS reductions in primary or secondary
endpoints.
In prespecificed supplementary
analyses adjusting for highly prognostic
baseline characteristics there were
reductions in the exercise training group
for:
All-cause mortality or hospitalization:
(p=0.03; 95% CI: 0.81-0.99)
CV mortality or HF hospitalization:
(p=0.03; 95% CI: 0.74-0.99)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 56 The results support
the implementation of a
group-based aerobic
interval training program
to improve long-term
effects on functional
capacity and the QoL in
pts with chronic HF.
Regular exercise training
in pts with systolic HF
was safe. In the protocolspecified primary
analysis, exercise
training resulted in
nonsignificant reductions
in the primary endpoint of
all-cause mortality or
hospitalization and in
secondary endpoints.
After adjustment for
highly prognostic
predictors of the primary
endpoint, exercise
training was associated
with modest significant
reductions for both allcause mortality or
hospitalization and CV
mortality or HF
hospitalization.
Exercise training
meta-analysis of
trials in pts with
chronic HF
(ExTraMATCH).
Piepoli. 2004
14729656 (139)
To determine the
effect of exercise
training on survival in
pts with HF due to LV
systolic dysfunction.
Collaborativ
e metaanalysis
Randomized trial
of progressive
resistance
training to
counteract the
myopathy of
chronic HF. Pu,
Charles. 2001
11356801 (140)
To evaluate whether
strength training in
elderly pts with
chronic HF would be
well tolerated and
result in improved
overall exercise
performance without
changes in central
cardiac function.
RCT
801 pts
from 9 trials
96 (16 HF
80 control)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Randomized parallel group
controlled trials,
evaluate exercise training
without any other
simultaneous intervention,
study pts with stable HF (3
mo or more of stability) due
to left systolic ventricular
dysfunction (LVEF <50%),
have an exercise program
lasting 8 wks or more,
utilize training involving at
least both legs, have
survival follow up of ≥3 mo.
Trials of arm or single leg
training were excluded
Community-dwelling,
female,
age >65
mild to moderate, stable
systolic HF,
NYHA I-III,
resting LVEF <45%
NYHA class IV,
MI within 6 mo,
hospitalization for chronic
HF within 2 mo,
change of HF therapy
within 1 mo,
UA pectoris, fixed
ventricular rate pacemaker,
abdominal aortic aneurysm
>4 cm, major limb
amputation, symptomatic
abdominal or inguinal
hernias
Folstein mini-mental state
examination score <23,
significant abnormalities on
maximal treadmill testing
or screening strength
testing
Time to death.
Death or time
to admission to
hospital.
Exercise training significantly reduce
mortality (p=0.0015; 95% CI: 0.46-0.92)
Exercise training significantly reduced
death or admission to hospital (p=0.01
95% CI: 0.56-0.93).
Overall exercise
capacity (6-min walk
distance) and muscle
function.
Muscle
metabolism
and histology,
body
composition,
maximal
oxygen
consumption,
and cardiac
function,
Women with chronic HF had
significantly lower muscle strength than
women without chronic HF (p<0.0001).
In resistance trainers (vs. controls):
Strength improved (p<0.0001);
Muscle endurance improved
(p<0.0001);
6-minute walk distance increased
(p<0.0003).
Increases in type 1 fiber area and
citrate synthase activity in skeletal
muscle were independently predictive
of improved 6-min walk distance (r2 =
0.78; p=0.0024).
57 Meta-analysis of
randomized trials gives
no evidence that properly
supervised medical
training programs for pts
with HF might be
dangerous, and indeed
there is clear evidence of
an overall reduction in
mortality.
High-intensity
progressive resistance
training improves
impaired skeletal muscle
characteristics and
overall exercise
performance in older
women with chronic HF.
These gains are largely
explained by skeletal
muscle and not resting
cardiac adaptations.
The effects of
physical training
on workload,
upper leg muscle
function and
muscle areas in
pts with chronic
HF. Senden, Jeff.
2005
15823638 (141)
To investigate the
effect of physical
training on upper leg
muscle area, muscle
strength and muscle
endurance expressed
as upper leg muscle
function in relation to
exercise
performance.
RCT
77
Chronic HF for at least 6
mo,
NYHA II-III,
clinically stable for at least
3 mo,
received optimal medical
therapy,
physically able to visit the
outpt clinic,
LVEF <35%
Interfering disease such as
COPD,
fasting glucose <7.0
mmol/L (DM),
neuromuscular disorders,
HTN
LVEF, body
composition, daily
physical activity,
exercise performance,
upper leg muscle area
and isokinetic leg
muscle variables.
N/A
Workload and peak oxygen
consumption decreased in the control
group and increased in the training
group (p<0.05).
Hamstrings area decreased in the
control group and did not change in the
training group (p<0.05).
Upper leg muscle function improved in
the training group and did not change in
the control group (p<0.05).
At baseline and after intervention nearly
60% of the variance in maximal
workload was explained by upper leg
muscle function and quadriceps muscle
area.
Antiremodeling
effect of longterm exercise
training in pts
with stable
chronic HF.
Giannuzzi,
Pantaleo. 2003
12860904 (127)
To determine whether
long-term exercise
training may influence
LV volume and
function in a large
cohort of pts with
stable CHF.
RCT
90
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. HF secondary to idiopathic
DCM, IHD or valvular
disease,
LVEF <35% by ECHO,
clinical stability for at least 3
mo under optimized
therapy,
NYHA II-III,
peak oxygen uptake (VO2)
<20mL/kg/min at
ergospirometry,
echocardiographic images
of adequate quality for
quantitative analysis
Any systemic disease
limiting exercise,
hypertrophic
cardiomyopathy,
valvular disease requiring
surgery,
angina pectoris,
sustained ventricular
arrhythmias,
severe HTN,
excess variability >10% at
baseline cardiopulmonary
exercise test
Cardiopulmonary
exercise testing,
6MWT, ECHO, and
QoL.
N/A
Differences from baseline to 6 mo
improved in the intervention group for:
EF (p<0.001),
Work capacity (p<0.001),
Peak VO2 (p<0.006),
Walking distance (p<0.001),
QoL (p<0.01),
LV volumes (diminished) (p<0.006),
Trend to fewer readmissions for
worsening dyspnea (EDV p<0.05 ESV)
LV volumes increased in control group
(p<0.0.01 EDV ESV)
58 In chronic HF pts, homebased training in
conjunction with a
supervised strength and
endurance training
program is safe, feasible
and effective and does
not require complex
training equipment.
Physical training
prevented loss of
hamstrings muscle mass
and improved exercise
performance by
enhancing muscle
strength and endurance.
In stable chronic HF,
long-term moderate
exercise training has no
detrimental effect on LV
volumes and function;
rather, it attenuates
abnormal remodeling.
Furthermore, exercise
training is safe and
effective in improving
exercise tolerance and
QoL.
Exercise training
reduces
circulating
adiponectin
levels in pts with
chronic HF. Van
Berendoncks,
An. 2010
19656085 (142)
To assess circulating
adiponectin
concentrations in
chronic HF pts,
compare with
controls, and evaluate
the effects of a 4-mo
exercise training
program.
Prospective,
nonrandomized
trial
80
LVEF <30%,
NYHA II-III,
symptoms had been stable
on medical treatment for at
least 1 mo prior to inclusion
Recent ACS or
revascularization,
valvular disease requiring
surgery,
exercise-induced
myocardial ischemia or
malignant ventricular
arrhythmia, acute
myocarditis or pericarditis,
cerebrovascular or
musculoskeletal disease
preventing exercise testing
or training,
acute or chronic infections,
allergies, cancer or
inflammatory disease, DM.
Circulating
adiponectin
concentrations,
exercise capacity,
anthropometric data
and NT-proBNP
levels.
N/A
At baseline, adiponectin levels were
significantly higher in chronic HF pts
compared with healthy subjects
(p=0.015).
At baseline, stratification of pts
according to tertiles of NT-proBNP
revealed an increase in adiponectin
with disease severity (p<0.001).
Exercise training significantly reduced
circulating adiponectin levels in the
trained chronic HF group (compared to
sedentary chronic HF group) (p=0.008)
Circulating adiponectin
concentrations
are higher in chronic HF
pts compared with
healthy subjects and
increase with disease
severity.
Exercise training for 4
mo lowers circulating
adiponectin levels. The
present findings, together
with those from other
studies, suggest that
dysregulation of the
adiponectin pathway
contributes to the
observed metabolic
impairment in chronic HF
Exercise training has
clinically important
effects on exercise
capacity and healthrelated quality of life, and
may have small positive
effects on cardiac
performance during
exercise.
Studies in which only
Cardiac performance,
N/A
During maximal exercise, significant
RCTs,
respiratory muscles or one exercise capacity and
summary effect sizes were found for:
included pts with chronic
SBP (p=0.03),
HF in the control and in the isolated muscle group was HRQoL.
trained.
Heart rate (p=0.011),
intervention group
Cardiac output (p=0.004),
(diagnosis based
Peak oxygen uptake (p=0.00),
on clinical findings or LVEF
Anaerobic threshold (p=0.00),
<40%), included at least 1
6MWT (p=0.00).
treatment group receiving
exercise training and 1
The MLHFQ improved by an average of
control group which
9.7 points (p=0.00).
received standard medical
treatment w/o additional
exercise training,
evaluated outcome
measures in terms of
cardiac performance,
exercise capacity and/or
HRQoL, exercise training
had to include at least one
of the following training
modalities: walking, cycling
or resistive training of
peripheral muscles.
6MWT indicates 6 minute walk test; ACS acute coronary syndrome; AF, atrial fibrillation; CHF, congestive heart failure; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CV, cardiovascular; DCM, dilated cardiomyopathy; DM, diabetes mellitus; ECHO,
echocardiography; EF, ejection fraction; EXERT, Exercise Rehabilitation Trial; HF, heart failure; HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fration; HRQoL, health related quality of life; HTN,
Effects of
exercise training
on cardiac
performance,
exercise capacity
and QoL in pts
with HF. Van Tol,
Benno. 2006
16713337 (143)
To determine the
effect of exercise
training in pts with
chronic HF on cardiac
performance,
exercise capacity and
HRQoL.
Metaanalysis of
RCTs
35 trials
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 59 hypertension; IHD, ischemic heart disease; KCCQ, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; LV, left ventricular; LVEDV, left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESV, left ventricular end-systolic volume; MI,
myocardial infarction; MLHFQ, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionaire; N/A, not applicatble; NT-proBNP, N-terminal pro-B-Type natriuretic peptide; N/A, not applicable; NS, not significant; O2, oygen; pt, patient; QoL, quality of life; r2, coefficient
of determination; RCT, randomized control trial; SSW, Stead-state workload; UA, unstable angina; UK, United Kingdom; and VO2, oxygen volume.
Data Supplement 17. Diuretics Versus Ultrafiltration in Acute Decompensated HF (Section 7.3.2.1)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Diuretic
studies
DOSE-AHF,
Felker, 2011
21366472
(144)
Aim of Study
To compare high and
low doses of diuretics
administered over
longer and shorter
periods of time to
determine the safest
and most effective
combination.
Study
Type
RCT
Study
Size
308
Patient Population
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
Prior clinical
diagnosis of HF
that was treated
with daily oral loop
diuretics for at
least 1 mo;
current diagnosis
of HF, as defined
by the presence of
at least 1 symptom
(dyspnea,
orthopnea, or
edema) and 1 sign
(rales on
auscultation,
peripheral edema,
ascites, pulmonary
vascular
congestion on
chest
radiography);
daily oral dose of
furosemide 80 mg240 mg (or
equivalent);
identified within 24
h of hospital
admission;
current treatment
plan includes IV
loop diuretics for at
least 48 h
BNP <250 mg/mL or NT-proBNP
<1000 mg/mL; IV vasoactive
treatment or ultrafiltration therapy
since initial presentation; treatment
plan includes IV vasoactive
treatment or ultra-filtration;
substantial diuretic response to
prerandomization diuretic dosing
such that higher doses of diuretics
would be medically inadvisable;
SBP <90 mm Hg; SCr >3.0 mg/dL
at baseline or currently undergoing
renal replacement therapy;
hemodynamically significant
arrhythmias; ACS within 4 wk prior
to study entry; active myocarditis;
hypertrophic obstructive
cardiomyopathy; severe stenotic
valvular disease; restrictive or
constrictive cardiomyopathy;
complex congenital heart disease;
constrictive pericarditis;. noncardiac pulmonary edema; clinical
evidence of digoxin toxicity; need
for mechanical hemodynamic
support; sepsis; terminal illness
(other than HF) with expected
survival time of <1 y; history of
adverse reaction to the study
drugs; use of IV iodinated
radiocontrast material within 72 h
prior to study entry or planned
during hospitalization; enrollment
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Endpoints
Primary Endpoint
Pt well-being, as
determined by VAS;
change in SCr
60 Statistical Analysis (Results)
Secondary
Endpoint
Weight loss;
Proportion of pt
free of congestion;
change in the
bivariate
relationship of
creatinine vs.
weight loss;
dyspnea, as
determined by
VAS; pt global
assessment, as
determined by
VAS; change in
SCr; Change in
cystatin C;
worsening or
persistent HF,
defined as a need
for rescue therapy;
development of
cardio-renal
syndrome, defined
as an increase in
the SCr level >0.3
mg/dL; net fluid
loss; time from
study entry to
discharge during
index
hospitalization;
death or total days
hospitalized for
Comparison of bolus vs. continuous
infusion: no significant difference in
either
pts' global assessment of symptoms
(mean AUC, 4236±1440 in the bolus vs
4373±1404 in the infusion group,
p=0.47)
Mean change in creatinine level
(0.05±0.3 mg/dL in the bolus vs
0.07±0.3 mg/dL in the infusion group,
p=0.45)
Secondary Endpoints: No significant
differences, including SCr and cystatin
C levels during index hospitalization and
at 60 d. Comparison of high-dose vs.
low-dose strategy: no significant
difference in pts' global assessment of
symptoms, although there was a
nonsignificant trend toward greater
improvement in the high-dose group
(mean AUC, 4430±1401 vs.
4171±1436; p=0.06; mean change in
creatinine level (0.08±0.3 mg/dL with
the high-dose strategy and 0.04±0.3
mg/dL with the low-dose strategy,
p=0.21).
Secondary
endpoints: The high-dose strategy was
associated with greater diuresis (net
fluid loss and weight loss) and greater
relief from dyspnea but also with
transient worsening of renal function
(occured in 23% of pts in the high-dose
vs 14% in the low-dose group, p=0.04)
Study
Limitations
N/A
Findings/
Comments
N/A
or planned enrollment in another
clinical trial during hospitalization;
inability to comply with planned
study procedures
PROTECT,
Massie, 2010
20925544
(145)
Rolofylline, an
adenosine A1-receptor
antagonist, would
improve dyspnea,
reduce the risk of
WRF, and lead to a
more favorable clinical
course in pt with acute
HF
RCT
2,033
Persistent dyspnea
at rest or with
minimal activity,
impaired renal
function (an
estimated CrCl of
20-80 mL/min with
the use of the
Cockcroft−Gault
equation), a BNP
level of ≥500
pg/mL or more or
an NT-pBNP level
≥2000 pg/mL,
ongoing IV loopdiuretic therapy,
and enrollment
within 24 h after
admission.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. HF; death or rehospitalization
Primary end point was
treatment success,
treatment failure, or no
change in the pt's condition.
Success defined as ptreported moderate or
marked improvement in
dyspnea both 24 and 48 h
after administration of the
study drug, in the absence
of any criterion for failure.
Failure defined as the
occurrence of any of the
following: death or
readmission for HF through
d 7, worsening symptoms
and signs of HF occurring
>24 h after the initiation of
the study drug requiring
intervention by d 7 or
discharge (if earlier), or
persistent WRF, defined as
an increase in the SCr level
≥0.3 mg/dL (26.5 μmolL)
from randomization to d 7,
confirmed at d 14, or the
initiation of hemofiltration or
dialysis during the period
from initiation of the study
drug through d 7. Pts were
classified as having
unchanged treatment status
if they met neither the
criteria for treatment
success nor the criteria for
treatment failure.
Pregnant or breast feeding; acute
contrast induced nephropathy,
sepsis, serum potassium
<3.5mEq/L; ongoing or planned IV
therapy for acute HF with positive
inotropic agents, vasopressors,
vasodilators, or mechanical
support, with the exception of IV
nitrates, BNP<500; ongoing or
planned UF, hemofiltration or
dialysis; severe pulmonary
disease; significant stenotic
valvular disease, heart transplant
recipient or admitted for cardiac
transplantation
61 Two secondary
outcomes were
prespecified: death
from any cause or
rehospitalization
for cardiovascular
or renal causes
through d 60 and
the proportion of
pts with persistent
renal impairment,
defined as an
increase in the SCr
level ≥0.3 mg/dL
by d 7, confirmed
at d 14; the
initiation of
hemofiltration or
dialysis through d
7; or death by d 7.
Clinical composite endpoint of death,
rehospitalization, or ED visit during the
60-d follow-up period: HR with
continuous infusion: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.831.60; p=0.41, HR with high-dose
strategy, 0.83; 95% CI: 0.60-1.16;
p=0.28
Rolofylline did not provide a benefit with
respect to the primary endpoint (OR:
0.92; 95% CI: 0.78-1.09; p=0.35).
Persistent renal impairment developed
in 15% of pts in the rolofylline group and
in 13.7% of pts in the placebo group
(OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.85-1.46; p=0.44).
By 60 d, death or readmission for
cardiovascular or renal causes had
occurred in similar proportions of pts
assigned to rolofylline, 386 of 1356 pts
(Kaplan–Meier estimate, 30.7%; 95%
CI: 27.8-33.6) as compared with 195 of
677 pts assigned to placebo (Kaplan–
Meier estimate: 31.9%; 95% CI: 27.436.4) (HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.83-1.17;
p=0.86). AE rates were similar overall;
however, only pts in the rolofylline group
had seizures, a known potential adverse
effect of A1-receptor antagonists1.
Post hoc
selection of the
best of 3 dose
groups from the
pilot trial with
multiple small
treatment groups
carries the risk
that an apparent
superiority may
be the play of
chance and may
have resulted in
the inability to
replicate pilot
study findings in
this more
definitive, larger
study. Also,
clinical relevance
of endpoints has
been questioned
Rolofylline did
not have a
favorable effect
with respect to
the primary
clinical
composite end
point, nor did it
improve renal
function or 60d outcomes. It
does not show
promise in the
treatment of
acute HF with
renal
dysfunction
DAD-HF,
Giamouzis,
2010
21111980
(146)
Evaluate the effect of
low-dose dopamine
and furosemide on
diuresis and renal
function in pts with
acute decompensated
HF
RCT
60
Age >18 y; history
of HF;
deterioration of HF,
symptoms of
recent onset (<6
h), dyspnea at
rest, orthopnea,
and paroxysmal
nocturnal dyspnea,
accompanied by
signs of
congestion (third
heart sound,
jugular venous
distension,
pulmonary rales)
on physical
examination; levels
of serum BNP
>400 pg/mL or NT
pBNP >1,500
pg/mL; and oxygen
saturation <90%
on admission.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Acute de novo HF; severe renal
failure (admission SCr >215
mmol/L [2.5 mg/dL] or eGFR <30
mL min 1 1.73 m2); admission SBP
<90 mm Hg; severe valvular
disease; known adverse reactions
to furosemide or dopamine; HF
secondary to congenital heart
disease; a scheduled procedure
with a need for IV contrast dye in
the present hospitalization; and a
scheduled cardiac surgery within 2
mo.
Incidence of WRF during
the first 24 h from
randomization. 2
definitions were used for
WRF: 1) >0.3 mg/dL rise in
SCr level from baseline to
24 h; and 2) >20%
decrease in eGFR from
baseline to 24 h
62 Changes in SCr,
urea, potassium,
and eGFR during
the first 24 h from
randomization;
incidence of WRF
over the course of
hospitalization;
total length of stay;
and 60-d mortality
or rehospitalization
rate (all-cause,
cardiovascular,
and worsening of
HF).
Mean hourly excreted urine volume
(272±149mL in high-dose furosemide
vs 278±186mL in LDFD plus low-dose
dopamine group; p=.965) and changes
in dyspnea score (Borg index: 4.4±2.1
in high-dose furosemide group vs
4.7±2.0 in LDFD group; p=.575) during
the 8 h of protocol treatment were
similar in the two groups. WRF was
more frequent in the high-dose
furosemide (n=9; 30%) than in the
LDFD group (n=2; 6.7%; p=.042).
Serum potassium changed from
4.3±0.5 to 3.9±0.4mEq/L at 24 h
(p=.003) in the high-dose furosemide
group and from4.4±0.5 to
4.2±0.5mEq/L at 24 hours (p=.07) in the
LDFD group. Length of stay and 60-d
mortality or rehospitalization rates (allcause, cardiovascular, and worsening
HF).
Relatively small
study, 2 groups
did not receive
the same dose of
furosemide and
did not include a
low-dose
furosemide only
group.
This study
shows that
LDFD infusions
are as effective
as high-dose
furosemide
infusions in
terms of clinical
and diuretic
response in pts
hospitalized for
acute
decompensate
d HF.
Moreover,
LDFD infusion
was associated
with
significantly
lower rates of
WRF than
high-dose
furosemide,
suggesting a
renoprotective
effect in this pt
population.
Pilot
continuous
vs bolus
infusion
(Duke), L
Allen, 2010
20538132
(147)
Pilot study of
furosemide by
continuous infusion vs
twice-d bolus injection.
Hypothesis that
continuous dosing of
IV furosemide
provides gradual
diuresis with less
neurohormonal
activation, which
would manifest as less
renal dysfunction,
compared to bolus
dosing in the treatment
of acute
decompensated HF
with volume overload
RCT
41
Primary diagnosis
of acute
decompensated
HF; evidence of
volume overload;
could be
randomized <24 h
from hospital
presentation
End-stage renal disease or
anticipated need for renal
replacement therapy; were not
expected to survive hospitalization;
pregnant
Change in SCr from
admission to hospital d 3 or
hospital discharge
Cumulative urine
output and other
electrolyte
changes from
admission to
hospital d 3 as well
as hospital length
of stay
None of the outcomes showed a
statistically significant difference
between bolus and continuous dosing
from admission to hospital d 3.
Nonsignificant trend toward
improvement in the bolus dosing arm.
Decreases in serum potassium, serum
sodium, and SBP showed nonsignificant
trends in favor of continuous infusion
Smaller study
No statistically
significant
differences
noted between
bolus and
continuous
infusion
Pilot
continuous
vs bolus
infusion
(MUSC),
Thomson,
2010
20206891
(148)
Pilot study comparing
the effectiveness of
continuous IV with
intermittent IV infusion
of furosemide in pt
with acute
decompensated HF
RCT
56
Admission
diagnosis of acute
decompensated
HF
Pts who had received >2 doses of
IV fruosemide before
randomization
Net daily urine output
Mean urine output in 24 h was
2,098±1,132 mL in pt receiving
continuous vs 1,575±1100 mL in the
bolus group (p=0.086). Total urine
output was 3726±1121 mL/24 h in the
continuous group vs 2,955±1,267
mL/24 h in bolus group (p=0.019).
Length of hospital stay was 6.9±3.7 d in
the continuous group vs 10.9±8.3 d in
the bolus group (p=0.006)
Smaller study
LOS shorter
and mean
urine output
greater in the
continuous
infusion group
vs bolus group
ADHERE,
Peacock,
2008
18480204
(149)
To determine the
clinical and renal
outcomes associated
with lower vs higher IV
loop diuretic dose in
pts hospitalized with
acute decompensated
Registry
82,540
Pts in the
ADHERE registry
who received IV
diuretics during a
hospitalization for
acute
decompensated
Pts receiving vasoactive drugs or
dialysis. Those who received
multiple types of diuretics. Pts with
SCr values >6 mg/dL or
hospitalizations with LOS <4 h
were excluded from the analysis of
change in SCr and dialysis
Increase from baseline to
last available SCr > 0.5
mg/dL;
decrease in GFR >10
mL/min from baseline to
discharge;
initiation of
dialysis during
Net daily urine
output normalized
for amount of
furosemide
received, total
daily urine output
normalized for
amount of
furosemide
received, weight
loss during the
study, need for
additional HF
therapy, duration
of study drug
dministration,
length of
hospitalization
Inhospital
mortality, ICU
admission, ICU
LOS >3 d, and
hospital LOS >4 d
Both before and after risk and
propensity adjustments, an increase in
SCr >0.5 mg/dL occurred less
frequently in LDD admissions than in
HDD admissions (both p<0.0001). The
prevalence of a >10 mL/min decrease in
GFR from baseline to discharge was
ADHERE registry
data were
retrospective and
observational so
should be
regarded as
hypothesis
Among pts in
the ADHERE
registry, After
covariate and
propensity
adjustments,
the inhospital
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 63 HF. This study
analyzed data from the
ADHERE registry to
look at the impact of
diuretic dosing. 62,866
pt receiving <160 mg
and 19,674 pts ≥160
mg of furosemide were
analyzed.
Cohort study
high vs. low
dose
(Brigham and
Women's)
Mielniczuk,
2008
18514930
(150)
This study was a
prospective
observational analysis
of pts in an advanced
HF clinic stratified at
baseline by diuretic
dose (low dose ≤80
mg, high dose >80 mg
furosemide equivalent)
to evaluate the effect
of high/low (or no)
diuretic doses on
outcomes.
Cohort
183
HF.
initiation. Pt with SCr values >6
mg/dL, GFR values >200 mL/min,
or hospitalizations with LOS <24 h
were excluded from the analysis of
change in GFR.
hospitalization.
Eligible pts had to
have a primary
diagnosis of
chronic HF and be
followed by a
specialist in a
tertiary care HF
clinic. Pts with
either preserved or
reduced systolic
function were
included
Pts were excluded if they required
renal replacement therapy, had a
concurrent noncardiac diagnosis
expected to limit life expectancy to
less than 1 y, or were unable to
participate in repeat clinical
assessments
All pts were followed for 1
y. The primary outcome for
the analysis was time to
first HF event of HF
admission, cardiac
transplant, MCS, or death
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 64 Secondary
outcomes included
individual
components of the
HF composite and
WRF, which was
defined as an
increase in SCr
>0.3 mg/dL from
baseline
significantly lower in LDD vs HDD
admissions (p <0.0001). Significant
differences between cohorts present
after risk and propensity adjustments.
LDD treatment was associated with
lower prevalence of prolonged ICU LOS
(nonsignificant differences).
After covariate and propensity
adjustments: in-hospital mortality risk of
LDD was significantly lower compared
to HDD. AUC for adjusted model was
0.78.
Unadjusted mortality OR 0.875; 95% CI:
0.787–0.973; p =0.01.
After adjustment for covariates known to
be associated with mortality – age,
BUN, SBP, DBP, sodium, creatinine,
heart rate and dyspnea at rest –
adjusted OR was 0.888: 95% CI: 0.795–
0.993; p =0.0364
Compared with pts taking LDD (113 pts
[62%]), pts taking HDD (70 pts[38%])
had more markers of increased
cardiovascular risk (older, ischemic
cardiomyopathy, DM and HTN) and
were more likely to have a history of
recent instability (33% vs 4.4% in low
dose, p< .001). SCr significantly higher
in pts receiving HDD vs. LDD (1.4 ± 0.5
mg/dL vs 1.1 ± 0.5 mg/dL, respectively,
p < .001).
1 y cumulative HF event rates
significantly greater in pts taking HDD
when to low-dose/no diuretics (HF
composite, 29% vs 4.5%, p<.01; HF
hospitalization, 26% vs 4.5%, p< .01;
MCS or transplant, 7.1% vs 2.7%, P =
.02; death, 2.9% vs 0.9%, p= .4; high vs
low dose for all).
Among pts taking HDD, those with a
history of instability had significantly
greater HF event rates during a 1-y
period compared with pts with recent
generating.
Clinical reasons
for initiation of IV
diuretics was not
collected and
therefore not
considered in
analysis.
mortality risk of
pts who
received LDD
was
significantly
lower
compared to
those receiving
HDD.
Smaller study,
observational,
single-center
HDD may be
more of a
marker than a
cause of
instability. A
history of HF
stability during
the past 6 mo
is associated
with an 80%
lower risk of an
HF event
during the next
y,
independently
of baseline
diuretic dose.
PROTECT
pilot, Cotter,
2008
18926433
(151)
Pilot study was
designed to identify an
efficacious dose while
refining inclusion
criteria and endpoints
RCT
301
Hospitalized for
acute HF with an
estimated CrCl of
20-80 mL/min and
elevated natriuretic
peptide levels
were enrolled
within 24 h of
presentation
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. SBP <95 or >160 mm Hg; fever
>38°C; acute contrast-induced
nephropathy; resistant
hypokalemia; ongoing or planned
IV therapy with positive inotropic
agents, vasopressors, vasodilators
with the exception of IV nitrates, or
mechanical support (intra-aortic
balloon pump, endotracheal
intubation, or ventricular assist
device); severe pulmonary
disease; significant stenotic
valvular disease; previous heart
transplant or admission for cardiac
transplantation; clinical evidence of
ACS <2 wk before screening; and
acute HF caused by significant
arrhythmias; pts at high risk of
seizures
The prespecified primary
analysis for this pilot phase
was a trichotomous
classification of pts as
”success,” “unchanged,” or
”failure” based on their
changes in symptoms and
renal function. This pilot
phase was not powered to
demonstrate statistically
significant changes. The
major objective was to
evaluate the performance
of this novel endpoint and
refine it on the basis of realworld experience.
Treatment success was
defined as an improvement
in dyspnea (reported by the
pt using a 7-point Likert
scale as moderately or
markedly better compared
with study start) determined
at 24 and 48 h after the
start of study drug (d 2 and
3) or d of discharge if
earlier, as long as the pt did
not meet any of the criteria
for treatment failure.
Treatment failure was
defined as death, early HF
readmission (occurring
65 Composite of
death or all-cause
readmission within
60 d
clinical stability (HF composite, 47% vs
18%, p =.013) Independently of diuretic
dose, pts with a history of clinical
stability had an 80% lower risk of
developing an HF event . HDD were a
strong univariate predictor of
subsequent HF events (HR: 3.83, 95%
CI: 1.82-8.54); however, after
adjustment for clinical stability, diuretic
dose no longer remained significant
(HR: 1.53, 95% CI: 0.58-4.03).
Pts treated with rolofylline more likely to
achieve success, as evidenced by
improved dyspnea (52.7% vs 37.2%),
and less likely to experience failure
(manifested by worsening HF, death, or
renal impairment) compared with pts
treated with placebo (16.2% vs 28.2%).
By comparing rolofylline 30 mg with
placebo, the OR estimated from the
proportional odds model was 0.51 (95%
CI: 0.28–0.94). In the prespecified
subgroup of pts with higher natriuretic
peptide levels, pretreatment BNP level
≥500, or NT pro-BNP ≥2000 pg/mL,
most likely representing more severe
acute HF, the OR from the proportional
odds model was 0.59 (95% CI 0.30–
1.17). SCr increased in pts receiving
placebo and remained stable or tended
to decrease in those receiving
rolofylline. On d 14 the absolute
differences between placebo and
rolofylline for change in creatinine
increased with increasing rolofylline
dose, reflecting the lesser increase in
creatinine in rolofylline-treated pt (r = 0.12, p=.030). Treatment with 30 mg,
the dose selected for the pivotal trials,
was associated with a trend toward
reduced 60-d mortality or readmission
for cardiovascular or renal cause (HR:
0.55; 95% CI: 0.28-1.04).
Limited by the
study size and
number of
treatment groups.
Study was not
powered to
quantitatively
distinguish
between the 3
active doses,
although trends
emerged
suggesting a
dose-related
preservation of
renal function and
increase in
diuresis, as well
as a greater
effect on the
composite
endpoint at the 30
mg dose.
The
preservation of
renal function
associated with
rolofylline, a
selective renal
vasodilator, is
the first
evidence that
an intervention
to prevent
renal
impairment
may positively
affect acute
symptoms and
60-d outcome
in pts with
acute HF;
however,
results were
not confirmed
in the phase III
trial.
DIG, Ahmed,
2008
17532064
(152)
The objective of this
propensity-matched
study was to
determine the effect of
diuretics on mortality
and hospitalizations in
HF pts ≥65 y.
Registry
7,788
Pts who were at
≥21 y of age were
eligible for the
main trial if they
had HF, a LVEF
≤45%, were in
normal sinus
rhythm, and did
not meet any of 20
easily determined,
not overly
restrictive
exclusion criteria
Age <21 yrs; baseline EF not
available; MI, cardiac surgery or
PTCA within 4 wk; unstable or
refractory angina <1 month; II-III
AV block without pacemaker; AF or
flutter; cor pulmonale; constrictive
pericarditis; acute myocarditis;
hypertrophic cardiomyopathy;
amyloid cardiomyopathy; complex
CHD; tx with IV inotropic agents;
K+ < 3.2 mmol/L or >5.5 mmol/L;
on heart transplant list; noncardiac
cause of HF; Creatinine >3.0
mg/dL or severe liver disease;
unlikely to comply
EVEREST,
Gheorghiade,
2007
17384438
(153)
To evaluate short-term
effects of tolvaptan
when added to
standard therapy in pts
hospitalized with HF
RCT
2,048
(trial A)
and
2,085
(trial B)
Age ≥18 y with a
history of chronic
HF (requiring
treatment for a
minimum of 30 d
before
hospitalization)
who had been
hospitalized
primarily for
worsening CHF
and had a LVEF
≤40% (measured
at any point within
1 y of admission).
Entry required HF
Cardiac surgery within 60 d of
enrollment, cardiac mechanical
support, biventricular pacemaker
placement within the last 60 d,
comorbid conditions with an
expected survival of less than 6
mo, acute MI at the time of
hospitalization, hemodynamically
significant uncorrected primary
cardiac valvular disease, refractory
end-stage HF, hemofiltration or
dialysis, supine systolic arterial
blood pressure of less than 90 mm
Hg, SCr concentration >3.5 mg/dL
(>309.4 μmol/L), serum potassium
concentration > 5.5 mEq/L, and
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. within 7 d of study drug
initiation), worsening HF as
defined daily by the
physician assessment by d
7, or persistent renal
impairment as defined
above.
Unchanged pts were
classified as unchanged if
neither criteria for success
or failure were met.
All-cause mortality and allcause hospitalization during
36.7 mo of median followup
Composite of changes in
global clinical status based
on a visual analog scale
and body weight at d 7 or
discharge if earlier
66 Mortality and
hospitalizations
due to
cardiovascular
causes and HF
Dyspnea (d 1),
global clinical
status (d 7 or
discharge), body
weight (d 1 and 7
or discharge), and
peripheral edema
(d 7 or discharge).
All-cause mortality occurred in 173 pts
not receiving diuretics and 208 pts
receiving diuretics respectively during
2,056 and 1,943 person-y of follow-up
(HR:1.36; 95% CI: 1.08-1.71; p=0.009).
All-cause hospitalizations occurred in
413 pts not receiving and 438 pts
receiving diuretics respectively during
1,255 and 1,144 person-y of follow-up
(HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.99-1.39; p=0.063).
Diuretic use was associated with
significant increased risk of
cardiovascular mortality (HR:1.50; 95%
CI:1.15-1.96; p=0.003) and HF
hospitalization (HR:1.48; 95% 95% CI:
1.13-1.94; p=0.005).
Rank sum analysis of the composite
primary endpoint showed greater
improvement with tolvaptan vs placebo
(trial A, mean [+SD], 1.06 [0.43] vs 0.99
[0.44]; and trial B, 1.07 [0.42] vs 0.97
[0.43]; both trials p<.001). Mean (+SD)
body weight reduction was greater with
tolvaptan on d 1 (trial A, 1.71 [1.80] vs
0.99 [1.83] kg; p<.001; and trial B, 1.82
[2.01] vs 0.95 [1.85] kg; p<.001) and
day 7 or discharge (trial A, 3.35 [3.27]
vs 2.73 [3.34] kg; p<.001; and trial B,
3.77 [3.59] vs 2.79 [3.46] kg; p<.001).
Improvements in global clinical status
were not different between groups.
More pts receiving tolvaptan (684
Beta blockers
were not
approved for HF
during the DIG
trial and data on
beta blocker use
were not
collected
Diuretic use
associated with
increased
mortality
among elderly
in the DIG trial
N/A
In pts
hospitalized
with HF, oral
tolvaptan in
addition to
standard
therapy
including
diuretics
improved
many, though
not all, HF
signs and
symptoms,
without serious
AE.
EVEREST,
Konstam,
2007
17384437
(154)
To investigate the
effects of tolvaptan
initiated in pts
hospitalized with HF
RCT
4,133
symptoms at rest
or minimal exertion
and signs of
congestion (≥2 of
the following:
dyspnea, jugular
venous distention,
or peripheral
edema) at time of
randomization.
hgb of less than 9 g/dL
Pts age ≥18 y with
reduced LVEF
≤40%, signs of
volume expansion,
NYHA class III/IV
symptoms, and
hospitalization for
exacerbation of
chronic HF no
more than 48 h
earlier were
eligible for the
study
Cardiac surgery within 60 d of
enrollment, cardiac mechanical
support, biventricular pacemaker
placement within the last 60 d,
comorbid conditions with an
expected survival of <6 mo, acute
MI at the time of hospitalization,
hemodynamically significant
uncorrected primary cardiac
valvular disease, refractory endstage HF, hemofiltration or dialysis,
supine systolic arterial bp < 90 mm
Hg, SCr >3.5 mg/dL (309 μmol/L),
K+ level greater than 5.5 mEq/L,
and hgb <9 g/dL.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Dual primary endpoints
were all-cause mortality
(superiority and
noninferiority) and
cardiovascular death or
hospitalization for HF
(superiority only)
67 Composite of
cardiovascular
mortality or
cardiovascular
hospitalization;
incidence of
cardiovascular
mortality; and
incidence of
clinical worsening
of HF (death,
hospitalization for
HF, or
unscheduled visit
for HF). Additional
secondary
endpoints included
changes from
baseline in body
weight at d 1,
serum sodium
level at d 7 or
discharge in pts
with a baseline
serum sodium
<134 mEq/L,
edema score at d
7 or discharge for
those with edema
at baseline, ptassessed dyspnea
at d 1 for those
[76.7%] and 678 [72.1%] for trial A and
trial B, respectively) vs pts receiving
placebo (646 [70.6%] and 597 [65.3%],
respectively) reported improvement in
dyspnea at d 1 (both trials p<.001).
Edema at d 7 or discharge improved
significantly with tolvaptan in trial B (p
=0.02) but did not reach significance in
trial A (p=0.07). Serious AE frequencies
were similar between groups, without
excess renal failure or hypotension
During a median follow-up of 9.9 mo,
537 pts (25.9%) in tolvaptan group and
543 (26.3%) in placebo group died HR
for mortality: 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87-1.11;
p=.68). Kaplan-Meier estimates of
mortality at 1 y were 25.0% in the
tolvaptan group and 26.0% in the
placebo group.
Composite cardiovascular death or
hospitalization for HF: 871 tolvaptan
group (42.0%) and 829 placebo group
(40.2%) HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.95-1.14;
p=.55).
Secondary endpoints of CV mortality,
CV death or hospitalization, and
worsening HF were also not different.
Tolvaptan significantly improved
secondary endpoints of d 1 pt-assessed
dyspnea (p<.001), with 74.3% of the
tolvaptan group and 68.0% of the
placebo group demonstrating an
improvement in dyspnea score, as well
as d 1 body weight, and d 7 edema. In
pts with hyponatremia, serum sodium
levels significantly increased. The
KCCQ overall summary score was not
improved at outpt wk 1, but body weight
and serum sodium effects persisted
long after discharge.
N/A
Tolvaptan
initiated for
acute
treatment of
pts hospitalized
with HF had no
effect on longterm mortality
or HF-related
morbidity.
with dyspnea at
baseline, and
KCCQ overall
summary score at
outpt wk 1.
DIG, Ahmed
(UAB), 2006
16709595
(155)
Non-potassiumsparing diuretics are
commonly used in HF.
They activate the
neurohormonal
system, and are
potentially harmful.
Yet, the long-term
effects of chronic
diuretic use in HF are
largely unknown. This
study retrospectively
analysed the DIG data
to determine the
effects of diuretics on
HF outcomes. Effects
of diuretics on
mortality and
hospitalization at 40
mo of median followup were assessed
using matched Cox
Registry
2,782
The DIG trial
enrolled 7,788
ambulatory chronic
systolic (LVEF
≤45%; n=6800)
and diastolic
(LVEF >45%;
n=988) HF pts in
normal sinus
rhythm, of whom
6,076 (78%) were
receiving diuretics
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Age <21 y; baseline EF
unavailable; MI, cardiac surgery or
PTCA within 4 wk; unstable or
refractory angina <1 mo; II-III AV
block without pacemaker; AF or
flutter; cor pulmonale; constrictive
pericarditis; acute myocarditis;
hypertrophic cardiomyopathy;
amyloid cardiomyopathy; complex
CHD; tx with IV inotropic agents;
K+ < 3.2 mmol/L or > 5.5 mmol/L;
on heart transplant list; noncardiac
cause of HF; Creatinine > 3.0
mg/dL or severe liver disease;
unlikely to comply
All-cause mortality
68 Mortality from
worsening HF, and
hospitalizations
due to all causes
and worsening HF
Propensity scores for diuretic use were
calculated for each of the 7,788 DIG
participants using a non-parsimonious
multivariable logistic regression model,
and were used to match 1,391 (81%)
no-diuretic pts with 1,391 diuretic pts.
Mean survival times for diuretic vs. nodiuretic pts: 47 (95% CI: 46–48) and 50
(95% CI: 49–51) mo.
All-cause mortality was 21% for nodiuretic pts and 29% for diuretic pts
(HR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.11-1.55; p=0.002).
HF hospitalizations occurred in 18% of
no-diuretic pts and 23% of diuretic pts
(HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.13-1.65; p=0.001).
Mortality due to HF occurred in 6% of
pts in the no-diuretic group and 9% of
those in the diuretic group (HR: 1.36;
95% CI 0.99–1.87; p=0.056).
Compared with 8% deaths among pts
never receiving diuretics during the first
24 mo of follow-up, 19% of those who
Based on nonrandomized
findings,
retrospective.
Beta-blockers
were not
approved for HF
during the DIG
trial and data on
beta-blocker use
were not
collected
Chronic
diuretic use
was associated
with increased
long-term
mortality and
hospitalizations
in a wide
spectrum of
ambulatory
chronic systolic
and diastolic
HF pts
regression models
DIG,
Domanski,
2006
16762792
(156)
Investigate the
associations between
death, cardiovascular
death, death from
worsening HF, SCD,
and HF hospitalization
among those taking a
PSD, NPSD, or no
diuretic in the DIG trial
always received diuretics during the
same time died from all causes
(multivariable adjusted HR: 1.81; 95%
CI 1.38–2.38; p<0.0001).
Registry
6,797
HF and LVEF
≤45% enrolled in
the DIG trial. The
DIG randomly
assigned 6800 pts
with HF and LVEF
≤45% to digoxin or
placebo in a
double-blinded
controlled trial
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Age <21 y; baseline EF not
available; MI, cardiac surgery or
PTCA within 4 wk; unstable or
refractory angina <1 mo; II-III AV
block without pacemaker; AF or
flutter; cor pulmonale; constrictive
pericarditis; acute myocarditis;
hypertrophic cardiomyopathy;
amyloid cardiomyopathy; complex
CHD; tx with IV inotropic agents;
K+ < 3.2 mmol/L or > 5.5 mmol/L;
on heart transplant list; noncardiac
cause of HF; Creatinine > 3.0
mg/dL or severe liver disease;
unlikely to comply
All-cause death,
cardiovascular death, death
from progressive HF, SCD,
and HF hospitalization
69 N/A
For death from HF or SCD, the incident
rates were not significantly different
between the pts taking the PSD only
versus no-diuretic group (p=.06, and
p=.7, respectively); for the other 4
events (hosp for HF, death from CVD,
death from all causes, hosp or death
from HF), the incidence rates were all
significantly lower in the no-diuretic
group than in the PSD-only group
(p≤.01).
For all 6
events, the incidence rates for the
NPSD only group were significantly
higher than the PSD-only group (p≤.02).
The incidence rates for the NPSD-only
group and both-diuretic groups were
comparable and not significantly
different with the p- values ranging from
.07 to .6 (date not shown).
After multivariate analysis, the risks of
all 6 endpoints were increased in pts
taking a NPSD, whether or not they
were taking a PSD after adjusting for
known covariates. There was no
significant difference in the risk of any of
these events for pts taking only PSD
and those taking no diuretics.
Compared with not taking diuretic, risk
of death (RR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.17–1.59,
p<.0001), cardiovascular death (RR:
1.38, 95% CI: 1.17–1.63; p=.0001),
progressive HF death (RR: 1.41, 95%
CI: 1.06–1.89, p= .02), SCD (RR: 1.67,
95% CI 1.23–2.27, p=.001), and HF
hospitalization (RR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.41–
Post-hoc study
and doses of
diuretics were not
available for
analysis. Also, did
not analyze
effects of
treatment over
time. Betablockers were not
approved for HF
during the DIG
trial and data on
beta blocker use
were not
collected
Among pts in
the DIG trial,
compared with
pts not taking
any diuretic or
taking a PSD,
pts taking nonPSD had a
higher RR of
death.
Cohort study
low vs. high
dose (Cedars
Sinai/ UCLA),
Eshaghian,
2006
16765130
(157)
This study sought to
determine the dosedependent relation
between loop diuretic
use and HF prognosis
Cohort
1,354
Study population
consisted of 1,354
consecutive pts
with advanced
systolic HF
referred to a single
university medical
center for HF
management
and/or transplant
evaluation from
1985 to 2004
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Pts with LVEF >40%, those with
HF due to valvular disease, and
those aged <18 y were excluded
from the analysis
All-cause mortality
70 The composite
endpoint of death
or urgent
transplant (status
IA) was analyzed
as a secondary
endpoint
1.99, p< .0001) were increased with
NPSD.
There was no significant difference in
any endpoint for pts taking only PSD
compared to no diuretic. PSD only
subjects were less likely than NPSD
subjects to be hospitalized for HF (RR:
0.71, 95% CI: 0.52–0.96, p=.02).
Pts with HF in the highest diuretic dose
quartile were found to have significantly
impaired survival compared with pts in
the lowest quartile.
Survival estimates at 1 y were 91%,
88%, 80%, and 69% for quartiles 1, 2,
3, and 4, respectively (p <0.0001).
Survival estimates at 2 y were 83%,
81%, 68%, and 53%, respectively (p
<0.0001). Death from any cause: HR:
3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.7
death and urgent transplantation: HR
2.7, 95% CI 2.0-3.5
death from progressive HF: HR: 3.8;
95% CI 2.1-6.8
sudden death: HR: 3.6; 95% CI: 1.9-6.8
Univariate analysis- compared with the
lowest quartile, increasing loop diuretic
dose quartiles were associated with a
progressive increase in mortality
(second quartile, HR: 1.2; 95% CI: 0.81.7; third quartile, HR: 2.1, 95% CI 1.52.9; and fourth quartile, HR: 3.4; 95% CI
2.4-4.7). Diuretic dose quartiles were
associated with increased mortality
independent of other covariates. After
adjustment the highest diuretic quartile
remained a significant predictor of
increased mortality at 1 y (HR: 4.2; 95%
CI: 1.5-11.3) and at 2 y (HR: 4.0; 95%
CI 1.9-8.4)
Possible selection
bias. Diuretic
dose was
examined at only
a single point in
time, without
considering
chnages in doses
over time.
Baseline
characteristics
and other HF
treatments
different among
the diuretic dose
quartiles. With
adjustment for
multiple
covariates, larger
loop diuretic
doses could still
be a surrogate for
other measured
and unmeasured
variables that
reflect more
severe HF.
Serum potassium
and magnesium
level information
was unavailable.
Propensity
matching was not
performed. So the
relation between
This study
suggests that
in pts with
advanced
systolic HF, the
use of higher
doses of loop
diuretics is
associated with
significantly
increased allcause
mortality.
Although it may
appear obvious
that pts with
HF requiring
higher loop
diuretic doses
to prevent fluid
retention and
control
symptoms
might be sicker
than pts
receiving lower
doses, the
powerful and
independent
association
with mortality
warrants
further
consideration.
loop diuretic dose
and increased
mortality is
causative.
Cochrane
review, 2005
16034890
(158)
To compare the
effects and adverse
effects of continuous
IV infusion of loop
diuretics with those of
bolus IV administration
among pts with HF
class III-IV
Metaanalysis
254
RCTs comparing
the efficacy of
continuous IV
infusion versus
bolus IV
administration of
loop diuretics in HF
in a total of 8
RCTs.
N/A
(7 studies) urine output,
cc/24 h;
Electrolyte disturbances
(hypokalemia,
hypomagnesemia); adverse
effects (tinnitus and hearing
loss);
(single
study) duration of hospital
stay and cardiac
mortality; (2 studies) all
cause mortality
N/A
SOLVD,
Domanski,
2003
12932605
(159)
Study sought to
determine whether
NPSDs in the absence
of a PSD may result in
progressive HF.
Registry
6,797
Symptomatic and
asymptomatic pts
with a LVEF
fraction <0.36 were
randomly assigned
to double-blinded
treatment with
enalapril or
placebo.
Only drug class was ascertained;
specific medications were not
recorded.
Rates of hospitalization for
HF, death from
cardiovascular disease,
death from all causes, and
either hospitalization or
death due to worsening HF
N/A
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 71 Urine output: the output (as measured
in cc/24 h) was noted to be greater in
pts given continuous infusion with a
WMD of 271 cc/24 h (95%CI: 93.1-449;
p<0.01).
Electrolyte
disturbances were not significantly
different in the two
treatment groups : RR 1.47; 95%CI:
0.52-4.15; p=0.5.
Less adverse effects (tinnitus and
hearing loss) were noted with
continuous infusion: RR 0.06; 95%CI:
0.01- 0.44; p=0.005.
Duration of hospital stay was
significantly shortened by 3.1 d with
continuous infusion WMD -3.1; 95%CI 4.06 to -2.20; p<0.0001; while cardiac
mortality was significantly different in
the two treatment groups, RR: 0.47;
95% CI: 0.33 to 0.69; p<0.0001.
All-cause mortality was significantly
different in the two treatment groups,
RR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.38- 0.71; p<0.0001.
The risk of hospitalization from
worsening HF in those taking a PSD
relative to those taking only a non-PSD
was 0.74; 95% CI 0.55-0.99; p= 0.047.
The RR for cardiovascular death was
0.74; 95% CI 0.59-0.93; p=0.011), for
death from all causes 0.73; 95% CI:
0.59-0.90; p=0.004), and for
hospitalization for, or death from, HF
0.75; 95% CI: 0.58-0.97; p=0.030).
Compared with pts not taking any
diuretic, the risk of hospitalization or
death due to worsening HF in pts taking
Available data
were insufficient
to confidently
assess the merits
of the 2 methods
of giving IV
diuretics. The
existing data did
not allow
definitive
recommendations
for clinical
practice
Based on small
and relatively
heterogeneous
studies, this
review showed
greater diuresis
and a better
safety profile
when loop
diuretics were
given as
continuous
infusion.
This study is
retrospective and,
therefore, not
definitive proof
that NPSDs
cause
progressive HF.
Because the
diuretic dosage
was not available,
we cannot draw
conclusions about
a dose-response
This study
shows that in
pts with
moderate or
severe LV
dysfunction,
the use of a
PSD is
associated with
a reduced risk
of death or
hospitalization
due to
PRAISE,
Neuberg,
2002
12094185
(152)
The prognostic
importance of diuretic
resistance (as
evidenced by a highdose requirement) was
retrospectively
evaluated in pts with
advanced HF who
were enrolled in the
PRAISE.
Registry
1,153
LVEF <30% and
NYHA functional
class IIIb/IV HF
despite mandatory
background
treatment with
digoxin, diuretics,
and ACE inhibitors.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Pts were excluded if their serum
potassium level was <3.5 or >5.5
mmol/L and if their SCr level was
>3.0 mg/dL (270 >mol/L), and/or if
they met other standard exclusion
criteria
Death or cardiac
transplantation
72 N/A
non-PSDs alone was significantly
increased (RR:1.31: 95% CI: 1.09-1.57;
p=0.0004); this was not observed in pts
taking PSDs with or without a NPSD
(RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.76- 1.30; p=0.95).
relationship. Also,
baseline data
were used, and
diuretic treatment
status may have
changed over
time
progressive
HF, relative to
pts taking only
a non-PSD.
HDD were independently associated
with mortality, sudden death, and pump
failure death (aHR: 1.37 (p=.004), aHR:
1.39 (p=.042), and aHR: 1.51 (p=.034),
respectively.
Use of metolazone was an independent
predictor of total mortality (aHR: 1.37;
p=.016) but not of cause-specific
mortality. In quartiles of loop diuretic
dose, total mortality increased
progressively without a clear risk
threshold, more than doubling from the
lowest-dose group to the highest-dose
group (p=.001). Unadjusted mortality
rates were 20.7% (n=152), 30.7%
(n=313), 36.8% (n=304), and 44.8%
(n=84) for increasing dose of
furosemide (40 mg, 40-80 mg, 80-120
mg, and 120 mg daily) or bumetanide
(1 mg, 1-2 mg, 2-3 mg, and 3 mg daily),
respectively. By proportional hazard
regression, high diuretic dose was an
independent predictor of total mortality
(aHR: 1.37; p=0.004), sudden death (a
HR: 1.39, p=0.042), and pump failure
death (aHR: 1.51, p=0.034).
Retrospectiveolde
r study as pts
enrolled in
PRAISE were not
on beta blockers.
Found that
high doses of
loop diuretic
(>80mg of
furosemide or
>2mg of
buetanide
daily) were
independently
associated with
mortality in pts
with advanced
HF. When
degree of
congestion was
considered
together with
its treatment,
the associated
risks were
additive,
suggesting that
diuretic
resistance
should be
considered an
indicatior of
prognosis in
chronic HF.
However,
retrospective
analysis does
not establish
harm, nor rule
out a long-term
benefit of
diuretic
therapy.
Ultrafiltration
UNLOAD
substudy
(Maryland),
Rogers,
2008
18226766
(160)
This study was
designed to evaluate
the consequences of
UF and standard IV
diuretic (furosemide)
therapy on GFR and
renal plasma flow in pts
with acute
decompensated HF.
RCT
19
Pts hospitalized for acute
decompensated HF with
an EF <40% and ≥2
signs of hypervolemia
based on at least 2 of the
following findings: ≥2+
pitting edema of the
lower extremities, jugular
venous pressure ≥10 cm
H2O, pulmonary edema
or pleural effusion on
chest radiograph
consistent with
decompensated
congestive HF, ascites,
paroxysmal nocturnal
dyspnea, or ≥2 pillow
orthopnea.
Pts with ACS, SCr >3.0
mg/dL, SBP ≤ 90 mm Hg,
hematocrit >45%, inability to
obtain venous access, or
clinical instability likely to
require IV nitroprusside or IV
pressors, history of
administration of IV diuretics
and/or vasoactive drugs
during the present
hospitalization (except for a
single dose of IV diuretics
administered in the ED
before hospitalization), use
of iodinated radiocontrast
material, contraindication to
the use of anticoagulation,
systemic infection, or
hemodialysis were excluded
from the substudy.
Urine output, GFR
(as measured by
iothalamate), and
renal plasma flow (as
measured by paraaminohippurate)
were assessed
before fluid removal
and after 48 h.
N/A
19 pts (59 +/- 16 y, 68% were male)
were randomized to receive UF (n= 9)
or IV diuretics (n= 10). The change in
GFR (-3.4 +/- 7.7 mL/min vs -3.6 +/11.5 mL/min; p= .966), renal plasma
flow (26.6 +/- 62.7 mL/min vs 16.1 +/42.0 mL/min; p= .669), and filtration
fraction (-6.9 +/- 13.6 mL/min vs -3.9 +/13.6 mL/min; p= .644) after treatment
were not significantly different between
the UF and furosemide treatment
groups.
No significant
difference in net 48-h fluid removal
between the groups (-3211 +/- 2345 mL
for UF and -2725 +/- 2330 mL for
furosemide, p= .682). UF removed 3666
+/- 2402 mL.
Urine output during 48 h was
significantly greater in the furosemide
group (5786 +/- 2587 mL) compared
with the UF group (2286 +/- 915 mL, p<
.001).
Small single
center study.
Pts receiving
UF tended to
have worse
GFR at
baseline.
Renal
hemodynamic
outcomes
were
measured
during acute
fluid removal
(48 h).
Unknown as
to when
changes in
GFR or RPF
occur. The
present study
does not
assess any
chronic
effects of UF
or diuresis.
During a 48-h
period, UF did not
cause any
significant
differences in renal
hemodynamics
compared with the
standard treatment
of IV diuretics
UNLOAD,
MR
Costanzo,
2007
17291932
(161)
To compare the safety
and efficacy of
venovenous UF and
standard IV diruetic
therapy for
hypervolemic HF pts
RCT
200
Pts hospitalized with
primary diagnosis of
acute decompensated
congestive HF; evidence
of fluid overload as
indicated by: pitting
edema (2+) of lower
extremities; jugular
venous distension;
pulmonary edema or
pleural effusion; ascites;
ACS; creatinine >3.0; SBP
<90 mmHg; hematocrit
>45%; prior administration of
IV vasoactive drugs in the
ED; clinical instability
requiring pressors during
hospitalization; recent use of
iodinated contrast material;
severe concomitant disease
expected to prolong
hospitalization; sepsis; on or
Total weight loss
during first 48 h;
change in dyspnea
score during first 48
h.
Change in global
assessment; change in
QoL (living with HF);
changes in BNP;
changes in 6 min walk
test; total fluid loss during
first 48 h; changes in
BUN and creatinine;
changes in renin and
aldosterone; rate of
hospitalizations and
Primary efficacy endpoints:
Weight loss was greater in the UF than
in the standard-care group (5.0 ± 3.1 kg
vs. 3.1 ± 3.5 kg; p=0.0001)
Dyspnea scores were similarly
improved in the UF and standard-care
group at both 8 and 48 h.
Primary safety endpoints:
Changes in SCr were similar in the 2
groups throughout the study and % of
pts with rise in SCr >0.3 mg/dL were
Population
not
representative
of HF pts
(better renal
function, and
excluded pts
with
hypotention);
industry
sponsored;
While weight loss
was greater and
rehospitalization at
90 d was lower in
the UF arm, data
not available on
long-term effects
on renal function
or resource
utilization. The pts
in trial represented
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 73 paroxysmal nocturnal
dyspnea or 2-pillow
orthopnea
requires renal dialysis;
history of cardiac transplant;
heparin allergy.
unscheduled clinic and
ED visits in the wk after
inpt treatment
similar in both groups at 24 h, 48 h and
at discharge
Serum potassium <3.5 mEq/l occurred
in 1% of the UF group and 12% of
diuretics group (p=0.018)
small trial;
usual care
group not
very
aggressively
treated
Small study;
single
institution; pts
with much
worse
prognosis vs
general HF
population
Small study,
pilot
Case-series
(Mayo
clinic),
Liang, 2006
17174232
(162)
Present data on UF
from a series of pts
treated at the Mayo
clinic who were
generally sicker and
had failed at least 1 IV
treatment
Caseseries
11
HF pts admitted to Mayo
clinic who have failed at
least 1 IV diuresis
treatment
Contraindication to UF
Change in creatinine;
fluid loss;
complications from
UF
N/A
5 pts had significant rise in creatinine,
5 required dialysis, overall 6-mo
mortality 55%, bleeding and
complications related to positional flow
were common.
RAPID-CHF,
Bart, 2005
16325039
(163)
Pilot study which
compared a single 8-h
UF intervention to usual
care in pts admitted
with decompensated
HF
RCT
40
Severe stenotic valvular
disease; ACS; SBP <90;
hematocrit >40%
5. poor peripheral venous
access; hemodynamic
instability; use of iodinated
radiocontrast within 72 h of
consent or anticipated use;
severe concomitant disease
24-h weight loss
Total volume removal at
24 and 48 h; global HF
and dyspnea
assessments; serum
electrolytes; and length
of hospital stay
No difference in 24-h weight loss
(p=0.240), significantly more fluid
removal with UF (4,650 mL in UF group
vs. 2,838 mL in usual care group,
(p=0.001) and improved dyspnea
scores (p=0.039) and no change in
creatinine. Trend toward greater weight
loss at 24 h in the UF group
EUPHORIA,
Costanzo,
2005
16325040
(164)
Compared UF to
historical controls in
order to determine if
use of UF before any IV
diuretics in pts with
decompensated HF and
modest renal
dysfunction
reestablishes euvolemia
and permits hospital
discharge in ≤3 d,
without hypotension, a
≥25% increase in SCr.
or other AEs.
Observat
ional
study
20
Hospitalized with primary
diagnosis of HF; at least
2+ edema of the lower
extremities and at least
either JVP >10,
pulmonary edema or
pleural effusion on CXR,
pulmonary rales,
pulmonary wedge or
LVEDP >20, ascites, or
pre-sacral edema
Volume overload;
modest degree of renal
dysfunction or diuretic
resistance (chronic daily
PO furosemide ≥80 mg,
or torsemide ≥ 40mg, or
bumetamide ≥ 2mg and
SCr ≥1.5 mg/dl),
relatively high diuretic
requirement at baseline;
<12 h since
hospitalization, given no
vasoactive drugs and <1
dose IV diuretic
Hematocrit >40%;. endstage renal disease requiring
dialysis; Hypercoagulability;
SBP <85 mm Hg;
Requirement for IV
inotropes; Participation in
another research study or
previously in this trial
Weight loss; hospital
length of stay
Increase in creatinine
>25%, hypotension; BNP
levels
An average of 8,367 ± 4,232 mL were
removed with 2.6 ± 1.2, 8 h UF courses.
Of the 19 pts 12 (68%) were discharged
in ≤3 d
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 74 Small
observational
study; Singlecenter series
hemodynamically
stable/congested
HF pts that
respond very well
to diuretics and
have better
outcomes vs. HF
population in
general.
In high risk
populations, (mean
GFR of 38 mL/min)
UF may not be the
most appropriate
choice.
UF group had
more fluid
removed, with no
significant change
in creatinine,
however no
difference in 24 h
weight loss.
Concluded that UF
decreases length
of stay and
readmissions.
compared the
treatment period
with the pretreatment period,
rather than with a
randomized control
cohort.
Agostoni,
1994
8154506
(165)
Investigated the
mechanisms involved in
the regulation of salt
and water metabolism
in pt with HF.
Extracorporeal UF was
utilized as a
nonpharmacologic
method for withdrawal
of body fluid.
RCT
16
Treated with a
combination of
digoxin, oral furosemide,
and ACE inhibitor
(captopril
or enalapril) for chronic;
sinus rhythm; NYHA II-III
Pepi, 1993
8038023
(166)
To investigate the
pathophysiological
(cardiac function and
physical performance)
significance of clinically
silent interstitial lung
water accumulation in
pts with moderate HF;
to use isolated UF as a
means of extravascular
fluid reabsorption
RCT
24
NYHA functional class IIIII HF and clinically silent
by radiologically evident
increased lung water;
sinus rhythm and EF
<35%
Agostoni,
1993
8426008
(167)
The aim of this study
was to evaluate
whether UF is beneficial
in pts with moderate
congestive HF.
RCT
36
NYHA functional classes
II and III; stable clinical
condition; receiving drug
treatment (stable over
last 6 mo) optimized to
prevent development of
edema and maintain a
stable body weight (+/- 1
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Pts with acute MI (<1 y),
angina pectoris, primary
valvular disease, intermittent
claudication, fibrotic or
primary vascular lung
diseases, sinus or
atrioventricular node
dysfunction, effort-induced
severe ventricular
arrhythmias or an artificial
pacemaker
Severe tricuspid or mitral
regurgitation; pleural,
pericardial or abdominal
effusion
Pts with acute MI (<1 y),
angina pectoris, primary
valvular disease, intermittent
claudication, fibrotic or
primary vascular lung
diseases, sinus or
atrioventricular node
dysfunction, effort-induced
Scores of lung water;
exercise test
parameters; plasma
renin, aldosterone
and norepinephrine
3 mo after UF or IV diuretic, the
hemodynamic variables examined at
rest had returned to the control values
in the diuretic group, but not the UF
group. In the UF group, right atrial
pressure, pulmonary artery pressure
and wedge pressure were still as
reduced as they had been 24 h after
UF. (p<0.01, only figures displayed).
Small older
study
After UF, improved
functional capacity
continued for 3 mo
after the procedure
LVSF (from
ultrasonography);
Doppler evaluation of
mitral, tricuspid, and
aortic flow and echoDoppler
determination of
cardiac output;
radiological score of
extravascular lung
water; R/LV filling
pressures; oxygen
consumption at peak
exercise and
exercise tolerance
time in
cardiopulmonary
tests.
UF decreased radiological score of
extravascular lung water (from 15(1)9(1)) and of right (from 7.1 (2.3)-2.3
(1.7) mm Hg) and left (from 17.6 (8.8)9.5 (6.4) mm Hg) ventricular filling
pressures; an increase in oxygen
consumption at peak exercise (from
15.8 (3.3) to 17.6 (2) mL/min/kg) and of
tolerance time (from 444 (138) to 508
(134) s); decrease in atrial and
ventricular dimensions; no changes in
the systolic function of the left ventricle;
a reduction of the early to late filling
ratio in both ventricles (mitral valve from
2 (2) to 1.1 (1.1)); (tricuspid valve from
1.3 (1.3) to 0.69 (0.18)) and an increase
in the deceleration time of mitral and
tricuspid flow, reflecting a redistribution
of filling to late diastole. Variations in the
ventricular filling pattern, lung water
content, and functional performance
persisted for 3mo in all cases. None of
these changes was detected in the
control group.
Significant reductions in UF group right
atrial pressure (from 8 ± 1 - 3.4 ± 0.7
mm Hg, pulmonary wedge pressure
(from 18 ± 2.5 - 10 ± 1.9 mm Hg) and
cardiac index (from 2.8 ± 0.2 -2.3± 0.2
L/min). During the follow-up period,
lung function improved, extravascular
lung water (X-ray score) decreased and
Small older
study; single
institution
Pathophysiological
study involving UF
and hemodynamic
outcomes.
Small older
study
Pathophysiological
study involving UF
and hemodynamic
outcomes.
Functional
performance was
assessed with
cardiopulmonary
exercise tests
75 Plasma norepinephrine
levels
kg in last 6 mo);
therapeutic digoxin level
(if on digoxin)
severe ventricular
arrhythmias or an artificial
pacemaker
peak oxygen consumption (mL/min per
kg) increased from 15.5 ± 1 (d -1) to
17.6 ± 0.9 (d 4), to 17.8 ±0.9 (d 30), to
18.9 ±1 (d 90) and to 19.1 ±1 (d 180).
Oxygen consumption at anaerobic
threshold (mL/min per kg) also
increased from 11.6 ±0.8 (d -1) to 13
±0.7 (d 4), to 13.7 ± 0.5 (d 30), to 15.5
± 0.8 (d 90) and to 15.2 ± 0.8 (d 180).
These changes were associated with
increased ventilation, tidal volume and
dead space/tidal volume ratio at peak
exercise. Improvement in exercise
performance was associated with a
decrease in norepinephrine at rest, a
downward shift of norepinephrine
kinetics at submaximal exercise and an
increase in norepinephrine during
orthostatic tilt. None of these changes
were recorded in group B.
ACS indicates acute coronary syndrome; ADHERE, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry; AE, adverse event; AUC, area under the curve; BNP, B-Type natriuretic peptide; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; CHD, chronic heart disease; CHF, congestive
heart failure; CrCl, creatinine clearance; CV, cardiovascular; DAD-HF, Dopamine in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; DIG, Digitalis Investigation Group; DM, diabetes mellitus; ED, emergency department; eGFR, glomerular
filtration rate; EUPHORIA, Early Ultrafiltration Therapy in Patients with Decompensated Heart Failure and Observed Resistance to Intervention with Diuretic Agents; EVEREST, Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in hEart failuRE: Outcome Study With Tolvaptan;
HDD, high dose diuretics; HF, heart failure; Hgb, hemoglobin; HTN, hypertension; ICU, intensive care unit; IV, intravenous; KCCQ, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; LDD, low dose diuretics; LDFD, low-dose furosemide; LOS, length of stay; LVEF, left
ventricular ejection fraction; MCS, mechanical cardiac support; N/A, not applicable; NPSD, nonpotassium-sparing diuretics; NT-pBNP, N-terminal pro-B-Type natriuretic peptide; PO, per oral; PRAISE, Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Evaluation;
PROTECT, Placebo-controlled Randomized study of the selective A(1) adenosine receptor antagonist rolofylline for patients hospitalized with acute heart failure and volume Overload to assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and renal function; PTCA,
percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; PSD, potassium-sparing diuretics; pts, patients; RAPID-HF, Relief for Acutely Fluid-Overloaded Patients With Decompensated Congestive Heart Failure; RCT, randomized control trial; SBP, systolic blood pressure;
SCD, sudden cardiac death; SCr, serum creatinine; SOLVD, Studies of left ventricular dysfunction; Tx, treatment; UF, ultrafiltration; UNLOAD, Ultrafiltration Versus Intravenous Diuretics for Patients Hospitalized for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure; VAS, visual
analog scale, WMD, weighted mean difference; and WRF, worsening renal function.
Data Supplement 18. ACE Inhibitors (Section 7.3.2.2)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Aim of Study
Study Type
Background
Therapy
Study Size
Etiology
Pre-trial
standard
treatment.
N (Total)
n (Experimental)
n (Control)
Ischemic/
Non-Ischemic
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Patient Population
Inclusion
Criteria
Exclusion
Criteria
76 Endpoints
Primary
Endpoint
Secondary
Endpoint
Mortality
1st Year
Mortality
Trial
Duration
(Years)
Absolute
Benefit
P Values & 95% CI:
CONSENSUS
1987
2883575 (168)
To Evaluate
influence of
enalapril on
prognosis of
NYHA class lV
HF
RCT
Diuretics
(spironolactone
53%, mean dose
80mg), digitalis
(93%), other
vasodilators,
except ACEI (ie
nitrates 46%)
253; 127;126
10 y FU of
CONSENSUS
1999
10099910
(169)
Report on the
survival at the
10-y follow up
of the pts
randomized in
CONSENSUS.
(1st study to
show
prognostic
improvement
by an ACEI.
Pts in NYHA
class IV HF
treated with
enalapril or
placebo. After
study
completion all
pts were
offered openlabel enalapril
therapy).
10-y openlabel follow-up
study (via
completion of a
questionnaire)
on the survival
status of pts in
CONSENSUS
-a RCT.
All pts were
offered openlabel enalapril
therapy
315; 77; 58
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. CAD 73%
APE;
hemodynamicall
y import
aortic/MV
stenosis;
MI w/in prior 2
mo
Unstable
angina; planned
cardiac surgery;
right HF b/c of
pulm disease;
Cr>300 umol/L
Severe
HF/symptoms at
rest/NYHA class
lV;
Increased heart
size >600 ml;
BP: 120/75;
HR: 80; AF
50%
Mortality
253 randomized
pts included in
analysis of time
from
randomization to
death;
Survivors (135)
of the doubleblind period
included in
analysis of the
time from end of
double-blind
period to death;
Severe, NYHA
lV
Mortality
77 Change in NYHAFC, LV size, Cr
level
52% placebo
group and
36% enalapril
group (6 mo
mortality:
26% in
enalpril group
and 44% in
placebo
group)
0.51 y
10 y
N/A
Crude mortality at end of
6 mo (primary endpoint),
26% in enalapril group
and 44% in placebo
group—40% reduction (p
=0.002).
Mortality was reduced by
31% at 1 y (p=0.001)
5 pts, all in the enalapril
group, were long-term
survivors (p=0.004).
Averaged over the trial
(double-blind plus openlabel extension) risk
reduction was 30%
(p=0.008), 95% CI: 11%
- 46%.
At end of double-blind
study period, mortality
considerably higher
among pts not receiving
open ACEI therapy
SOLVD 1991
2057034 (170)
Study the effect
of enalapril on
mortality and
hospitalization
in pts with
chronic HF and
EF <35%
RCT
Diuretics +
Digoxin
2569; 1285; 1284
Ischemic heart
disease 72%
LVEF <35%;
Mild to severe
(11% class
l/<2% class lV);
LVEF 25%; BP:
125/77; HR:
80; AF: 8-12%
Age >80 y;
Unstable
angina; MI w/in
past mo; Cr>2.0
mg/dL
Mortality
Hospitalizations;
Incidence of MI;
Mortality by
specific causes;
Combined
mortality and
morbidity from
both
SOLVD+/SOLVD-
SOLVD 1992
1463530 (90)
Study effect of
ACEIs on total
mortality and
mortality from
CV causes, the
development of
HF, and
hospitalization
for HF in pts
with EF <35%
12-y FU of
SOLVD to
establish if the
mortality
reduction with
enalapril
among pts with
HF was
sustained, and
whether a
subsequent
reduction in
mortality would
emerge among
those with
asymptomatic
ventricular
dysfunction.
RCT
No drug
treatment for HF
4228; 2111; 2117
History of
ischemic heart
disease 85%
EF <35%;
Asymptomatic;
NYHA class I
(67%) + ll;
EF: 28%; BP:
126/78; HR:
75; AF: 4%
As per SOLVD+
Mortality;
Combined
mortality and
the
incidence of
HF and rate
of
hospitalizatio
n for HF
Incidence of HF
and rate of
hospitalization for
HF
12 y f/u of
RCTs
[SOLVD+ and
SOLVD-]
N/A
6784; 3391; 3393
N/A
Participation in
SOLVD+ and
SOLVDAsymptomatic to
severe;
NYHA l-lV
N/A
Mortality
N/A
SOLVD F/U
2003
12788569 (91)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 78 15.70%
3.45 y
Treating
1000
SOLVD+
pts with
enalapril
for ~3 y
would
save ~50
premature
deaths
and 350
hospitaliz
ations.
3.12 y
N/A
N/A
Reduced mortality by
16%; (95% CI, 5-26%;
p=0.0036)
Reduced mortality:
p=0.30; 95% CI: -8-21%
Enalapril
extended
median
survival
by 9.4 mo
in the
combined
trials
(95% CI:
2.8–16.5,
p=0.004).
In the prevention trial,
50.9% of the enalapril
group had died c/w
56.4% of the placebo
group (p=0.001).
In the treatment trial,
79.8% of the enalapril
group had died c/w
80.8% of the placebo
group (p=0.01).
Combined prevention
and treatment trials: HR
for death was 0.90 for
the enalapril group c/w
placebo group (95% CI:
0.84–0.95, p=0.0003).
ATLAS
1999
10587334
(171)
To compare
the efficacy
and safety of
low and high
doses of ACEI
on the risk of
death and
hospitalization
in chronic HF.
than the large
doses that
have been
shown to
reduce
morbidity and
mortality in pts
with HF.
AIM:
Investigate if
low doses and
high doses of
ACEIs have
similar benefits.
RCT
N/A
CAD 65%
3164;
1596 to the lowdose strategy and
1568 to the highdose strategy.
Acute coronary
ischemic event
or
revascularizatio
n procedure
within 2 mo;
History of
sustained or
symptomatic
ventricular
tachycardia;
Intolerant of
ACEIs;
SCr >2.5 mg/dL
LVEF <=30%;
NYHA class II,
III, or IV, despite
treatment with
diuretics for ≥2
mo
(Treatment for
HF in ED or
hospital within 6
mo required for
pts in class II);
Prior use of
digitalis, ACEIs,
or vasodilators
allowed but not
mandated;
NYHA ll-lV
(mainly class ll);
LVEF 23%;
SBP 126 mmHg;
HR 80; NYHA
class: lll (few ll
and lV)
Post-MI ACEI Use
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 79 Mortality
from all
causes
Combined risk of
all-cause
mortality and
hospitalization for
any reason;
CV mortality, CV
hospitalizations;
All-cause
mortality
combined with
CV
hospitalizations;
CV mortality
combined with
CV
hospitalizations;
Combined risk of
fatal and nonfatal
MI plus
hospitalization for
unstable angina
5y
High-dose group had 8%
lower risk of all-cause
mortality (p=0.128) and
10% lower risk of CV
mortality (p=0.073) than
low-dose group.
Death or hospitalization
for any reason, highdose group had 12%
lower risk than low-dose
group, p=0.002.
Total number of
hospitalizations: highdose group 13% fewer
hospitalizations for any
reason (p=0.021), 16%
fewer hospitalizations for
CV reason (p=0.05), and
24% fewer
hospitalizations for HF
(p=0.002).
SAVE, 1992
1386652 (89)
To test the
hypothesis that
the long-term
administration
of captopril to
survivors of
acute MI who
had baseline
LV dysfunction
but did not
have overt HF
requiring
vasodilator
therapy would
reduce
mortality,
lessen
deterioration in
cardiac
performance,
and improve
clinical
outcome.
RCT
Beta-blockers
36%;
Digitalis 26%;
Nitrates 51%
2231; 1115; 1116
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Ischemic
100%
Alive 3 d after
MI;
LVEF <40%;
>21 y of age,
but <80;
Killip class I —
60%
(60% of the ps
did not have
even transient
pulmonary
congestion at
baseline/the
time of their
acute MI;
EF 31%;
BP 113/70;
HR 78;
Failure to
undergo
randomization
within 16 d after
the MI;
Relative
contraindication
to the use of an
ACEIs or the
need for such an
agent;
SCr > 2.5 mg/dl
80 Mortality from
all causes
Mortality from
CV causes;
Mortality
combined with a
decrease in the
EF of at least 9
units in surviving
pts;
CV morbidity
(development of
severe CHF or
the recurrence
of MI);
Combination of
CV mortality and
morbidity;
2 endpoints of
severe HF
(treatment
failure): 1st,
development of
overt HF
necessitating
treatment with
ACEI and 2nd,
hospitalization to
treat CHD.
3.5 y
Mortality from all causes
was significantly reduced
in the captopril group
(228 deaths, or 20%) as
c/w the placebo group
(275 deaths, or 25%); the
RR:19% (95% CI, 332%; p= 0.019).
RR:21% (95% CI, 5 35%; p = 0.014) for
death from CV causes,
37% (95% CI, 20-50%;
p<0.001) for the
development of severe
HF, 22% (95% CI, 437%; p= 0.019) for CHF
requiring hospitalization,
and 25% (95% CI, 540%; p= 0.015) for
recurrent MI.
AIRE 1993
8104270 (172)
Investigated
the effect of
therapy with
ACEI ramipril,
on survival in
pts who had
shown clinical
evidence of HF
at any time
after an acute
MI. Also, to
compare the
incidences of
progression to
severe or
resistant HF,
nonfatal reinfarction and
stroke between
the 2 groups.
RCT
TRACE 1995
7477219 (173)
To determine
whether pts
who LV
dysfunction
soon after MI
benefit from
long-term oral
ACE inhibition.
RCT
2006; 1014; 992
Beta blocker 16%;
Calcium antagonist
28%; Diuretic
66%; Nitrates
53%; Digoxin
28%.
1749; 876; 873
Ischemic
100%
Aged ≥18 y,
with a definite
acute MI 3-10 d
before
randomization;
Clinical
evidence of HF
at any time
since acute MI
Use of an ACEI
considered to be
mandatory
Mortality from
all causes
Consecutive pts
>18 y
hospitalized with
MI;
Criteria for MI:
chest pain or
electrocardiogra
phic changes,
accompanied by
>2X increase in
one or more
cardiac
enzymes;
LV dysfunction
(EF <35%);
NYHA class 1 41%;
BP 121/76; HR
81
Contraindication
to ACEI or a
definite need for
them;
Severe,
uncontrolled DM;
Hyponatremia
(<125 mmol/L);
Elevated SCr
level (2.3 mg/dL)
Death from
any cause
1.3 y
Death from a CV
cause, sudden
death;
Progression to
severe HF
(hospital
admission for
HF, death due to
progressive HF,
or HF
necessitating
open-label
ACEI);
Recurrent
infarction (fatal
or nonfatal);
Change in the
wall-motion
index (EF)
The mortality
from all causes
at 1 y was
24%.
Mortality from all causes
was significantly lower
for pts on ramipril
compared to pts on
placebo. RR: 27%; 95%
Cl: 11-40%; p = 0.002.
Prespecified secondary
outcomes: risk reduction
of 19% for the 1st
validated outcome—
namely, death,
severe/resistant HF, MI,
or stroke (95% CI: 5% 31%; p=0.008).
24 lives
were
saved
after one
mo of
treating
1000 pts
During the study period,
304 pts in the trandolapril
group died (34.7%), as
did 369 in the placebo
group (42.3%). RR: 0.78
(95% CI, 0.67 - 0.91;
p=0.001).
In every subgroup,
treatment with
trandolapril was
associated with a
reduction in risk.
ACEI indicates angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; AF, atrial fibrillation; AIRE, Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy; APE, acute pulmonary embolism; ATLAS, Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival; BP, blood pressure; CAD, coronary artery disease;
CHD, chronic heart disease; CHF, congestive heart failure; CONSENSUS Cooperative North Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study; Cr, creatinine; CV, cardiovascular; C/W, compared with; DM, diabetes mellitus; ED, emergency department; FU, follow-up; HF, heart
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 81 failure; HR, heart rate; LV, left ventricular; MI, myocardial infarction; MV, mitral valve; N/A, not applicable; NYHA, New York Heart Association; pts, patients; SAVE, survival and ventricular enlargement trial; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SOLVD, Studies Of Left
Ventricular Dysfunction; RCT, randomized control trial; SCr, serum creatinine; and TRACE, Trandolapril Cardiac Evaluation.
Data Supplement 19. ARBs (Section 7.3.2.3)
Study
Name,
Author,
Year
Aim of
Study
Study
Type
CHARM
Alternative;
Granger et
al; (2003)
13678870
(174)
Discover
whether
ARB could
improve
outcome in
pts not
taking an
ACEI
(intolerant)
RCT
CHARMADDED;
McMurray
et al;
(2003)
13678869
(175)
To
investigate
if ARB +
ACEI in pts
with chronic
HF improve
clincal
outcomes
RCT
Background
Therapy
Pre-trial
standard
treatment.
Diuretics,
Beta-blockers
(55%),
spironolacton
e 24%,
Digoxin 4546%
Beta blocker55%;
spironolacton
e 17%;
Digoxin 5859%
Study Size
N (Total)
Etiology
n (Experimental)
n (Control)
2028; 1013;
1015
Ischemic/
Non-Ischemic
Ischemic 67-70%
Inclusion
Criteria
Symptomatic
HF, EF <40%,
no ACEI (b/c
of intolerance)
2548; 1276;
1272
Ischemic 62-63%
Symptomatic
HF; EF <40%;
Treatment with
ACEI; Age >18
y
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Patient Population
Severity
Exclusion
Criteria
NYHA ll-lV; mild to
severe (<4% class
lV); EF: 30%; BP:
130/70; HR: 7475; AF: 25-26%
NYHA class ll-lV;
mild to severe
(<3% class lV) ;
EF 28%; BP
125/75; HR 74;
AF 27%
82 Endpoints
Primary
Endpoint
Composite of
CV death or
hospital
admission for
CHF
Composite of
CV death or
hospital
admission for
CHF
Secondary
Endpoint
CV death,
hospital
admission for
CHF or non-fatal
MI; CV death,
CHF admission,
non-fatal MI, nonfatal stroke; CV
death, CHF
admission, nonfatal MI, non-fatal
stroke, coronary
revascularization;
Death (any
cause); New DM
CV death,
hospital
admission for
CHF or non-fatal
MI; CV death,
CHF admission,
nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke; CV
death, CHF
admission, nonfatal MI, non-fatal
stroke, coronary
revascularization;
Death (any
cause); New DM
Mortality
Trial
Duration
(Y)
Statistical Results
1st Y Mortality
2.8 y
Absolute reduction of 7 major
events per 100 pts threated NNT 14 pts to prevent 1 CV
death or hospitalization.
HR: 0.77 (95% CI: 0.67-0.89);
p=0.0004
3.4 y
Absolute reduction of 4.4 pts
with events per 100 pts
treated- NNT of 23 to prevent
1 first event of CV death or
CHF hospitalization.
RR: 0.85 (95% CI: 0.75-0.96);
p=0.011
VALIANT;
Pfeffer et
al; (2003)
14610160
(176)
Compare
the effect of
an ARB,
ACEI and
the
combination
of the 2on
mortality
Random
ized
double
blind
multicen
ter trial
Betablockers; ASA
14,703
Valsartan:4909
Captopril-: 4909
VAL + CAP:
4885
Ischemic 100%
(MI inclusion
criteria)
Val-HeFT;
Cohn et al;
(2001)
11759645
(177)
Evaluate
long term
effects of
adding ARB
to standard
therapy for
HF
RCT
Diuretics;
Digoxin 67%;
Beta blocker
35%; ACEI
93%
5010; 2511;
2499
Ischemic 57%
HEAAL
study;
Lancet
2009; 374:
1840-48.
19922995
(178)
Compared
the effects
of highdose vs
low-dose
losartan on
clinical
outcomes in
pts with HF.
RCT
Diuretic drugs
(77%), beta
blockers
(72%), and
ARBs (38%).
3846
losartan 150 mg
(n=1927) or 50
mg daily
(n=1919).
IHD 64%
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Age >18 y;
Acute MI
complicated by
HF;
LV systolic
dysfunct (EF
<35%), (<40%
on
radionuclide
ventriculograp
hy);
SBP > 100
mmHg; Cr <
2.5 mg/dL
Age>18 y;
NYHA ll, ll, lV;
At least 2 wk
of background
meds including
ACEIs;
EF <40% and
LVID >2.9
cm/BSA
>18 y;
NYHA class II–
IV; LVEF
<40%, with
stable CV
medical
therapy for at
least 2 wk;
Intolerance to
ACEI;
Investigators
encouraged to
start beta
blocker and
titrate to a
maximum,
whenever
possible
Prior
intolerance
or contraindication to
ACEI/
ARB
Pregnancy
or lactation;
known
intolerance
to ARBs;
Systolic
arterial
blood
pressure
<90 mm Hg;
Significant
stenotic
valvular
heart
disease;
Active
myocarditis;
active
pericarditis;
Planned
NYHA l-lV;
asymptomaticsevere,
EF 35%; BP:
123/72; HR: 76
Death from
any cause
NYHA ll-lll, lV
(only ~2% class
lV); Mild to
severe;
EF 27%; BP
123/76; AF 12%
Mortality;
Combined
end point of
mortality and
morbidity
NYHA ll-lV (70%
ll); EF: 33%; BP:
124/77; HR: 71;
AF; 28%
Death or
admission for
HF
83 12.5% VAL
12.3% VAL--CAP
13.2% CAP
2.1 y
VAL and CAP: 1.0 (97.5% CI- 0.90-1.11); p= 0.98 ;
VAL+CAP and CAP: 0.98
(97.5% CI-- 0.89-1.09); p=
0.73
Change in EF;
• NYHA class,
QoL scores;
Signs and
symptoms of HF
1.92 y
Mortality similar for the 2
treatment groups.
For the combined endpoint:
RR: 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.770.97; p=0.009
Composite
endpoint of death
or CV admission.
Additional
prespecified
outcomes
included: death,
death or all-cause
admission, CV
death, all-cause
admission, CV
admission,
admission for HF,
and changes in
the severity of
heart disease
4.7 y
median
f/u
Treating pts with 150 mg dose
instead of 50 mg dose would
result in 1 additional pt w/out
the primary event at 4 y for
every 31 pts treated.
Composite: 828 (43%) pts in
150 mg group vs. 889 (46%)
in 50 mg group died or
admitted for HF (HR: 0.90;
95% CI: 0.82-0.99; p=0.027)
• Components: 635 pts in 150
mg group vs. 665 in 50 mg
group died (HR: 0.94, 95% CI:
0.84-1.04; p=0.24), and 450
vs. 503 pts admitted for HF
(0.87, 0.76–0.98; p=0.025)
CHARMOverall
13678868
(179)
Aimed to
find out
whether the
use of an
ARB could
reduce
mortality
and
morbidity.
RCTparallel,
randomi
zed,
doubleblind,
Diuretics 83%
Beta blockers
55%
ACEI 43%
Spironolacton
e 17%
Digoxin 43%
7601 pts
(7599 with data)
3803
3796
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. >18 y;
NYHA class II–
IV for at least 4
wk;
3 distinct
populations:
pts with LVEF
<40% who
were not
receiving
ACEIs
(previous
intolerance) or
who were
currently
receiving ACE,
and pts with
LVEF >40%
heart
transplantati
on w/in 6
mo;
coronary
angioplasty,
CABG,
acute MI,
UA pectoris,
cerebrovasc
ular
accident, or
TIA within
the previous
12 wk;
Suspected
significant
renal artery
stenosis
SCr > 265
μmol/L,
serum
potassium
>5.5 mmol/L
Bilateral
renal artery
stenosis;
symptomatic
hypotension
Women of
childbearing
potential not
using
adequate
contraceptio
n; Critical
aortic or
mitral
stenosis;
MI, stroke,
or openheart
surgery in
NYHA ll-lV
NYHA ll-lV
Only 3% class lV
84 The primary
outcome of
the overall
program: allcause
mortality;
For all the
component
trials: CV
death or
hospital
admission for
CHF.
The annual CV
death rate among
the placebo group
who had reduced
LVEF was around
9% and was only
4% in the placebo
group of CHARMPreserved.
3.1 y
886 (23%) pts in candesartan
and 945 (25%) in placebo
group died (unadjusted HR:
0.91; 95% Cl: 0.83–1.00;
p=0.055; covariate aHR: 0.90
95% CU: 0.82–0.99; p=0.032)
• Fewer CV deaths (691 [18%]
vs 769 [20%], unadjusted HR:
0.88; 95% Cl: 0.79–0.97;
p=0.012; covariate aHR: 0.87;
95% Cl: 0.78–0.96; p=0.006)
• Hospital admissions for CHF
(757 [20%] vs 918 [24%],
p<0.0001)
the previous
4 wk; Use of
an ARB in
the previous
2 wk
ACEI indicates angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; AF, atrial fibrillation; ARB, angiotensin receptor blockers; ASA, aspirin; BP, blood pressure; BSA, body surface area; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; CHARM, Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment
of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity; CHD, chronic heart disease; CHF, congestive heart failure; Cr, creatinine; CV, cardiovascular; DM, diabetes mellitus; EF, ejection fraction; FU, follow-up; HEAAL study, effects of high-dose versus low-dose losartan on clinical
outcomes in patients with heart failure; HF, heart failure; HR, heart rate; IHD, ischemic heart disease; LV, left ventricular; LVD, left ventricular dilatation; MI, myocardial infarction; MV, mitral valve; N/A, not applicable; NNT, number needed to treat; NYHA, New York
Heart Association; QoL, quality of life; pts, patients; SBP, systolic blood pressure; RCT, randomized control trial; SCr, serum creatinine; TIA, transient ischemic attack; UA, unstable angina; Val-HeFT, Valsartan Heart Failure Trial; and VALIANT, Valsartan in Acute
Myocardial Infarction.
Data Supplement 20. Beta Blockers (Section 7.3.2.4)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Aim of
Study
Study
Type
Background
Therapy
CIBIS ll CIBIS
ll investigators
and committee
members
(1999)
10023943
(180)
Investigate
the efficacy
of bisoprolol
in
decreasing
all-cause
mortality in
chronic HF
RCTmulticent
er
doubleblind
randiomi
sed
placebo
controlle
d trial
(Europe)
Diuretics +
ACEI;
[amiodarone
allowed--14l6%]
MERIT-HF;
MERIT study
Group; (1999)
10376614
(181)
Investigate
whether
Metoprolol
CR/XL
lowered
mortality in
pts with
decreased
EF and
RCT-multicent
er
doubleblind
randiomi
sed
placebo
controlle
Diuretics +
ACEI
[Amiodarone
NOT allowed]
Study Size
N (Total)
n (Experimental)
n (Control)
2647; 1327;
1320
Documented
Ischemic
50%
3991; 1991;
2001
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Etiology
Ischemic
65%
Patient Population
Inclusion
Criteria
NYHA class lll
or lV
EF: <35%
18-80 y old
NYHA ll-lV;
40-80 y old;
LVEF <40%
(36-40 if 6-min
walk <450m);
HR >68 bpm
Severity
Exclusion Criteria
Uncontrolled HTN;
MI/UA w/in previous 3
mo;
PTCA/CABG w/in
previous 6 mo;
AV-block >1st degree
w/o PPM;
Heart rate < 60bpm;
resting SBP
<100mmHg; renal
failure;
Reversible obstruct
lung disease; Use of
beta blocker
MI/UA w/in 28 d;
Contra-indication or
current use of beta
blocker;
PTCA/CABG w/in 4 mo
Planned transplant or
ICD;
Heart block > 1st
degree w/o PPM;
85 Moderate to
severe.
Mean BP:
130/80; Mean
HR: 80; Mean
EF: 28%; Mean
LVEDD: 6.7 cm;
AF: 20%
Mild to severe.
Mean BP:
130/78; Mean
HR: 78; Mean
EF 28%; AF 1617%
Endpoints
Mortality
Trial
Duration
Statistical
Results
Primary
Endpoint
All-cause
mortality
Secondary
Endpoint
All-cause
hospital
admissions
All CV deaths
Combined
endpoints
Permanent
treatment
withdrawal
Annualized
Mortality
13.2%
Placebo
group
8.8%
Treatm't
group
1st Y
Mortality
N/A
1.3 y
HR: 0.66 (95%
CI: 0.54-0.81);
p<0.0001
All-cause
mortality
All-cause
mortality in
combination
with all-cause
admission to
hospital
N/A
11.0%
Placebo
group
7.2%
Treatm't
group
N/A
1y
Treatment of 27
pt for 1 y can
prevent 1 death.
0.66 (95% CI:
0.53-0.81);
p=0.00009
symptoms of
HF
d trial
(Europe
+ USA)
SBP<100mmHg
COPERNICUS
; Packer et al;
(2002)
12390947
(182)
Investigate
whether
Carvadiolo is
beneficial in
severe HF
RCT-double
blind
Diuretics (PO
or IV) + ACEI
(or ARB);
[Amiodarone
allowed 1718%]
2289; 1156;
1133
Ischemic
67%
Euvolumic
NYHA class lV;
LVEF <25%;
No positive
inotropes or
vasodilators
w/in 4 d
Pt requiring
hospitalized intensive
care;
Use of positive
inotropes or IV;
vasodilators w/in 4-d;
Coronary
revascularization/MI/C
VA/sign VT or VF w/in
2 mo;
SBP < 85 mmHg,
Heart rate <68, Cr >2.8
mg/dL
Severe
Mean BP:
123/76;
Mean HR: 83;
Mean EF 20%;
All-cause
mortality
Combined risk
of death or
hospitalizationany reason;
Combined risk
of death or
hospitalization-CV reason;
Combined risk
of death or
hospitalization-HF reason;
Pt global
assessment
19.7%
placebo
[24.0% in pts
with recent
or recurrent
cardiac
decompensa
tions]
18.5% in
placebo
group
11.4% in
Carvedil
ol group
10.4 mo
Treating 1000 pt
for 1 y led to
savings of 70
premature deaths
p=0.0014
SENIORS;
Flather et al;
(2005)
15642700
(183)
Assess
effects of the
beta blocker
Nebivolol in
pts >70 y
regardless of
EF.
RCT
Diuretics +
ACEI
(+aldosterone
antagonist in
29%)
2128; 1067;
1061
Prior h/o
CAD in 69%
Age >70
Chronic HF
with one of the
following:
hospitalization
with CHF w/in
a year or EF
<35% w/in the
past 6 months
New HF therapy w/in 6
wk or change in drug
therapy w/in 2 wk
Contra-indication to
beta blockers, current
use of beta blockers
Significant renal
dysfunction
CVA w/in 3 mo.
Mild to severe
Mean BP:
139/81;
Mean HR: 79;
Mean EF 36%
(1/3 with EF
>35%);
Composite of
all-cause
mortality or
CV hospital
admission
All-cause
mortality
Composite of
all-cause
mortality or allcause hospital
admissions
All cause
hospital
admissions
CV hospital
admissions
CV mortality
Composite of
CV mortality or
CV hospital
admissions
NYHA class
assessment; 6
MWT
N/A
N/A
1.75 y
Absolute risk
reduction 4.2%;
24 pts would need
to be treated for
21 mo to avoid
one event
RR: 0.86; 95% CI:
0.74-0.99;
p=0.039
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 86 A Trial of the
Beta-Blocker
Bucindolol in Pt
with Advanced
Chronic HF
The BetaBlocker
Evaluation of
Survival Trial
Investigators
11386264
(184)
Designed to
determine
whether
bucindolol
hydrochlorid
e, a
nonselective
betaadrenergic
blocker and
mild
vasodilator,
would
reduce the
rate of death
from any
cause
among pt
with
advanced
HF and to
assess its
effect in
various
subgroups
defined by
ethnic
background
and
demographic
criteria —
specifically
women and
members of
minority
groups.
RCT
ACEIs (if
tolerated)
[91% ACE;
7% ARB], for
at least 1 mo.
Before the
publication of
the results of
the DIG trial,
12 digoxin
therapies
were
required, but
thereafter its
use became
discretionary
[DIG 94%].
2708; 1354;
1354
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Ischemic
59%
NYHA class III
or IV HF
LVEF <35%
>18 y
Reversible cause of HF
present
Candidates for heart
transplantation
Cardiac
revascularization
procedure within the
previous 60 d
UA
Heart rate <50 beats
per minute, SBP
<80mmHg
Decompensated HF.
87 NYHA lll or lV
(92% class lll)
EF 23%;
HR 82;
BP 117/71;
AF 12%
Death from
any cause
Death from CV
causes (death
due to pump
failure or an
ischemic event
or sudden
death)
Hospitalization
for any reason
Hospitalization
because of HF
Composite of
death or heart
tansplantation
LVEF at 3 and
12 mo
MI; QoL; and
any change in
the need for
concomitant
therapy
For pt in
NYHA
functional
class III, the
annual
mortality rate
was 16% in
the placebo
group; For pt
with NYHA
class IV, the
annual
mortality rate
in the
placebo
group was
28%
Overall:
annual
mortality of
17% in
placebo
group c/w
15% in the
bucindolol
group.
N/A
~2 y
449 pt in placebo
group (33%) died,
411 in the
bucindolol group
(30%; HR: 0.90;
95% CI, 0.781.02; unadjusted
p=0.10; adjusted
p=0.13)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.8 y
All-cause
Diuretics,
3029;
N/A
NYHA class llN/A
Mild to severe
All-cause
To compare RCT
mortality 34%
ACEIs
1511 carvedilol;
lV
mortality
the effects of
carvedilol and
1518 metoprolol
EF <35%
Composite
carvedilol
40% metoprolol
tartrate
Previous CV
endpoint of
and
(HR: 0.83; 95% CI
admission
all-cause
metoprolol
0.74-0.93;
mortality, or
on clinical
p=0.0017)
all-cause
outcome in
admission
pts with HF
In the ITT sample,
1010
N/A
N/A
Mean of
Multicent Diuretics
Combined end
The primary
Treatment with an
NYHA ll or lll;
(CIBIS) III;
CAD 62%
>65 y, NYHA
Sufficient
84%; Digoxin Bisoprolol 505;
1.22±0.4 178 pt (35.2%)
er,
point at the end
ACEI, an ARB, or a
mild to moderate endpoint was
2005
class II or III,
data do not
with a primary
2y
prospecti 32%
of the
time-to-thebeta blocker for >7 d
CHF
16143696
Enalapril 505
and LVEF
currently
(maximu end point in the
ve,
monotherapy
first-event of
<35% (By echo during the 3 mo before LVEF 29%;
(186)
exist to
m of 2.10 bisoprolol-first
combined all- phase and the
randomization
Heart rate 79;
within the 3
establish the randomiz
group, and 186
y).
ed,
individual
cause
Heart rate at rest <60
SBP 134
mo)
optimum
(36.8%) in the
opencomponents of
mortality or
Clinically stable beats/min without a
order of
enalapril-first
label,
the primary
all-cause
functioning pacemaker
HF (without
initiating
group (absolute
blinded
hospitalization end point, at
clinically
chronic HF
Supine SBP <100 mm
difference -1.6%;
end point
study end and
relevant fluid
therapy
Hg at rest
95% CI -7.6 to
evaluatio
at the end of
retention or
(ACEI vs.
SCr≥220 µmol/L
4.4%; HR: 0.94;
n
the
diuretic
beta
AV block greater than
95% CI 0.77 to
(PROBE)
monotherapy
adjustment
blocker).
first degree without a
1.16;
phase.
within 7 d)
This was the trial,24
functioning pacemaker
noninferiority for
with 2
CV death
objective of
Obstructive lung
bisoprolol-first
CV
the CIBIS III parallel
disease
versus enalaprilgroups.
hospitalization
trial-- it
contraindicating
first treatment,
compared
bisoprolol treatment
p=0.019)
the effect on
mortality and
hospitalizatio
n of initial
monotherap
y with either
bisoprolol or
enalapril for
6 mo,
followed by
their
combination
for 6 to 24
mo.
ACEI indicates angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; AF, atrial fibrillation; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; AV, atrioventricular; BP, blood pressure; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; CHF, congestive heart failure; CIBIS II, Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol
Study II; COMET, Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial; COPERNICUS, carvedilol prospective randomized cumulative survival; Cr, creatinine; CR/XL, controlled release/extended release; CV, cardiovascular; CVA, cerebrovascular accident; c/w, compared with;
DIG, Digitalis Investigation Group; EF, ejection fraction; HF, heart failure; h/o, history of; HR, hazard ratio; ICD, ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; ITT, intent to treat; MERIT-HF, Metoprolol CR/XL Randomised Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure;
COMET;
Poole-Wilson
et al; (2003)
12853193
(185)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 88 MI, myocardial infarction; MWT, minute walk test; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PPM, permanent pacemaker; PTCA, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; Pts, patients; QoL, quality of life; RCT, randomized control trial; RR, relative risk; SBP,
systolic blood pressure; SCr, serum creatinine; UA, unstable angina; USA, United States of America; VF, ventricular fibrillation; VT, ventricular tachycardia; and w/o, without.
Data Supplement 21. Anticoagulation (Section 7.3.2.8.1)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Aim of Study
Study Type
Study Size
Patient Population
Inclusion
Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
WARCEF Pullicino
2006, 16500579;
Homma 2012,
22551105
(187)
Compare efficacy
of warfarin (INR
2.75) vs aspirin
(325 mg/d) in HF
pt in sinus rhythm
RCT, double
blind/double
dummy,
multicenter, parallel
group
N=2305, mean
f/u 3.5 y; (69%
power to detect
~18%
reduction
primary
endpoint)
N/A
EF≤35%,NYHA IIV, sinus rhytm,
taking ACEI/ARB
or H/N, planned
treatment with
beta blocker
HELAS
Cokkinos 2006
16737850
(188)
Determine if
warfarin(INR 2.03.0) or aspirin (325
mg/d) reduces
thromboemboli in
HF
RCT, multicenter,
double-blind,
placebo-controlled;
(converted to pilot
study due to
inadequate
enrollment)
N/A
NYHA II-IV; EF
<35%;
Prespecified
subgroups:
Ischemic vs DCM
WASH
Cleland 2004
15215806
(189)
Pilot Study:
feasibility of study
comparing warfarin
(INR 2.5) to aspirin
(300 mg/d) to
placebo
Prospective
multicenter
placebo-controlled
RCT, 3-arm, openlabel, blinded
endpoint
N=194, mean
f/u 22 mo;
Ischemic
(aspirin vs
warfarin),
N=114; DCM
(warfarin vs.
placebo), N=80
(stopped at 4%
target due to
poor
recruitment)
N=279 pts,
mean f/u 27 mo
N/A
Required diuretics;
LVEDD >55 mm or
>30 mm/m2 or EF
≤35%;
Prespecified
subgroups:
ischemic vs. DCM
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Study Size
(HF
Subpopulation)
Endpoints
Statistical Analysis (Results)
Primary Endpoint
Secondary Endpoint
Contraindication to
or absolute indication
for 1 treatment;
MI/PCI/cardiac
surgery <3 mo;
decompensated HF,
life expectancy
otherwise <5 y, HF
admission or CEA or
PPM insertion <1 mo
MI <2 mo; "reversible
ischemia", mitral
disease, HoCM, AF,
LV thrombus,
pregnancy, uncontr
HTN, contra-ind to
either study drug,
otherwise <2 y
expected survival
Efficacy: time to first of
(death+ischemic
stroke+intracerebral
hemorrhage); Safety:
major hemorrhage
Efficacy: primary
endpoint+MI+HF
hospitalization; components
of primary composite;
Safety:
intracerebral+intracranial
hemorrhage
Primary Efficacy: 7.47 events (warfarin)
vs. 7.93 events (aspirin) /100 person-y.
Secondary: ischemic stroke – warfarin,
HR: 0.52; Safety major hemorrhage:
Warafin 1.78 vs aspirin 0.87/100 persony.
Primary Endpoint: p=0.40: 95% CI: 0.79 1.10; ischemic stroke p=0.0005, 95% CI:
0.33 - 0.82; major hemorrhage p<0.001
Efficacy: composite
[nonfatal stroke +
arterial TEE or PE + MI
+ rehospitalization +
worsened HF + allcause mortality]; Safety:
ICH + "bleeding" on
treatment
Need for coronary
revascularization;
readmission for ischemia
Primary Efficacy (events/100 person-y):
Isch/aspirin (14.9), Isch/warfarin (15.7);
DCM/warfarin (6); DCM/placebo (10);
Safety: Isch/ warfarin (4), DCM/ warfarin
(3), others (0). 2.2 events/100 person-y (5
stroke, 2 MI, no arterial TEE or PE).
"Definite" indication
for warfarin or
aspirin, MI < 4 wk,
inpt status, contr-ind
to either drug
Time to first event (on
treatment or within 10 d
of stopping treatment):
composite [death +
nonfatal MI + nonfatal
stroke]
Prespecified: death or CV
hospitalization; death or allcause hospitalization; total
hospitalizations; death or
CV hospitalization or need
for increased diuretic dose;
worsening HF; MI; stroke;
major hemorrhage.
Both ITT an AT: "no difference"
PRIMARY ITT: Placebo: 26% (HR: 0.96;
95% CI: 0.60-1.54); Aspirin: 32% (HR:
1.16; 95% CI: 0.74-1.85); Warfarin: 26%
(HR: 0.88; 95% CI 0.54-1.43), p=0.22;
AT: Placebo: 20% (HR: 1.08 95% CI:
0.65-1.89); Aspirin: 22% (HR: 1.02 95%
CI: 0.59-1.75); Warfarin: 18% (HR: 0.89
89 WATCH
Massie 2009
19289640
(190)
Hypotheses:
warfarin superior to
aspirin and
clopidogrel
superior to aspirin
for HF pt with
reduced LVEF in
sinus rhythm
Prospective,
multicenter RCT,
open label
(warfarin) or double
blind APT group
comparing aspirin
(162 mg) vs.
clopidogrel (75 mg
no load) vs warfarin
(target INR 2.5)
N=1587;
treatment for 1
y; mean f/u 1.9
y (stopped
early due to
poor
recruitment)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. N/A
Reversible HF;
contraindicated to
any study drug;
imminent procedure
or surgery; other
survival-limiting
disease
NYHA II-IV, EF
≤35%; sinus
rhythm on entry;
on diuretics and
ACE-I /ARB or
H/N
90 Efficacy: time to first
event of composite
[death + nonfatal MI +
nonfatal stroke]; Safety:
major bleeding
Death; nonfatal MI; nonfatal
stroke; hospitalization for
HF
95% CI: 0.50-1.16); Secondar ITT: allcause hospitalizations (Placebo 48% vs.
Aspirin 64% vs. Warfarin 47%); Major
hemorrhage "no difference"; minor
hemorrhage (Placebo 5% vs. Aspirin 13%
vs. Warfarin 17%), p=0.033
Efficacy ITT: Primary - No difference
warfarin vs. aspirin vs clopidogrel;
Secondary - A group with more total and
HF hospital admissions; Safety ITT:
warfarin=aspirin, both with more major
bleeding than clopidogrel
Efficacy PRIMARY: ITT: warfarin vs.
aspirin: HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.86-1.12;
p=0.77. clopidogrel vs. aspirin: HR: 1.08
95% CI: 0.83-1.40; p=0.57. warfarin vs.
clopidogrel: HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.68-1.16;
p=0.39. AT: warfarin superior to aspirin
(p=0.0095), warfarin superior to
clopidogrel (p=0.0031). SECONDARY
endpoints: HF hospitalizations aspirin
(22.2%) vs. warfarin (16.5%), p=0.019;
Total HF admissions aspirin (218) vs.
warfarin (155), p <0.001. Safety
PRIMARY: major bleeding warfarin
(5.2%) vs. clopidogrel (2.1%), p=0.007;
warfarin vs. aspirin (p=NS). POST HOC
Ischemic group (N=1163): Strokes
warfarin (0) vs. aspirin (1.6), p=0.01;
warfarin (0) vs. clopidogrel (2.7%),
p=0.0009; Nonischemic group (N=424)
Major bleed clopidogrel (0.7%) vs.
warfarin (6.3%), p=0.0093. AT analysis
(not prespecified): warfarin superior to
aspirin (p=0.0095); warfarin superior to
clopidogrel (p=0.0031).
EPICAL
Echemann 2002
12413509
(191)
Compare warfarin
vs. aspirin vs. both
on survival in CHF
Prospective
observational
population-based,
nonrandomized,
consecutive
hospital survivors
of hospitalization,
aspirin vs. warfarin
at hospital
discharge
N=417 with
complete data,
mean f/u= 5 y;
aspirin (30.9%)
vs. OAT
(28.3%) vs.
both (2.4%)
N/A
≥ 1 hospitalization
for HF, NYHA IIIV, EF ≤30% or
CTR ≥ 0.60, plus
hypotension or
systemic or
pulmonary edema
Failure to meet
inclusion criteria
(systematic
enrollment)
Survival 1 y and 5 y
from index
hospitalization; stratified
by LVEF
None
Wojnicz 2006
16996844
(192)
Pilot Study: LMWH
effects on clinical
endpoints in
chronic HF
secondary to DCM
N=102 (52
treatment, 50
control)
enrolled, data
on N=85 for
analysis; f/u=1
y
N/A
Stable NYHA II-IV,
EF ≤40%; cath to
exclude CAD,
Biopsy
Contraindicated to
any heparin, T1DM,
valvular HD, recent
heparin exposure,
CAD
Composite [mortality +
urgent heart transplant
+ hospital admission for
worsening HF] at 6 and
12 mo
Total survival, BNP, LVEF,
echo chamber parameters,
NYHA class change, VO2
max, QoL
RE-LY
Connolly 2009
19717844
(193)
Compare
dabigatran vs.
warfarin effects on
stroke/arterial
emboli in pts with
AF
Prospective,
randomized, active
treatment control,
open label
comparing
enoxaparin 1.5
mg/kg BID x 14 d,
then 1 daily x 3
mos
Noninferiority,
multicenter,
prospective RCT,
blinded dab (110 or
150 mg BID) or
unblinded warfarin
(INR 2.0-3.0)
Total
N=18,113;
median f/u=2.0
y
HF n=5793
(32%): HF on
dab 110 mg
(n=1937/6015);
HF on dab 150
(n=1934/6076);
HF on warfarin
(n=1922/6022).
Excessive bleeding
risk, severe valve
disease, stroke <14
d/severe stroke <60
mo, creat clear <30
mL/min
Efficacy: composite
[stroke or systemic
embolism]; Safety:
Major hemorrhage (2 y)
Stroke, systemic embolism,
death, MI, PE, TIA,
hospitalization
ITT, noninferiority with Cox prop hazards.
Subsequent analyses for superiority
Symptomatic HF: multivariate HR for dab
150 vs warfarin, p=0.33; 150 mg dab vs
warfarin: stroke 0.64; 95% CI: 0.51-0.81;
p<0.001 (p<0.05 for all stroke subgroups).
MI: RR: 1.38; 95% CI1.00-1.91; p=0.048
ACTIVE-W
2006
16765759
(194)
Combination
clopidogrel +
aspirin vs warfarin
in reducing
vascular events in
AF
Compare apixaban
to warfarin in
preventing stroke
in pt with AF
Prospective open
label noninferiority
RCT of [clopidogrel
75 mg + aspirin 75100 mg] vs warfarin
(INR 2.0-3.0)
Prospective
double-blind,
double-dummy
noninferiority +
superiority RCT of
AP 5 mg BID to
warfarin INR 2-3
Total N=6706
HF N=2031
(30%)
AF + ≥1 additional
risk factor for
stroke (median
CHADS2 score
2.1). HF as
qualifying criteria
req'd LVEF <40%
or NYHA Class ≥
II
AF, LVEF <45%
Other need for
warfarin, excessive
bleeding risk, prev
ICH, platelets <50 K,
mitral stenosis
Efficacy: First event of
[stroke or arterial TEE
or MI or vascular death];
Safety: Major
hemorrhage
Efficacy: components of
primary; Safety: Minor
hemorrhage
Total N=18,201
, median
F/u=1.8 y
HF n=6451
(35.5%),
apixaban=3235,
warfarin=3216
≥2 episodes AF or
flutter, CHADS2
≥2 (HF criteria:
symptomatic HF
within 3 mo or
LVEF ≤ 40%
Reversible AF, mitral
stenosis, orther
indication for
anticoagulation,
recent stroke, need
for antiplatelet
therapy (beyond lowdose aspirin), creat
Noninferiority:
EFFICACY: stroke
(ischemic or
hemmorhagic) +
systemic embolism;
SAFETY: major
bleeding
Superiority: EFFICACY:
stroke (ischemic or
hemmorhagic) + systemic
embolism; all-cause
mortality; SAFETY: major +
clinical nonmajor bleeding
KM log-rank (time to event)
Total Study: Primary Efficacy: clopidogrel
+aspirin: 5.60 events/y vs. warfarin 3.93
events/y; RR: 1.44; 95% CI 1.18-1.76;
p=0.0003; stroke RR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.242.37; p=0.001
PRIMARY: ITT Efficacy: apixaban
1.27%/y vs warfarin 1.60%/y)
Modified ITT Safety: apixaban 2.13% vs
warfarin 3.09%; mortality apixaban 3.52%
vs warfarin 3.94%.
HF subgroup results not different (p for
interaction 0.50)
Efficacy: apixaban: HR: 0.79; 95% CI:
ARISTOTLE
Granger 2011
21870978
(195)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 91 Both warfarin (RR=0.60) and aspirin
(RR=0.70) associated with improved
survival
Univariate survival: AC (1 y 77.7%; 95%
CI: 71.7-82.4), 3 y 55.1%; 95% CI: 48.761.5), 5 y 40.4% [95% CI: 34.1-46.8] vs.
no AC (1 y 71.5% [95% CI: 64.9-78.1], 3 y
47.0% [95% CI: 39.6-54.3], 5 y 31.0%
[95% CI 24.0-38.0; p=0.01] for AC vs no
AC; Multivariate: OAT RR:0.60 [95% CI
0.4-0.8], aspirin RR: 0.7 [95% CI 0.5-0.9]
Primary: no difference
Primary: enoxaparin 4 vs. control 8,
p=NS; mortality: p=NS; Secondary: BNP
reduction enoxaparin (1125-489) p<0.001
vs. no change in control; LVEF
improvement: enoxaparin increase 6.5%,
p=0.023; 95% CI: 1.01-8.17.
>2.5 mg/dL
ROCKET AF
Patel 2011
21830957
(196)
Compare
rivaroxaban to
warfarin in
preventing
ischemic strokes in
pt with nonvalvular
AF
Prospective
multicenter doubleblind doubledummy eventdriven noninferiority
RCT of rivaroxaban
20 mg/d (15 mg if
Cr Cl 30-49
mL/min) vs.
warfarin (INR 2-3)
N=14,264
randomized,
median f/u=707
d
8909 (rivaroxaban
4467, warfarin
4441) (62.5%)
Nonvalvular AF,
CHADS2 ≥2; HF
(clinical dx or
LVEF ≤ 35%)
Mitral stenosis,
absolute non-AF
indication for AC,
high risk for
anticoagulation
Primary efficacy:
composite [ischemic or
hemorragic stroke +
systemic embolism];
Primary safety:
composite [major +
nonmajor clinically
relevant bleeding]
Secondary efficacy:
composite stroke +
systemic embolism + CV
mortality]; composite [stroke
+ systemic embolism + CV
mortality + MI]; individual
components of primary
composite. Secondary
safety
Belch 1981
7291971
(197)
Effect of low-dose
SQ H on lower
extremity DVT in
pts with HF and pts
with chest
infections
Prospective,
randomized, open
label, controlled
study SQ H 5000 u
q8h x 14 d or until
discharge
Total N=100
HF subset n=38
(21 treatment, 17
control)
HF NYHA II-IV,
clinical signs of
volume overload
"Definite" risk of
bleeding, DVT or PE
on admission, >2 d
bed rest prior to
admission
DVT diagnosed by I-125
fribrinogen scanning
every 2 d or until
discharge
Clinical evidence of
bleeding
ARTEMIS
Cohen 2006
16439370
(198)
Safety and efficacy
of fondaparinux in
reducing VTE in
older, moderatehigh risk medical
inpt
Double-blind,
placebo-controlled,
block randomized,
multicenter RCT of
SQ fondaparinux
2.5 mg/d for 6-14 d
started within 48 h
of admission
N=849 medical
inpt, mean
f/u=1 mo
HF n=160
(fondaparinux 78,
placebo 82)
CHF (NYHA III-IV)
or acute
respiratory illness;
expected bed rest
>4 d; age >60
High bleeding risk" or
contraindicated to
anticoagulation,
Creat >2.0 mg/dL,
contrast allergy,
mechanical vent >24
h (total), indication
for AC prophylaxis or
therapy, life
expectancy
otherwise <1 mo
Efficacy: DVT
diagnosed by contrast
venogray (d 5-15),
symptomatic VTE (inc
PE by imaging or fatal)
through d 15; Safety:
major bleeding
Efficacy: composite [Total
VTE + bleeding + death at 1
mo]; Safety: composite
[death or minor bleeding]
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 0.66-0.9;, p<0.001 for noninferiority,
p=0.01 for superiority;
Mortality apixaban: HR: 0.89: 95% CI:
0.80-0.99; p=0.047.
Safety: apixaban: HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.600.80; p<0.001 (apixaban RRR: 27%)
92 Active treatment analysis (by design):
rivaroxaban (1.7% per year events)
noninferior to warfarin (2.2% per year
events) for primary outcome; no
difference in safety endpoints; fewer CHN
hemorrhage and fatal bleeding in
rivaroxaban group. Findings consistent for
all subgroups.
Efficacy: Per protocol, rivaroxaban HR:
0.79; 95% CI: 0.66 - 0.96; p<0.001 for
noninferiority; HF subgroup ITT p=0.419.
Safety superiority of rivaroxaban p=0.02
H reduced demonstrable DVT
Total group: DVT (Ctl 26% vs H 4% of
treated, p<0.01); 20% had minor bleeding
(bruising at injection site), no major
bleeding
ITT (efficacy): all pt with ≥1 dose of drug
(safety); HF pts=predefined subgroup.
Fishers Exact and log-rank
HF subgroup: Primary: fondaparinux
7/78 (9%) vs placebo 10/82 (12.2%),
p=NS; Primary safety: p=NS (1 bleed in
each group)
CERTIFY
Tebbe 2011
21315215
(199)
Compare LMWH to
heparin on VTE
incidence in elderly
HF pt
Prospective,
double-blind,
double dummy,
active control,
randomized
noninferiority study
of certoparin 3000
u/d vs H 5000 u
TID SQ (HF
predefined
subgroup)
Total N=3239,
mean
hospitalization
12.2 +/-5.1 d,
mean
treatment
period = 9 d
HF n=470; 238
pts (cert) vs 232
pts (H),
age ≥70, clinical
diagnosis of HF on
admission (no
further details)
THE PRINCE
Kleber 2003
12679756
(200)
Compare safety
and efficacy of
enoxaparin with
UFH in preventing
VTE in pts with HF
or severe
respiratory disease
Total N=665
HF n=333 for
safety endpoint,
n=206 for efficacy
NYHA III-IV
MEDENOX
Samama 1999
10477777;
Turpie 2000
11206019;
Alikhan 2003
12945875
(201)
Compare safety
and efficacy of 2
doses of
enoxaparin vs
placebo to prevent
VTE in medical pt
hospitalized ≤14 d
Prospective,
randomized, active
control/parallel
group open label,
noninferiority
comparison
enoxaparin 40
mg/d vs heparin
5000 u TID for 10
+/- 2 d. 1-sided
equivalence, upper
limit = 9% or 4%
difference in
efficacy.
Prospective,
randomized,
double-blind,
parallel arm of
placebo vs
enoxaparin 20
mg/d vs enoxaparin
40 mg/d
Total N=855;
f/u = 110 d
HF n=290 (34%)
NYHA III-IV
Contraindicated to
anticoagulation,
History of DVT, PE
or HIT2, stroke <3
mo, >3 d
immobilization before
randomization, cast
or fracture, surgery
<3 wk, severe
sepsis, mechanical
ventilation, any
heparin <5 d
Contraindicated to
heparin or
anticoagulation,
contrast allergy, DVT
or PE on admission,
immobilized >24 h
prior to admission,
taking warfarin or
>low dose aspirin on
admission
Efficacy: composite
[prox DVT (compression
USG d 8-20) + nonfatal
PE + VTE-related
death]; Safety:
composite [major
bleeding + minor
bleeding + HIT]
Prox DVT, nonfatal PE,
fatal VTE, distal DVT,
symptomatic DVT, all-cause
mortality, documented
symtpomatic VTE,
composite [nonfatal PE +
prox DVT + all-cause
mortality]
Active treatment only. No difference in
efficacy or safety endpoints in HF pt
based on treatment arm. Primary: cert
3.78% vs heparin 4.74%, OR: 0.79; 95%
CI 0.32-1.94; p=NS; multivariate:
insufficient to confirm noninferiority in HF
pt.
Efficacy: Comfirmed
TEE (DVT by
venography or autopsy,
PE by V/Q, CXR/Q
scan [plus confirmatory
venogram if +],
angiogram or autopsy)
within 1 d of completing
treatment; Safety: Major
bleeding
Efficacy: composite [TEE
or death]
No differences in primary, secondary or
safety endpoints
12.6% HF pt had events. Primary:
enoxaparin (9.7%) vs heparin (16.1%) [CI
-1.4 - +14.2], p=0.139. Secondary:
mortality: enoxaparin 5.3% vs heparin
6.4% (no statistical comparison); Saftey:
no difference (1 bleed in entire study
population)
Contraindicated to
anticoagulation or
heparin, contrast
allergy, thrombophilic
disease or
coagulopathy, Creat
>1.7, mechanical
ventilation, any AC
for >48 h prior to
enrollment
VTE (DVT [contrast
venograpy or
compression USG day
6-14 or earlier with
symptoms], PE [high
prob V/Q, CTA or angio]
or both) d 1-14
VTE d 1-110; Major or
minor hemorrhage,
mortality,
thrombocytopenia, any
adverse event, lab
abnormalities (multiple)
Enoxaparin 20 mg = Placebo (excluded
from final analysis); lower incidence of
radiographic DVT in enoxaparin 40 mg vs
placebo. No difference in mortality or AEs
among treatment groups.
Primary: All HF pts: enoxaparin 4.0% vs
placebo 14.6%, (RR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.100.84; p-0.02); Class III HF pts: enoxaparin
5.1% vs. placebo 12.3% (RR: 0.42; 95%
CI: 0.13-1.29; p=0.20); Class IV HF pts:
enoxaparin 0% vs. placebo 21.7%,
(p=0.05); History of chronic HF as risk
(regardless of admission diagnosis):
enoxaparin 2.2% vs. placebo 12.1% (RR:
0.26; 95% CI: 0.08-0.92; p=0.04)
AC indicates anticoagulant; ACEI, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; ACT, active control parallel; AE, adverse event; AP, apixaban; APT, antiplatelet therapy; AF, atrial fibrillation; ARB, angiotensin receptor blockers; AT, as treated; BID, twice a day;
BNP, brain natriuretic peptide; CAD, coronary artery disease; CHF, congestive heart failure; CrCl, creatinine clearance; CTA, computed tomography angiography; CTR, cardiothoracic ratio; CV, cardiovascular; CXR, chest x-ray; Dab, dabigitran; DCM, dilated
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 93 cardiomyopathy; DVT, deep venous thrombosis; EF, ejection fraction; f/u, follow-up; H, heparin; HD, heart disease; HF, heart failure; HIT2, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia; H/N, hydralazine and nitrates; HTN, hypertension; ICH, ischemia; INR,
international normalized ratio; ITT, intent to treat; KM, kaplan-meier; LMWH, low moleduclar weight heparin; LV, left ventricular; LVEDD, left ventricular end diastolic diameter; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MI, myocardial infarction; N/A, not
applicable; NS, not significant; NYHA, New York Heart Association; OAT, oral anticoagulant therapy; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; PE, pulmonary embolism; PPM, pacemaker; pt, patient; QoL; quality of life; RCT, randomized control trial; SQ,
subcutaneous; TEE, thromboembolic event; TIA, transient ischemic attack; TID, three times a day; UFH, unfractionated heparin; USG, ultrasonography; VO2, oxygen volume; V/Q, ventilation/perfusion scan; and VTE, venous thromboembolic disease.
Data Supplement 22. Statin Therapy (Section 7.3.2.8.2)
Study
Name,
Author,
Year
Horwich et
al, 2004
14975476
(202)
Mozaffaria
n et al,
2004
15110204
(203)
Aim of
Study
To
investigate
the impact
of statin
therapy in
pts with
advanced
HF referred
for
transplant
evaluation
at UCLA.
To evaluate
the relation
of statin
therapy
with clinical
outcomes
in severe
HF enrolled
in the
PRAISE
study
Study
Type
Cohort
study
Cohort
study
Background
Therapy
Pretrial standard
treatment
ACEI/ARB, betablockers,spironolac
tone, diuretics
ACEI/ARB,
diuretics, digoxin
Study Size
Etiology
N (Total)
n (Experimental)
n (Control)
551; 248; 303
Ischemic/
NonIschemic
45%
1,153; 1,019; 134
63%
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Patient Population
Inclusion
Criteria
Pts referred
for
transplant
evaluation
between
2000-2
Exclusion
Criteria
LVEF
>40%,
baseline
data
incomplete
Dyspnea or
fatigue on
exertion
(NYHA 3b4), LVEF
≥30%
N/A
Severity
Severity of
HF
Symptoms
NYHA 3-4
NYHA 3b-4
94 Endpoints
Mortality
Primary
Endpoint
Death or
urgent
transplant
Secondary
Endpoint
N/A
Annualized
Mortality
N/A
1st Year
Mortality
75%
All-cause
mortality
Causespecific
mortality
(SCD,
pump
failure
death, fatal
MI)
29
deaths/100
person-y
N/A
Trial
Duration
Absolute
Benefit
Statistical
Results
Study
Limitations
2y
14%
HR 0.44;
95% CI
0.30-0.67;
p<0.0001
Single-center,
nonrandomized,
reason for
drug use
unclear, bias
Mean 1.5
y
N/A
HR: 0.38;
95% CI:
0.23-0.65;
Propensitymatched
HR: 0.46.
95% CI:
0.26–0.75
Post-hoc
analysis from
clinical trial
Ray et al,
2005
15642876
(204)
To
determine
whether
statin use is
associated
with
a lower risk
of death
and major
CVD
among
adults
newly
diagnosed
as having
HF in
Ontario
registry
Cohort
study
ACEI/ARB, betablockers,spironolac
tone, diuretics,
nitrates
28,828; 1,146;
27,682
11.3%
history of
MI
Adults aged
66 to 85 y in
Ontario
Canada
newly
hospitalized
with primary
diagnosis of
HF between
April 1,
1995, and
December
31, 2001
and survived
at least 90 d
after the
index
HF
hospitalizatio
n
Foody et
al, 2006
16490817
(205)
To evaluate
the
association
between
statin use
and
survival
among a
national
sample of
elderly
Cohort
study
ACEI/ARB, betablockers,spironolac
tone, diuretics,
nitrates
54,960; 9,163;
45,797
30% history
of MI
Sampling of
Medicare
fee-forservice
beneficiaries
hospitalized
with a
principal
diagnosis of
HF by ICD-9
code
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Pts
hospitalize
d within 36
mo for HF
or having
diagnosis
of cancer
within past
365 d prior
to index HF
hospitalizati
on
discharge
date;
dispensed
statin 365 d
prior to
hospital
discharge,
length of
stay >60 d,
direct
transfer to
chronic
care
hospital,
cancer
within 90 d
following
index HF
hospitalizati
on
<65 y of
age, HF
readmissio
ns,
transferred
out of the
hospital,
left AMA, or
had
unknown
discharge
N/A
Death
from any
cause,
nonfatal
acute MI,
or
nonfatal
stroke
NYHA 2-4
All-cause
mortality
95 N/A
N/A
9.9% per
100 persony vs 19.1%
per 100
person-y
N/A
16.6 mo
in the
statin
group
and 24.4
mo in the
nonstatin
group
8.2% per
100
person-y
HR: 0.62;
95% CI:
0.53-0.69;
aHR: 0.72;
95% CI:
0.63-0.83.
Retrospective
cohort study,
nonrandomized,
reason for
drug use
unclear, bias
20%
N/A
3y
N/A
HR: 0.62;
95%CI:
0.59–0.65;
p<0.001
aHR: 0.80;
95%CI:
0.76–0.84;
p<0.001
Retrospective
cohort study,
sampling,
nonrandomized,
reason for
drug use
unclear, bias
between
4/98-3/99
and 7/006/01.
Medicare
beneficiarie
s
hospitalized
with HF
from
National
Heart Care
Project.
Anker et al,
2006
16846656
(206)
To assess
the
relationship
between
statin use
and
survival in
ELITE-II as
well as a 5center
registry
Cohort
study
ACEI or ARB (as in
ELITE-2), diuretics,
digoxin
5,200; 1,103;
4,097
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 67%
ELITE-II: pts
age ≥60 y;
NYHA 2-4,
LVEF ≥40%.
European
registry:
diagnosis of
HF followed
by HF clinic
disposition,
died during
hospitalizati
on, had no
date of
death
information
available,
hospitalize
d outside
the US,
discharged
to hospice,
contraindic
ations to
statin
therapy,
including
statin
allergy or
liver
dysfunction
, or no
medication
s recorded
on
discharge
NR
NYHA 2-4
96 All-cause
mortality
N/A
NR
12%
mean 1.5
y
(ELITE2);
2y
(Europea
n
registry)
NR
ELITE-II:
aHR 0.61;
95% CI:
0.44-0.84;
p<0.0028
European
registry:
aHR 0.58;
95%CI
adjusted
0.44-0.77;
p<0.0001;
Retrospective
cohort study
and post-hoc
analysis,
sampling,
nonrandomized,
reason for
drug use
unclear, bias
Folkeringa
et al, 2006
16520262
(207)
Investigate
the effects
of statins
on survival
in CHF pts
using a
matched
casecontrolled
study in pts
admitted to
hospital
because of
severe
CHF from
the
MARCH
study
Casecontrol
study
ACEI/ARB,
diuretics, digoxin
524; 262; 262
50%
Go et al,
2006
17077375
(208)
To evaluate
the
association
between
initiation of
statin
therapy and
risks for
death and
hospitalizati
on among
adults with
chronic HF
in the
Kaiser
Permanent
e Chronic
HF cohort
Cohort
study
ACEI/ARB,
diuretics, digoxin
24,598; 12,648;
11,950
54%
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Pts admitted
for HF with
an
uncomplicat
ed survival
for at least 1
mo after
hospital
discharge,
group-wise
matched
between
survivors
and nonsurvivors on
means of
age, LVEF,
renal
function, and
sex.
Adults (age
≥20 y)
diagnosed
with HF
1/96-12/04
with ≥1
hospitalizatio
ns with a
principal
diagnosis of
HF; ≥2
hospitalizatio
ns with a
secondary
diagnosis of
HF in which
the principal
diagnosis is
cardiacrelated; ≥3
hospitalizatio
ns with
secondary
NR
NYHA 3-4
All-cause
mortality
N/A
NR
NR
Mean 2.6
y
4%
OR: 0.42;
95% CI:
0.26–0.69
Retrospective
cohort study,
sampling,
nonrandomized,
reason for
drug use
unclear, bias
Pts who
were
receiving
statin
therapy at
the study at
entry date;
who were
not eligible
for
treatment
based on
national
guidelines
NYHA 2-4
Death
from any
cause and
hospitaliz
ation for
HF
N/A
13.90%
NR
Median
2.4 y
NR
aHR: 0.76;
95%CI:
0.72-0.80
Retrospective
cohort study,
sampling,
nonrandomized,
reason for
drug use
unclear, bias
97 Krum et al,
2007
16960445
(209)
To examine
statin/beta
blocker
interactions
within the
context of a
large-scale
clinical trial
of pts with
systolic
CHF in
CIBIS-II
Cohort
study
ACEIs/ARB, betablockers,spironolac
tone, diuretics
2,647; 220; 2,421
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. diagnosis of
HF; ≥2
outpatient
diagnoses;
≥3 ED visit
diagnoses;
or ≥2
inpatient
secondary
diagnoses
plus 1
outpatient
diagnosis.
Pts enrolled
in CIBIS-II
study
59%
N/A
NYHA 2-4
98 Death
CV deaths
included
the
following
specific
causes:
sudden
death,
pump
failure, MI
and any
other CV
condition
not listed
above
which led
to the pt's
death.
Worsening
HF only
was
counted as
an outcome
endpoint in
CIBIS II
when this
(critical)
event led to
the
hospitalizati
11.10%
NR
Mean 1.3
y
NR
HR 0.57;
95% CI:
0.37–0.94;
aHR 0.60;
95% CI:
0.39–0.94
Retrospective
cohort study,
sampling,
nonrandomized,
reason for
drug use
unclear, bias
on of the
pt.
Krum et al,
2007
17049646
(209)
To assess
the
outcome of
pts enrolled
in ValHeFT
according
to statin
use at the
time of
randomizati
on to
valsartan or
placebo.
Cohort
study
ACEI/ARB, betablockers,spironolac
tone, diuretics
5,010; 1,602;
3,408
57%
Pts enrolled
in Val-HeFT
study
N/A
NYHA 2-4
All-cause
mortality
Dickinson
et al, 2007
17383296
(210)
To examine
the effects
of statin in
reducing
mortality in
SCD-HeFT
Cohort
study
ACEI/ARB, betablockers,spironolac
tone, diuretics
2,521; 965; 1,556
52%
Ischemic
and nonischemic
cardiomyopa
thy, NYHA
2-3 HF,
LVEF 35%
or less
N/A
NYHA 2-3
All-cause
mortality
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 99 Mortality
and
morbidity
(cardiac
arrest with
resuscitatio
n,
hospitalizati
on for HF,
or
administrati
on of
IVinotropic
or
vasodilator
drugs for 4
h or more
without
hospitalizati
on)
N/A
7.90%
NR
Mean 1.9
y
7.20%
HR 0.81:
95%CI 0.70–
0.94;
p=0.005
Retrospective
cohort study,
sampling,
nonrandomized,
reason for
drug use
unclear, bias
6.80%
NR
Mean 3.8
y
NR
aHR 0.7;
95% CI:
0.57-0.83
Retrospective
cohort study,
sampling,
nonrandomized,
reason for
drug use
unclear, bias
CORONA,
Kjekshus et
al, 2007
17984166
(211)
To
investigate
the
beneficial
effects of
rosuvastati
n on
improving
survival,
reducing
morbidity,
and
increasing
well-being
in pts with
chronic,
symptomati
c, systolic,
ischemic
HF.
RCT
ACEI/ARB, betablockers,spironolac
tone, diuretics
5,011; 2,497;
2,514
100%
Age ≥18,
symptomatic
HF NYHA 24, IHD,
LVEF <40%,
does not
need statin
therapy,
optimal
medical
therapy >2
wk
Myopathy
or
hypersensti
vity to
statin, ACS
or
revasculari
zation <1
mo,
reduced life
expectancy
, planned
surgery <3
mo, Cr >2.5
mg/dL, ,CK
>2x ULN,
LFTs >1.5x
ULN,
uncorrecte
d valve or
HCM
NYHA 2-4
Composit
e of death
from
cardiovas
cular
causes,
nonfatal
MI, and
nonfatal
stroke
GISSI-HF,
Tavazzi et
al, 2008
18757089
To
investigate
the effi
cacy and
RCT
ACEI/ARB, betablockers,spironolac
tone, diuretics
4,574; 2,285;
2,289
42% history
of MI
≥18,
symptomatic
HF NYHA 24, if LVEF
Hypersenst
ivity to
statin,
investigatio
NYHA 2-4
Coprimary
endpoint:
time to
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 100 Death from
any cause,
any
coronary
event
(sudden
death, fatal
or nonfatal
MI, PCI or
CABG,
ventricular
defibrillatio
n by an
ICD,
resuscitatio
n after
cardiac
arrest, or
hospitalizati
on for UA),
death from
CV causes
(with an
additional
analysis of
causespecific
death from
a CV
cause), and
the number
of
hospitalizati
ons for CV
causes,
unstable
angina, or
worsening
HF
Death for a
CV cause;
first
hospital
11%
NR
Median
2.7 y
0.9% per
100
patient-y
HR: 0.92;
95% CI:
0.83-1.02;
p=0.12
N/A
7.90%
NR
Median
3.9 y
-1%
HR: 1.02
99% CI:
0.923-1.130;
p=0.594
N/A
aHR: 1.01;
admission
death;
nal drug <1
99% CI
for any,
time to
month, MI
0.908-1.112,
CV, or HF
death
<6 mo,
p=0.903;
cause; and
or
ACS or
admission the
revasculari
combined
for
zation <3
cardiovas outcome
mo,
measure of
cular
reduced life
CV death
reasons
expectancy
or
, planned
admission
surgery/dev
to hospital
ice <3 mo,
for any
Cr >2.5
cause
mg/dL,
LFTs >1.5x
ULN,
pregnant
ACEI indicates angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; ACS, acute coronary syndrome; AMA, against medical advice; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; CABG, coronary artery bypass surgery; CHF, congestive heart failure; CIBIS-II, The Cardiac
Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II; CORONA, Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in HF; CV, cardiovascular; ELITE-II, Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study; HF, heart failure; GISSI-HF, Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto
Miocardico; ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; ICD-9, international classification of diseases 9th edition; IHD, ischemic heart disease; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MARCH, Maastricht Registry of Congestive HF; MI, myocardial infarction; N/A,
not applicable, NR, not reported; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PCI, Percutaneous coronary intervention; PRAISE, Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Evaluation; SCD, sudden cardiac death; SCD-HeFT , Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart
Failure Trial;UA, unstable angina; UCLA, University of California Los Angelos; and Val-HeFT, Valsartan Heart Failure Trial.
(212)
safety of
the statin
rosuvastati
n in pts with
HF.
>40% (10%)
requires HF
hospitalizatio
n within 12
mo
Data Supplement 23. Omega 3 Fatty Acids (Section 7.3.2.8.3)
Study
Name,
Author,
Year
GISSI-HF,
Lancet
2008
18757090
(213)
Aim of
Study
To
investigate
whether
omega-3
fatty acid
supplement
ation could
improve
morbidity
and
mortality in
a large
Study
Type
Randomis
ed,
doubleblind,
placebocontrolled
trial (2x2,
factorial
design,
rosuvastat
in)
Background
Therapy
All treatments
of proven
efficacy for
chronic HF
(eg, ACEIs,
beta blockers,
diuretic drugs,
italis,
spironolacton
e) were
positively
recommende
Study Size
N (Total)
n (Experimental)
n (Control)
7,046; 3494;
3,481 (placebo)
Etiology
49.6%
ischemic/5
0.4% nonischemicother
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Patient Population
Inclusion
Criteria
≥18 y,
clinical
evidence of
HF of any
cause
classified as
the ESC GL
NYHA class
II–IV,
provided that
LVEF was
measured
Exclusion
Criteria
Specific
indication or
contraindicati
on to n-3
PUFA; known
hypersensitivi
ty to study
treatments;
presence of
any noncardiac
comorbidity
Severity
Study
Severit
Entry
y of HF Sverity
Sympt
Criteri
oms
a
Class II NYHA
63%, III Class
34%, IV II-IV
3%
HF
Endpoints
Primary
Endpoint
2 coprimary
endpoints
: time to
death,
and time
to death
or
admissio
n to
hospital
for
101 Secondary
Endpoint
Cardiovasc
ular
mortality,
cardiovasc
ular
mortality or
admission
for any
reason,
sudden
cardiac
death,
Mortality
Annualized
Mortality
7%
1st Year
Mortality
7.0%
(estimate
d from KM
curves)
Trial
Duratio
n
4.5 y,
median
f/u 3.9 y
Statistical Anaylsis
(Results)
Study
Limitations
Complications/
Adverse Events
1.8% absolute mortality
reduction (95% CI 0·3–
3·9%). Absolute benefit
for mortality or
admission for
cardiovascular reasons
was 2·3% (95% CI 0·0–
4·6%). NNT for benefit
is 56 pts need to be
treated to avoid 1death
and 44 pts treated to
avoid 1event like death
By the end
of the study,
1004 (29%)
of pts in the
omega 3 FA
group and
1029 (30%)
in the
placebo
group were
no longer
taking study
The rate of pts
who had
permanently
discontinued
taking the study
drug because of
adverse reactions
was much the
same in the
omega 3 FA and
in the placebo
groups (102 [3%]
population
of pts with
symptomati
c HF of any
cause.
GISSIPreventio
n,
Macchia A
et al.
EJHF
2005
(subgroup
analysis)
16087142
(214)
To evaluate
the effect of
omega 3
fatty acid
supplement
ation in
post MI pts
with LVD.
d.
Background
treatment
rates of
ACEI/ARB
93%, beta
blockers 65%,
aldosterone
antagonists
40%, loop
durietics 90%
Randomiz
ed,
multicente
r, openlabel,
clinical
trial
with
blinded
validation
of events.
Standard
background
therapy for
pts who are
post AMI
within 3 mo
before
enrollment.
When LVEF
was >40%,
the pt had to
have been
admitted at
least 1
hospital for
HF in the
preceding y
to meet the
inclusion
criteria.
11323 pts ; 4324
(with LVEF
≤50%)
100%
ischemic
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. (eg, cancer)
incompatible
with a long
f/u; treatment
with any other
investigationa
l agent within
1 mo before
randomisatio
n; ACS or
revascularisat
ion procedure
within the
preceding 1
mo; planned
cardiac
surgery,
expected to
be done
within 3 mo
after
randomisatio
n; significant
liver disease;
and
pregnant or
lactating
women or
women of
childbearing
potential who
were not
adequately
protected
against
becoming
pregnant.
Contraindicati
ons to the
dietary
supplements
(ie, known
allergy to
omega-3 fatty
acids).
Unfavorable
short-term
outlook (eg,
Patient with
AMI in prior
3 mo.
Irrespective
of LV
function. No
age limits.
No HF
or
NYHA
Class I,
subgrou
p
analysis
in pts
with
LVEF
≤50%
cardiovas
cular
reasons.
admission
for any
reason,
admission
for
cardiovasc
ular
reasons,
admission
for HF, MI,
and stroke.
Time to
death,
and time
to death
or
admissio
n to
hospital
for
cardiovas
cular
Sudden
death
102 4% per y
4%
3.5 y
or admission
for cardiovascular
reason for nearly 4 y.
Mortality: aHR: 0·91;
95·5% CI 0·833–0·998;
p=0·041. Mortality or
were admitted to
hospital for
cardiovascular reasons
(aHR: 0·92; 99% CI
0·849–0·999; p=0·009).
Mortality: aHR 0.91
Mortality of CV
Hospitalization aHR
0.92
drug for
various
reasons.
Only
evaluated a
single dose.
Study
conducted in
Italy where
there is
relatively
high amount
of dietary
intake of
omega 3
fatty acids.
(p=0·45;
table 5).
vs 104 [3%],
p=0·87). Very well
tolerated. No
safety issues other
than a slight
excess of
cerebrovascular
events, which was
a similar finding to
that reported in the
GISSIPrevenzione trial.
This excess was
distributed fairly
evenly between
ischaemic and
haemorrhagic
cases. No drug
interactions noted.
with
gastrointestinal dis
turbance being the
most frequent
cause in both
groups (table 5).
Treatment with n-3
PUFA reduced total
mortality in pts with and
without systolic
dysfunction, 24% (40%4%, p =0.02) and 19%
(41% to +10%, p
=0.17), respectively
(heterogeneity test
p=0.55).
The effect on SD
Open label.
Excluded pts
with over
HF.
Well tolerated.
Subgroup
analysis
of those
pts with
post MI
LVD
Omega 3
fatty acids
in DCM,
Nodari,
JACC,
201
21215550
(215)
This study
was
designed to
test the
effects of 3
PUFAs on
(LV)
systolic
function in
chronic HF
due to
NICM
Randomiz
ed, single
center
double
blind,
clinical
trial
with
blinded
validation
of events.
Subgroup
analysis
of those
pts with
post MI
LVD
overt CHF,
cancers, etc).
Evidence
based HF
therapy
ACE/ARB
100%, beta
blockers
100%,
aldosterone
antagonists
60%, loop
diuretics
100%
133;
67 experimental;
66 control
100% nonischemic
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Pts aged 1875 y with a
diagnosis of
NICM, LVSD
(defined as
an EF
<45%), and
stable
clinical
conditions
with minimal
or no
symptoms
for at least 3
mo on
evidencebased
medical
treatment at
maximum
tolerated
target doses
for at least 6
mo.
presence of
symptoms or
evidence of
CAD
diagnosed
through
noninvasive
tests, PAD,
presence of
congenital or
primary VHD,
persistent AF,
inability to
perform
bicycle
ergometry for
noncardiac
causes,
moderately
severely
reduced
functional
capacity,
NYHA class
IV, poor
acoustic
windows
limiting the
ability to
assess echo
reasons
Mild,
Class I,
15%,
Class II
85%.
Mild
severit
y on
medica
l
therapy
Change
in LVEF
103 Peak V02,
hospitalizat
ions
0%
0%
12 mo
reduction was
asymmetrical, with a
greater effect in pts with
LVSD (RRR: 58%; 95%
CI: 74%-33%; p
=0.0003) as compared
to pts with preserved
systolic function (RRR:
11%; 95% CI: 54% 69%; p =0.71),
although the
heterogeneity test was
not statistically
significant (p=0.07).
LVD subgroup (0.60–
0.96) p=0.02)
RR 0.76 (subgroup
with LVD)
LVEF increased by
10.4% n-3 PUFA and
decreased by 5.0% with
placebo, p<.0001,
peak VO2 (increased
by 6.2% and decreased
by 4.5%, respectively);
exercise duration
increased by 7.5% and
decreased by 4.8%;
and mean NYHA class
decreased from 1.88 +/0.33 to 1.61 +/- 0.49
and increased from
1.83 +/- 0.38 to 2.14 +/0.65. The
hospitalization rates for
HF were 6% in the n-3
PUFAs and 30% in the
placebo group (p =
0.0002).
Single
center,
small, no
deaths.
None
measurement
s, chronic
lung disease,
advanced
renal disease
(eGFR <30
ml/min/1.73
m2),
advanced
liver disease;
any disease
limiting life
expectancy to
<1 y,
contraindicati
ons to study
drugs, and
concomitant
participation
in other
research
studies.
ACEI indicates angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; ACS, acute coronary syndrome; AMI, acute myocardial infarction; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; CAD, coronary artery disease; CV, cardiovascular; EF, ejection fraction; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; ESC GL,
European Society for Cardiology guidelines; f/u, follow-up; GISSI-HF, Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto Miocardico; HF, heart failure; KM, Kaplan-Meier; LVD, left ventricular dysfunction; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVSD, left ventricular systolic
dysfunction; MI, myocardial infarction; NICM, nonischemic cardiomyopathy; NNT, number needed to treat; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PAD, peripheral arterial disease; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids; SD, sudden death
Data Supplement 24. Antiarrhythmic Agents to Avoid in HF (7.3.2.9.2)
Study
Trials
Design
Class I Na Channel Blocker
CAST
RCT
2473403
(216)
Class III K Channel Blockers
SWORD
RCT
8691967
(217)
Study Drug Effect
Drug
Control
Patients
Mortality
CV events
Functional
Capacity
QoL
Other Comments
Encainide/
Flecainide/
Moricizine
P
Post-MI
NSVT
↑
with
encainide,
flecainide
RR 2.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Study terminated early.
d-Sotalol
P
Post-MI
LVEF<40%
↑
RR 1.65
N/A
N/A
N/A
Study terminated early.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 104 Dronedarone Study Group
18565860
(218)
RCT
Dronedarone
P
NYHA II-IV
LVEF<35%
hospitalized
↑
HR 2.13
↑
first CV
hospitalizations
N/A
N/A
No difference in primary
composite endpoint.
CAST indicates Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial; CV, cardiovascular; K, potassium; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MI, myocardial infarction; Na, sodium; NSVT, nonsustained
ventricular tachycardia; N/A, not applicable; NYHA, New York Heart Association; P, placebo; QoL, quality of life; RCT, randomized control trial; and SWORD, Survival With Oral d-Sotalol.
Data Supplement 25. Calcium Channel Blockers to Avoid in HF (Section 7.3.2.9.3)
Study
Trials
Design
Drug
Control
Patients
Mortality
RCT
Diltiazem
P
Post-MI
NS
MDPIT
1984898
(220)
Retro
Diltiazem
P
Post-MI
DiDi
8759075
(221)
RCT
Diltiazem
P
Idiopathic
DCM
NYHA II-III
DAVIT-II
2220572
(222)
Dihydropyridine
Elkayam U Circulation
1990
2242521
(223)
RCT
Verapamil
P
RCT
Nifedipine
Felodipine UK Study
Group
7786657
RCT
Felodipine
Nondihydropyridine
MDPIT
2899840
(219)
Other Comments
QoL
N/A
N/A
None
N/A
N/A
None
NS
↑
In pts with
LVEF<40% or pulm
congestion on CXR
HR 1.41
↑
HF in pts with
EF<40%, pulm
congestion, or
anterolateral Q
wave MI
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hospitalized for
AMI
NS
N/A
N/A
N/A
18% of pts did not finish study.
No difference in transplant-free
survival (85.2% vs. 80.4%,
p=0.44).
HF pts had worse outcomes
ISDN
NYHA II-III
LVEF <40%
N/A
NS
N/A
None
P
NYHA II-III
LVEF <40%
76% ICM
N/A
↑
HF hospitalization
(nifedipine vs ISDN)
↑
worsening HF
(nifedipine+ISDN vs
either alone)
↑
worsening HF
NS
N/A
None
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Study Drug Effect
Functional
CV events
Capacity
105 (224)
V-HeFT III
9264493
(225)
PRAISE-2*
15921795
(226)
Amlodipine Exercise Trial
10689266
(227)
RCT
Felodipine
P
RCT
Amlodipine
P
RCT
Amlodipine
P
NYHA II-III
LVEF <45%
55% ICM
NICM
NYHA III-IV
LVEF<30%
NYHA II-IV
LVEF <35%
53% ICM
NS
NS
NS
NS
More edema AE with felodipine.
Not powered to study mortality.
NS
NS
N/A
N/A
None
N/A
N/A
NS
NS
None
AE indicates adverse event; AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CV, cardiovascular; CXR, chest x-ray; DAVIT-II, Danish Verapamil Infarction Trial II; DCM, dilated cardiomyopathy; DiDi,
Diltiazem in Dilated Cardiomyopathy Trial; EF, ejection fraction; HF, heart failure; HR, hazard ratio; ICM, ischemic cardiomyopathy; ISDN, isosorbide dinitrate; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction;
MDPIT, Multicenter Diltiazem Postinfarction Trial; MI, myocardial infarction; NICM, nonishemic cardiomyopathy; N/A, not applicable; NS, no statistically significant difference; NYHA, New York Heart Association; P,
placebo; PRAISE-II, second Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Evaluation; pts, patients; QoL, quality of life; RCT, randomized control trial; Retro, retrospective analysis; UK, United
Kingdom; and V-HeFT, Vasodilator-Heart Failure Trial.
Data Supplement 26. NSAIDs Use in HF (Section 7.3.2.9.4)
Cohort Populations
Netherlands PHARMO
9605782
(228)
New South Whales
10737277
(229)
Rotterdam Study
11822918
(230)
Ontario Drug Benefit
Program
15172772
(231)
Quebec
15947399
(232)
Design
Obs
Study
Experimental
Control
(n)
(n)
NSAID plus
Diuretics
Diuretics
alone
Patients
Mortality
CV events
Age >55 y
N/A
↑ HF hospitalization
aRR 1.8
↑ HF admission
with non-ASA NSAID use
OR 2.1
↑1st HF admission
in pts with h/o heart disease and NSAID
use vs no h/o heart disease and NSAID
use
↑ HF readmission
during concurrent use of NSAID
aRR 9.9
↑ HF hospitalization
relative to non-NSAID users
Rofecoxib aRR 1.8
NS NSAID aRR 1.4
↑Recurrent HF ER visit or hospitalization
NS NSAID HR 1.21 (0.92-1.6)
Rofecoxib HR 1.17 (0.96-1.42)
Casecontrolled
cohort
HF admission (365)
Non-HF
admission
(658)
Mean age 76 y
N/A
Cohort
No history of HF
admission (7277)
None
Age >55 y
FS>30%
N/A
Age >66 y
12% IHD
N/A
Age >66 y
Index HF
admission
↑
NS NSAID HR 1.54
Rofecoxib HR 1.44
Retro
Cohort
Retro
Cohort
Rofecoxib (14,583) No NSAID
Celecoxib (18,908) (100,000)
Non-selective
NSAID (5,391)
Rofecoxib (869)
Celecoxib
Non-selective
(717)
NSAID (280)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Results
106 Other Comments
Data presented in pt-y
None
None
No increased risk seen with
celecoxib relative to non-NSAID
users
Combined endpoint significant
risk with NS NSAID and rofecoxib
Danish National Patient
Registry
19171810
(233)
Retro
Cohort
Rofecoxib (6116)
Celecoxib (5734)
Ibuprofen (16875)
Diclofenac (9377)
Naproxen(2176)
Other NSAID
(11488)
No NSAID
(70738)
Age >30 y
Index HF
admission
13% h/o MI
↑
Rofecoxib HR 1.7
Celecoxib HR 1.75
Ibuprofen HR 1.31
Diclofenac HR 2.08
Naproxen HR 1.22
Other HR 1.28
↑HF hospitalization
Rofecoxib HR 1.4
Celecoxib HR 1.24
Ibuprofen HR 1.16
Diclofenac HR 1.35
Naproxen HR 1.18
Other NSAID HR 1.27
Increased risk with higher doses
of NSAIDs for all types
aRR indicates adjusted relative risk; ASA, aspirin; ER, emergency room; FS, fractional shortening; HF, heart failure; h/o, history of; IHD, HR, hazard ratio; ischemic heart disease; MI, myocardial infarction; N/A, not applicable;
NS, not statistically significant; NSAID, non-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; Obs, observational study; OR, odds ratio; pt-y, patient years; and Retro, retrospective analysis. Data Supplement 27. Thiazolidinediones in HF (Section 7.3.2.9.5)
Cohort /Trial
Study
Control
(n)
No TZD
(28,103)
Pharmetrics
Integrated Outcomes
Database
14578227 (234)
PROactive
16214598
(235)
Retro
Cohort
Experimental
(n)
TZD
(5441)
RCT
Pioglitazone (2065)
Placebo (2633)
Dargie HJ JACC 2007
17448371
(236)
RCT
Rosiglitazone (110)
Placebo
(114)
Lipscombe LL JAMA
2007
18073359
(237)
Retro
Cohort
TZD
Other oral
hypoglycemic
RECORD
19501900, 20118174
(238,239)
RCT
Rosiglitazone addon
(2220)
MET and SU
(2227)
Design
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Results
Patients
Mortality
CV events
No HF
Age >18 y
DM II
oral hypoglycemic agent
NYHA I HF
Age 35-75 y
DM II
Macrovascular disease
N/A
↑ incidence of HF
TZD HR 1.7
NS
NYHA I-II HF
LVEF <45%
DM II
oral hypoglycemic agent
Age > 66 y
DMII
oral hypoglycemic agent
NS
↓
Composite all-cause mortality, non-fatal MI, and CVA HR 0.84
95% CI 0.72-0.98; p=0.27
↑
HF events
11% Pioglitazone vs 8% placebo, P<0.0001
N.S.
↑
RR 1.29
95% CI 1.02-1.62;
p=0.03
No HF
DMII
oral MET or SU
↑
HF adjusted RR 1.60
95% CI 1.21-2.10; p<.001
↑
AMI RR 1.40
95% CI, 1.05-1.86; p=.02
↑
HF HR 2.1
95% CI 1.35-3.27, p=0.001
↔
AMI HR 1.14
95% CI 0.8-1.63, p=0.47
NS
107 Giles TD Congestive
Heart Failure 2010
20557330
(240)
RCT
Pioglitazone (151)
Glyburide
(149)
NYHA I
Mild cardiac disease
DM II
NS
NS
exercise capacity, HbA1c
AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CVA, cerebral vascular accident; DM II, type 2 diabetes mellitus; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; HF, heart failure; HR, hazard ratio; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MET, metformin;
MI, myocardial infarction; N/A, not applicable; NS, no statistically significant difference; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PROactive, Prospective pioglitazone Clinical Trial In Macrovascular Events;RCT, randomized
control trial; RECORD, Rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes in oral agent combination therapy for type 2 diabetes; Retro, retrospective analysis; RR, relative risk; SU, sulfonylurea; and TZD, thiazolidinediones.
Data Supplement 28. Device-Based Management (Section 7.3.4)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Aim of Study
Study Type
Study
Size
Patient Population
Endpoints
Primary
Endpoint
COMPASS, Bourge et
al. 2008 JACC
18342224
(241)
COMPASS –Diastolic
HF, substudy. Zile,
2008 J Cardiac Fail
19041044
(242)
REDUCE-HF
Adamson,Congestive
Heart Failure 2011
21906250
(243)
SENSE-HF
Conraads 2011 Eur J
Echo
21362703
(244)
FAST
Abraham 2011
Cong H Fail
21449992
(245)
Study Limitations
Secondary
Endpoint
Determine impact of
clinician knowing
continuous
ambulatory right
heart pressures
Determine impact of
clinician knowing
continuous
ambulatory right
heart pressures
Determine impact of
clinician knowing and
acting on home
pressures
Single blind RCT
274
Class III-IV with
hospitalization/6 mo, all
EF
HF events
HF hospitalization
(post hoc)
Failed primary, with 21% reduction (p=0.33).
HF hospilization 36% reduction (HR: 0.64:
p=0.03)
Both groups high clinical contact
(0.95/wk). No protocol for response to
information.
RCT
70
Class III-IV, EF ≥50%
HF events
N/A
20% reduction (p=0.66). HF hopsitlization
29% reduction (p=0.43)
Both groups high clinical contact
(0.95/wk). No protocol for response to
information. Small subgroup.
Single blind RCT
400 of
1200
(target)
Class II/III
HF events
N/A
No trend for benefit
Trial stopped for anticipated lead
problems
Determine predictive
value of impedance
changes
Observational,
Doubleblinded
Phase I,
unblinded Phase
II
RCT (Pts and
study team
blinded to
impedance data)
501
N/A
Predictive value
of impendance
changes
N/A
PPV for HF hosp increased from 4.7 to 38%
during study
N/A
156
Class III-IV
With ICD or CRT,
LVEF ≤35%
Number of
threshold
changes
associated with
HF event within
30 d
N/A
Greater sensitivity for impedance than daily
weights:
76% vs 23% (p=0.001)
Unexplained change rate
1.9 vs 4.3/pt-y.
1 in 7 impedance changes associated with
Weight changes defined as 3 lbs/1 d or
5 lbs in 3 d. Unknown relationship of
weight changes to therapy change
Compare impedance
Changes to daily
weights for
monitoring
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Statistical Analysis (Results)
108 event (p=0.0001)
CHAMPION
Abraham
Lancet 2011
21315441
(246)
Determine impact of
PAP information
from wireless
monitor
Single blind RCT
550
Class III HF and
hospitalized in past y
HF
hospitilizations
AUC 6 mo PAP,
% admitted
DAOH,
MLHF
CHAMPION
EF ≥40%
21315441
(246)
HOMEOSTASIS
Ritzema, Circulation
2011
20176990
(247)
DOT-HF trial,
21931078
[5816 /id}
Determine impact of
PAP information
from wireless
monitor
Feasibility study of
daily LAP monitoring
to inform pt-directed
therapy
Single blind RCT
119
Class III HF and
hospitalized in past y
HF
hospitilizations
N/A
Open-label
Registry,
uncontrolled
40
Class III-IV;
hospitalized in past y
all EF
N/A
N/A
Determine impact of
knowing impedance
information
Single blind RCT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7 procedure-related SAEs
39% reduction in HF hospitalizations (HR:
0.7; p=0.0001),
More reduction in PAP (p=0.008),
Lower % pts with HF hospitalizations (HR:
0.7; p=0.02),
DAOH, (p=0.02),
Better MLHF (p=0.02)
HF hosp reduced from 0.33 to 0.16
(p=0.0001)
Subgroup small, same trend
LAP declined 17.6 to 14.8 (p=0.0003);
% over 15 declined 67% (p=0.001)
Beta blocker/ACE-I doses increased 40/37%
(p=0.001)
Loop doses decreased 27% (p=0.15)
Monitoring increased hospilizations,
clinic visits,
No decrease in mortality
Pilot observational, no controls.
key concepts: physiology
reduce diuretics.
Pt responsibility
N/A
AUC, area under the curve; CHAMPION, CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients; COMPASS-HF, Chronicle Offers Management to Patients with Advanced
Signs and Symptoms of Heart Failure; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; DOT-HF, Diagnostic Outcome Trial in Heart Failure; EF, ejection fraction; FAST, Fluid Accumulation Status Trial; HF, heart failure; HOMEOSTASIS;
Hemodynamically Guided Home Self-Therapy in Severe Heart Failure Patients; ICD; implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; LAP, left atrial pressure; lbs, pounds; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MLHF, Minnesota Living with Heart
Failure Questionnaire; N/A, not applicable; PAP, pulmonary artery pressure; PPV, positive predictive value; pt, patient; pt-y, patient years; RCT, randomized control trial; REDUCE-HF, Reducing Decompensation Events Utilizing
Intracardiac Pressures in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure; SAE, serious adverse event; SENSE-HF, Sensitivity of the InSync Sentry feature for the Prediction of Heart Failure.
Data Supplement 29. CRT (Section 7.3.4.2)
Study Name,
Author, Year
COMPANION
N Engl J Med
2004;350:214
0-50.
15152059
(248)
Aim of Study
Aim of trial was to
compare optimal
pharmacologic
therapy plus CRT
with a pacemaker,
optimal
pharmacologic
therapy plus CRT
Study
Type
RCT
Patient
Population N (total)
n (experimental)
n (control)
1520; 617;
medical therapy*:
308;
pacemakerdefibrillator: 595
Follow-Up
(mo)
16.2 (CRT),
11.9 (medical)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Baseline
Treatment
ACE-Is, beta
blockers, and
spironolactone
NYHA Class
3 or 4
QRS
durati
on
(ms)
> 120
EF (%)
< 35
109 Exclusion Criteria
• non- randomized
• no-CRT control group
• enabled ICD
implantation only in one
study arm only
• cross-over study design
• did not report the
clinical outcomes of
QRS
Subgroups
by duration
(ms)
120-147 (n
324); 148*168 (n 314);
>168 (n 287)
Composite
Endpoint (for
QRS
subgroups)
All cause
mortality or
hospitalizations
Results
CRT with a pacemaker decreased
the risk of the primary end point
(HR:
0.81; p=0.014),
CRT with a pacemaker–defibrillator
decreased the risk of the primary
endpoint (HR: 0.80; p=0.01)
interest
• reported clinical
outcomes without any
relation to specific limited
QRS ranges
with a pacemaker–
defibrillator, and
optimal
pharmacologic
therapy alone in a
population with
advanced HF and
intraventricular
conduction delays.
CARE-HF
N Engl J Med
2005;352:153
9-49.
15753115
(249)
To analyze the
effects of cardiac
resynchronization
on the risk of
complications and
death among pts
who were receiving
standard medical
therapy for
moderate or
severe HF and
cardiac
dyssynchrony.
RCT
813; 409;
medical therapy*:
404
29.4
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. ACE-Is, betablockers, and
spironolactone
3 or 4
<35
>120
110 • not randomized
• lacked non-CRT control
group
• enabled ICD
implantation only in one
study arm
• had cross-over study
design
• did not report the
clinical outcomes of
interest such
• reported clinical
outcomes without any
relation to specific limited
QRS ranges.
120-159 (n
290); >159 (n
505)
All cause
mortality or
hospitalizations
for major CV
event including
HF
hospitalization
Risk of the combined endpoint of
death from or hospitalization for
HFwas reduced by 34% in the
pacemaker group (p<0.002) and by
40 % in the pacemaker–defibrillator
group (p<0.001 for the comparison
with the pharmacologic-therapy
group).
Pacemaker reduced the risk of the
secondary endpoint of death from
any cause by 24% (p=0.059), and
a pacemaker–defibrillator reduced
the risk by 36% (p=0.003).
Primary endpoint was reached by
159 pts in the cardiacresynchronization group, as
compared with 224 pts in the
medical-therapy group (39 % vs.
55%; HR: 0.63; 95 % CI: 0.51-0.77;
p<0.001).
There were 82 deaths in the
cardiac-resynchronization group,
as compared with 120 in the
medical-therapy group (20% vs.
30%; HR: 0.64; 95 %CI: 0.48-0.85;
p<0.002).
As compared with medical therapy,
cardiac resynchronization reduced
the interventricular mechanical
delay, the end-systolic volume
index, and the area of the mitral
regurgitant jet; increased the
LVEF; and improved symptoms
and the QoL (p<0.01 for all
comparisons).
REVERSE
19038680
(223)
To determine the
effects of CRT in
NYHA functional
class II HF and
NYHA functional
class I (ACC/AHA
stage C) pts with
previous HF
symptoms.
RCT
610; 419;
CRT-off : 191
12
ACE-Is, beta
blockers, and
spironolactone
1 or 2
<40
>120
• not randomized
• lacked non-CRT control
group
• enabled ICD
implantation only in one
study arm
• had cross-over study
design
• did not report the
clinical outcomes of
interest such
• reported clinical
outcomes without any
relation to specific limited
QRS ranges.
120-151 (n
303);
>151 (n 307)
All cause
mortality or HF
hospitalization
or worsened HF
resulting in
cross-over or
drop-out
worsened
NYHA class or
moderately or
markedly
worsened HF
symptoms
The HF clinical composite
response endpoint, which
compared only the percent
worsened, indicated 16%
worsened in CRT-ON compared
with 21% in CRT-OFF (p =0.10).
Pts assigned to CRT-ON
experienced a greater
improvement in LV end-systolic
volume index (-18.4 + 29.5 ml/m2
vs. -1.3 +23.4 ml/m2, p < 0.0001)
and other measures of LV
remodeling. Time-to-first HF
hospitalization was significantly
delayed in CRT-ON (HR: 0.47;
p=0.03).
MADIT-CRT
19723701
(250)
Aim of trial was to
determine whether
CRT
with biventricular
pacing would
reduce the risk of
death or HF events
in
pts with mild
cardiac symptoms,
a reduced EF, and
a wide QRS
complex.
RCT
1800
1089
medical therapy*:
731
28.8
ACE-Is, betablockers, and
spironolactone
1 or 2
<30
>130
• not randomized
• lacked non-CRT control
group
• enabled ICD
implantation only in one
study arm
• had cross-over study
design
• did not report the
clinical outcomes of
interest such
• reported clinical
outcomes without any
relation to specific limited
QRS ranges.
130-149 (n
645); >149 (n
1175)
All cause
mortality or HF
event (HF
hospitalization
or outpatient
intravenous
diuretic therapy)
Primary end point occurred in
17.2% of the CRT–ICD group and
in 25.3% of the ICD-only group.
CRT–ICD group HR: 0.66; 95% CI:
0.52-0.84; p=0.001.
The benefit did not differ
significantly between pts with
ischemic cardiomyopathy and
those with nonischemic
cardiomyopathy. CRT superiority
was driven by a 41% reduction in
the risk of HF events evident
primarily in a prespecified
subgroup of pts with a QRS
duration ≥150 msec. CRT was
associated with a significant
reduction in LV volumes and
improvement in the EF. There was
no significant difference between
the two groups in the overall risk of
death, with a 3% annual mortality
rate in each treatment group. SAEs
were infrequent in the 2 groups.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 111 RAFT
21073365
(251)
Aim of trial was to
evaluate whether
adding
CRT to an ICD and
optimal medical
therapy might
reduce mortality
and morbidity
among such pts.
RCT
1800; 894;
No CRT: 904
40
ACE, betablockers, and
spironolactone
2 or 3
<30
>120
• not randomized
• lacked non-CRT control
group
• enabled ICD
implantation only in one
study arm
• had cross-over study
design
• did not report the
clinical outcomes of
interest such
• reported clinical
outcomes without any
relation to specific limited
QRS ranges.
120-149 (n
627); >149 (n
1036)
All casue
mortality or HF
hospitalization
PROSPECT
Circulation.
2008;117:
2608-2616.
18458170
(252)
Aim of trial was to
evaluate selected,
predefined
baseline
echocardiographic
parameters for
their ability to
predict clinical and
echocardiographic
response to CRT.
prospecti
ve,
multicent
er,
nonrand
omized
study
(observat
ional)
498-enrolled;
467-implanted;
Not applicable
6
Medical therapy,
unless
contraindicated,
was to include an
ACE-I or ARB for
at least 1 mo
before enrollment
and a
beta blocker
started at least 3
mo before and
unchanged for at
least 1 mo before
enrollment
3 or 4
<35
>130
N/A
N/A
12
echocardiograp
hic parameters
of
dyssynchrony,
based on both
conventional
and tissue
Doppler-based
methods, were
evaluated after
site training in
acquisition
methods and
blinded core
laboratory
analysis.
CONNECT
J Am Coll
Cardiol
2011;57:1181
–9
To determine if
wireless remote
monitoring with
automatic clinician
alerts reduces the
multicent
er,
prospecti
ve,
randomiz
1,997
REMOTE ARM:
1014
All automatic
clinician alerts
15
Inclusion
criteria: 1)
being able
and willing to
replace
N/A
N/A
permanent AF
chronic warfarin therapy
previous ICD, CRT
device, or pacemaker
age <18 y
N/A
N/A
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. N/A
112 Primary outcome occurred in
33.2% in the ICD–CRT group and
40.3% in the ICD group; ICD–CRT
group HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.640.87; p<0.001.
In the ICD–CRT group, 186 pts
died, as compared with 236 in the
ICD group (HR: 0.75; 95% CI:
0.62-0.91; p=0.003), and 174 pts
were hospitalized for HF, as
compared with 236 in the ICD
group (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.560.83; p<0.001). 30 d after device
implantation, AEs had occurred in
124 pts in the ICD-CRT group, as
compared with 58 in the ICD group
(p<0.001).
Clinical composite score was
improved in 69% of 426 pts,
whereas
LV end-systolic volume decreased
>15% in 56% of 286 pts with
paired data. The ability of the 12
echo parameters to predict clinical
composite score response varied
widely, with sensitivity ranging from
6%- 74% and specificity ranging
from 35%- 91%; for predicting
LVESV response, sensitivity
ranged from 9%-77% and
specificity from 31%-93%. For all
the parameters, the area under the
ROC curve for positive clinical or
volume response to CRT was
<0.62. There was large variability
in the analysis of the dyssynchrony
parameters.
The median time from clinical
event to clinical decision per pt was
reduced from 22 d in the in-office
arm to 4.6 d in the remote arm
(p<0.001). The health care
21255955
(252)
time from a clinical
event to a clinical
decision in
response to
arrhythmias, CV
disease
progression,
and device issues
compared to pts
receiving standard
in-office care. A
secondary
objective was to
compare the rates
of CV health care
utilization between
pts in the remote
and in-office arms.
ed
evaluatio
n
SMART AV
Circulation.
2010;122:266
0-2668
21098426
(253)
Aim of trial was to
compare 3
alternative
techniques and to
assess the
hypotheses that
systematic AV
delay optimization
with
echocardiography
and/or the SD
algorithm is
superior to a fixed
nominal AV delay
as demonstrated
by improved LV
geometry after 6
mo and that
programming
according to SD is
noninferior to using
randomiz
ed,
multicent
er,
doubleblinded,
3-armed
trial
were enabled for
pts in the remote
arm. Audible pt
alerts were
disabled with the
exception of
those related to
lead and
device integrity.
IN-OFFICE ARM:
983
Only audible pt
alerts associated
with lead and
device integrity
were enabled for
pts in the
in-office arm
because they are
nominal settings
and considered
standard of care
1014; 332 SD;
323-Echo; 325
Fixed nominal AV
delay
regularly
scheduled
in-office
follow-ups
with remote
followups;
and 2) being
able to
attend all
required
follow-up
visits.
No HF as
well as
NYHA 1-4
were
included in
study
6
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Diuretics, beta
blockers, and
angiotensinconverting
enzyme inhibitors
or angiotensin
receptor
blockers,
3 or 4
having a life expectancy
<15 mo
<35%,
>120
113 • Complete heart block,
or who otherwise are
unable to tolerate pacing
at VVI-40-RV for up to 14
d
• Previously received
CRT
• Upgrade of a
pacemaker or ICD and
unable to tolerate pacing
at VVI-40-RV for up to 14
d
• Heart transplant during
the course of the study
• Cardiac surgeries or
procedures planned
during the study
• Have or are likely to
receive a tricuspid valve
prosthesis (mechanical
right valve)
utilization data revealed a
decrease in mean length of stay
per CV hospitalization visit from 4.0
d in the in-office arm to 3.3 d in the
remote arm
(p=0.002).
N/A
The primary
endpoint was
LV end-systolic
volume.
Secondary
endpoints
included NYHA
class, QoL
score, 6-min
walk distance,
LV end-diastolic
volume, and
LVEF.
The medians (quartiles 1 and 3) for
change in LV end-systolic volume
at 6 mo for the SmartDelay,
echocardiography, and fixed arms
were 21 mL (45 and 6 mL), 19 mL
(45 and 6 mL), and 15 mL (41 and
6 mL), respectively. No difference
in improvement in left ventricular
end-systolic volume at 6 months
was observed between the
SmartDelay and echocardiography
arms (p=0.52) or the SmartDelay
and fixed
arms (p=0.66). Secondary end
points, including structural (LV enddiastolic volume and LVEF) and
functional (6-min walk, QoL, and
NYHA classification)
measures, were not significantly
different between arms.
echocardiographydetermined AV
delay
optimization.
• Neuromuscular,
orthopedic, or other
noncardiac condition that
prevents normal,
unsupported walking
• Pregnant or planning to
become pregnant
• Enrolled in another
investigational study or
registry that would
directly impact the
current study
*diuretics, ACEIs, beta-blockers, and spironolactone
ACEI indicates angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; AV, atrioventricular;CARE-HF, Cardiac resynchronization in heart failure; COMPANION, comparisons of medical therapy, pacing, and defibrillation in heart failure; CONNECT, Clinical Evaluation
of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; EF, Ejection Fraction; HCU; Health Care Utilization; HF, heart failure; HM, home monitoring; ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; LVES left ventricular end-systolic; LVESV, left
ventricular end-systolic volume; MADIT-CRT, multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial-cardiac resynchronization therapy; N/A, not applicable; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PROSPECT, Predictors of Response to CRT; Pt, patient; REVERSE, resynchronization reverses
remodeling in systolic left ventricular dysfunction, RAFT, resynchronation-defibrillation for ambulatoryheart failure trial; ROC curve, receiver-operating characteristics curve; SMART-AV, SmartDelay Determined AV Optimization: A Comparison to Other AV Delay Methods Used in Cardiac
Resynchronization Therapy; SD, SmartDelay™, TRUST, The Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-Up;
Data Supplement 30. Therapies, Important Considerations (Section 7.4.2)
Study Name, Author,
Yearl
Aim of Study
Study Type
Hemodynamic Assessment of Hospitalized Patient
RCT
Binanay C, Califf RM,
To determine
Hasselblad V et al.
whether PAC use
Evaluation study of
is safe and
congestive HF and
improves clinical
pulmonary artery
outcomes in pts
catheterization
hospitalized with
effectiveness: the
severe
ESCAPE trial. JAMA
symptomatic and
2005 October
recurrent HF
5;294(13):1625-33.
16204662 (254)
Study Size
433
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Patient Population
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
Exclusion criteria to
minimize confounding
comorbidities or urgent
crossover included
Crlevel >3.5 mg/dL
(309.4 μmol/ L), or
prior use of
dobutamine or
dopamine >3
μg/kg/min, or any prior
use of milrinone during
the current
hospitalization.
Pts with severe
symptomatic HF despite
recommended therapies. 1)
hospitalization for HF within
the past y; (2) urgent visit to
the ED; or (3) treatment
during the preceding mo
with >160 mg of furosemide
daily (or equivalent). LVEF
≤30%, SBP ≤125mmHg,
and at least 1 sign and 1
symptom of congestion.
Results
PAC did not significantly affect the primary endpoint of d
alive and out of the hospital during the first 6 mo (133 d vs
135 d; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.82-1.21; p=.99), mortality (43
pts [10%] vs 38 pts [9%]; OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.78-2.03;
p=.35), or the number of d hospitalized (8.7 vs 8.3; HR:
1.04; 95% CI: 0.86-1.27; p=.67). HR: 1.0 d alive outside
hospital, HR: 1.26 for mortality (p=0.35), h 1.04 For d
hospitalized.19 % mortality at 6 mo (dead at 180 d= 43 in
PAC, 38 in CAG). Annualized mortality 36%. Inhospital AEs
were more common among pts in the PAC group (47
[21.9%] vs 25 [11.5%]; p=.04). There were no deaths
related to PAC use, and no difference for in-hospital plus
30-d mortality (10 [4.7%] vs 11 [5.0%]; OR: 0.97; 95% CI,
0.38-2.22; p=.97
114 P Values &
95% CI:
p=0.35
OR: HR: RR:
1.26
Study
Limitations
Use of inotropes,
variability
between centers,
generalizabiity of
stringent
hemodynamic
targets
,individualized
targets not
applied
Drazner MH, Hellkamp
AS, Leier CV et al.
Value of clinician
assessment of
hemodynamics in
advanced HF: the
ESCAPE trial. Circ
Heart Fail 2008
September;1(3):170-7.
19675681 (31)
To determine
whether
estimated
hemodynamics
from history and
physical
examination
reflect invasive
measurements
and predict
outcomes in
advanced HF
Retrospective
analysis
194
Compared H&P estimates
of filling pressures and
cardiac index with invasive
measurements in 194 pts in
the ESCAPE trial. H&P
estimates were compared
with 6-mo outcomes in 388
pts enrolled in ESCAPE.
Crlevel >3.5 mg/dL
(309.4 μmol/L), or prior
use of dobutamine or
dopamine >3
μg/kg/min, or any prior
use of milrinone during
the current
hospitalization.
Shah MR, Hasselblad V,
Stevenson LW et al.
Impact of the pulmonary
artery catheter in
critically ill pts: metaanalysis of randomized
clinical trials. JAMA
2005 October
5;294(13):1664-70
16204666 (255)
To estimate the
impact of the
PAC device in
critically ill pts.
Meta-analysis
5051
MEDLINE (1985-2005), the
Cochrane Controlled Trials
Registry (1988-2005), the
National Institutes of Health
ClinicalTrials.gov database,
and the US Food and Drug
Administration Web site for
RCTs in which pts were
randomly assigned to PAC
or no PAC were searched.
Results from the ESCAPE
trial of pts with severe HF
were also included. Search
terms included pulmonary
artery catheter, right heart
catheter, catheter, and
Swan-Ganz.
N/A
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. RAP was <8 mm Hg in 82% of pts with RAP estimated from
jugular veins as <8 mm Hg, and was >12 mm Hg in 70% of
pts when estimated as >12 mm Hg. From the H&P, only
estimated RAP ≥12 mm Hg (OR: 4.6; p<0.001) and
orthopnea ≥2 pillows (OR: 3.6; p<0.05) were associated
with PCWP ≥30 mm Hg. Estimated cardiac index did not
reliably reflect measured cardiac index (p=0.09), but "cold"
versus "warm" profile was associated with lower median
measured cardiac index (1.75 vs. 2.0 L/min/m(2); p=0.004).
In Cox regression analysis, discharge "cold" or "wet" profile
conveyed a 50% increased risk of death or
rehospitalization. In advanced HF, the presence of
orthopnea and elevated jugular venous pressure are useful
to detect elevated PCWP, and a global assessment of
inadequate perfusion ("cold" profile) is useful to detect
reduced cardiac index. Hemodynamic profiles estimated
from the discharge H&P identify pts at increased risk of
early events.
HR for mortality 1.04. In critically ill pts, use of the PAC
neither increased overall mortality or d in hospital nor
conferred benefit. Despite almost 20 y of RCTs, a clear
strategy leading to improved survival with the PAC has not
been devised. The neutrality of the PAC for clinical
outcomes may result from the absence of effective
evidence-based treatments to use in combination with PAC
information across the spectrum of critically ill pts.Use of the
PAC was associated with a higher use of inotropes (OR:
1.58; 95% CI: 1.19-2.12; p= .002) and IV vasodilators (OR:
2.35; 95% CI: 1.75-3.15; p<.001).
115 p<0.05
Estimated RAP
OR: 4.6,
orthopnea OR:
3.6
posthoc, small
sample
p=0.53
The combined
OR for
mortality was
1.04 (95% CI:
0.90-1.20;
p=.59). The
difference in
the mean
number of d
hospitalized for
PAC minus the
mean for no
PAC was 0.11
(95% CI: -0.510.74; p=.73).
heterogenity of
studies
Allen LA, Rogers JG,
Warnica JW et al. High
mortality without
ESCAPE: the registry of
HF pts receiving
pulmonary artery
catheters without
randomization. J Card
Fail 2008
October;14(8):661-9
18926438 (256)
To characterize
pts enrolled in
ESCAPE
Registry
Positive Pressure Ventilation Studies
Gray A, Goodacre S,
Noninvasive
Newby DE, Masson M,
ventilation CPAP
Sampson F, Nicholl J.
or NIPPV
Noninvasive ventilation
appears to be of
in acute cardiogenic
benefit in the
pulmonary edema. N
immediate
Engl J Med 2008 July
treatment of pts
10;359(2):142-51.
with acute
18614781 (257)
cardiogenic
pulmonary
edema and may
reduce mortality.
To determine
whether
noninvasive
ventilation
reduces mortality
and whether
there are
important
differences in
outcome
associated with
the method of
treatment (CPAP
or NIPPV).
Registry
439
ESCAPE sites enrolled 439
pts receiving PAC without
randomization in a
prospective registry.
Baseline characteristics,
pertinent trial exclusion
criteria, reasons for PAC
use, hemodynamics, and
complications were
collected. Survival was
determined from the
National Death Index and
the Alberta Registry. Much
sicker pts than ESCAPE
RCT
1069
(trandomize
d to
standard
oxygen
therapy, (n367) versus
CPAP (5 to
15 cm of
water)
(n=346) OR
NIPPV
(inspiratory
pressure, 8
to 20 cm of
water;
expiratory
pressure, 4
to 10 cm of
water)
(n=356).
Age > 16 y, clinical
diagnosis of acute
cardiogenic PE, PE on
chest radiograph,
respiratory rate >20
breaths/min, and arterial
hydrogen ion
concentration >45 nmol/L
(pH <7.35).
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. N/A
N/A
Registry pts had longer hospitalization (13 vs 6 d, p<.001)
and higher 6-mo mortality (34% vs 20%, p<.001) than trial
pts. On average, registry pts had lower blood pressure,
worse renal function, less neurohormonal antagonist
therapy, and higher use of IV inotropes compared with trial
pts. Although clinical assessment anticipated less volume
overload and greater hypoperfusion among the registry
population, measured filling pressures were similarly
elevated in the registry and trial pts, whereas measured
perfusion was slightly higher among registry pts. 6 mo
mortality 34%
p<0.05
N/A
N/A
There was no significant difference in 7-d mortality between
pts receiving standard oxygen therapy (9.8%) and those
undergoing noninvasive ventilation (9.5%, P=0.87). There
was no significant difference in the combined endpoint of
death or intubation within 7 d between the two groups of pts
undergoing noninvasive ventilation (11.7% for CPAP and
11.1% for NIPPV, p=0.81). In pts with acute cardiogenic
PE, noninvasive ventilation induces a more rapid
improvement in respiratory distress and metabolic
disturbance than does standard oxygen therapy but has no
effect on short-term mortality. CPAP or NIPPV MAY be
considered as adjunctive therapy in pts with severe acute
cardiogenic pulmonary oedema in the presence of severe
respiratory distress or when there is a failure to improve
with pharmacological therapy.As compared with standard
oxygen therapy, noninvasive ventilation was associated with
greater mean improvements at 1 h after the beginning of
treatment in pt-reported dyspnea (treatment difference, 0.7
on a visual-analogue scale ranging from 1 to 10; 95% CI:
0.2-1.3; p=0.008), heart rate (treatment difference, 4
beats/min; 95% CI; 1-6; p=0.004), acidosis (treatment
difference, pH 0.03; 95% CI: 0.02-0.04; p<0.001), and
hypercapnia (treatment difference, 0.7 kPa [5.2 mm Hg];
95% CI: 0.4-0.9; p<0.001).
p=0.87
N/A
N/A
116 Masip J, Roque M,
Sanchez B, Fernandez
R, Subirana M, Exposito
JA. Noninvasive
ventilation in acute
cardiogenic pulmonary
edema: systematic
review and metaanalysis. JAMA 2005
December
28;294(24):3124-30
16380593 (258)
To systematically
review and
quantitatively
synthesize the
short-term effect
of noninvasive
ventilation on
major clinical
outcomes.
Meta-analysis
Acute PE, relevant
randomized controlled
trials and systematic
reviews published from
1988-2005. Included
trials were all parallel
studies comparing
noninvasive ventilation to
conventional oxygen
therapy in pts with acute
PE. Comparisons of
different techniques,
either CPAP or bilevel
NIPSV, were also
included
15 trials
comparing
noninvasive
ventilation
to to
convention
al oxygen
Severe Cardiogenic Shock Patient, Role of PVADs to Bridge to Recovery or Bridge/Transplant
117
Cardiogenic shock pts
Kar B, Gregoric ID,
To determine the Prospective
Cohort
with a SBP of 90 mm
Basra SS, Idelchik GM,
efficacy and
Hg, a cardiac index of
Loyalka P. The
safety of the
2.0 l/(min·m2) and
percutaneous
pVAD in pts in
evidence of end-organ
ventricular assist device SRCS despite
failure despite
in severe refractory
intra-aortic
IABP/pressor support.A
cardiogenic shock. J Am balloon pump
total of 117 pts with
Coll Cardiol 2011
and/or high-dose
SRCS implanted with
February 8;57(6):688vasopressor
TandemHeart pVAD
696.
support.
were studied, of whom
20950980 (259)
56 pts (47.9%)
underwent active
cardiopulmonary
resuscitation immediately
before or at the time of
implantation
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. N/A
Overall, noninvasive ventilation significantly reduced the
mortality rate by nearly 45% compared with conventional
therapy (RR: 0.55; 95% CI; 0.40-0.78; p=.72 for
heterogeneity). The results were significant for CPAP (RR:
0.53; 95% CI: 0.35-0.81; p= .44 for heterogeneity) but not
for NIPSV (RR: 0.60; 95% CI, 0.34-1.05; p=.76 for
heterogeneity), although there were fewer studies in the
latter. Both modalities showed a significant decrease in the
"need to intubate" rate compared with conventional therapy:
CPAP (RR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.27-0.58; p=.21 for
heterogeneity), NIPSV (RR, 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30-0.76; p=.24
for heterogeneity), and together (RR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.320.57; p=.20 for heterogeneity). There were no differences in
intubation or mortality rates in the analysis of studies
comparing CPAP and NIPSV.Noninvasive ventilation
reduces the need for intubation and mortality in pts with
acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Although the level of
evidence is higher for CPAP, there are no significant
differences in clinical outcomes when comparing CPAP vs.
NIPSV.
N/A
56 (47.9%) of the 117 pts (41 of 80 [51.2%] with ICM; 15 of
37 [40.5%] with NICM) were undergoing CPR during pVAD
placement.The average time from CPR onset to
TandemHeart implantation was 65.6+/-41.3 min. 80 pts had
ischemic and 37 pts had nonischemic cardiomyopathy. The
average duration of support was 5.8 d. After implantation,
the cardiac index improved from median 0.52 (interquartile
range [IQR]: 0.8) l/(min·m2) to 3.0 (IQR: 0.9) l/(min·m2)
(p=0.001). The SBP and mixed venous oxygen saturation
increased from 75 (IQR: 15) mm Hg to 100 (IQR: 15)mm Hg
(p 0.001) and 49 (IQR: 11.5) to 69.3 (IQR: 10) (p 0.001),
respectively. The PCWP, lactic acid level, and Crlevel
decreased, respectively, from 31.53 to 10.2 mm Hg to 17.29
10.82 mm Hg (p 0.001), 24.5 (IQR: 74.25) mg/dl to 11
(IQR: 92) mg/dl (p=0.001), and 1.5 (IQR: 0.95) mg/dl to 1.2
(IQR: 0.9) mg/dl (p 0.009). The mortality rates at 30 d and
6 mo were 40.2% and 45.3%, respectively.
117 p<0.05 for
mortality
reduction with
noninvasive
ventilation
N/A
RR: 0.55
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thiele H, Lauer B,
Hambrecht R, Boudriot
E, Cohen HA, Schuler
G. Reversal of
cardiogenic shock by
percutaneous left atrialto-femoral arterial
bypass assistance.
Circulation 2001
December
11;104(24):2917-2922.
11739306 (260)
Idelchik GM, Simpson L,
Civitello AB, Loyalka P,
Gregoric ID, Delgado R,
III, Kar B. Use of the
percutaneous left
ventricular assist device
in pts with severe
refractory cardiogenic
shock as a bridge to
long-term left ventricular
assist device
implantation. J Heart
Lung Transplant 2008
January;27(1):106-111.
18187095 (261)
Cheng JM, den Uil CA,
Hoeks SE, van der EM,
Jewbali LS, van
Domburg RT, Serruys
PW. Percutaneous left
ventricular assist
devices vs. intra-aortic
balloon pump
counterpulsation for
treatment of cardiogenic
shock: a meta-analysis
of controlled trials. Eur
Heart J 2009
September;30(17):21022108
19617601 (262)
To characterize
whether PVAD
may offer
effective
treatment for
cardiogenic
shock
Case Series
18
VADs were implanted in
18 consecutive pts who
had cardiogenic shock
after MI.
N/A
Mean duration of cardiac assistance was 4+/-3 d. Mean flow
of the VAD was 3.2+/-0.6 L/min. Before support, cardiac
index was 1.7+/-0.3 L/min per m(2) and improved to 2.4+/0.6 L/min per m(2) (p<0.001). Mean blood pressure
increased from 63+/-8 mm Hg to 80+/-9 mm Hg (p<0.001).
PCWP, central venous pressure, and pulmonary artery
pressure were reduced from 21+/-4, 13+/-4, and 31+/-8 mm
Hg to 14+/-4, 9+/-3, and 23+/-6 mm Hg (all p<0.001),
respectively. Overall 30-d mortality rate was 44%.
N/A
N/A
N/A
To evaluate the
efficacy of a
PVAD as a bridge
to LVAD
implantation in
pts in cardiogenic
shock refractory
to IABP and
pressor support.
Case Series
18
N/A
The mean duration of PVAD support was 4.2 +/- 2.5 d.
During this time, the cardiac index improved from 0.86 +/0.66 to 2.50 +/- 0.93 liters/min/m2 (p < 0.001), SBP
improved from 72 +/- 11 to 98 +/- 15 mm Hg (p=0.001), and
systemic mixed venous oxygenation improved from 37 +/- 7
to 62 +/- 6 mm Hg (p < 0.001). We terminated life support in
4 of the 18 pts before LVAD placement; 14 were
successfully bridged to LVAD or heart transplantation. The
mortality rate was 27% at 30 d and 33% at 6 mo. There
were no PVAD-associated deaths. CONCLUSION: In pts
with terminal hemodynamic collapse, PVAD support is an
effective bridging therapy to LVAD and appears to be a
viable alternative to other invasive methods of support
N/A
N/A
N/A
A meta-analysis
of controlled trials
of PVADs vs.
intra-aortic
balloon pump
counterpulsation
for treatment of
cardiogenic
shock for 30 d
mortality
Meta-Analysis
18 pts in SRCS received
a PVAD as a bridge to
LVAD placement or
orthotopic heart
transplantation. 6 pts had
ischemic
cardiomyopathy, and 12
had nonischemic
cardiomyopathy. At the
time of PVAD placement,
17 were receiving IABP
support, and 10 were
undergoing
cardiopulmonary
resuscitation
2 trials evaluated the
TandemHeart and a
recent trial used the
Impella device
N/A
After device implantation, percutaneous LVAD pts had
higher CI (MD 0.35 L/min/m(2), 95% CI: 0.09-0.61), higher
MAP (MD 12.8 mmHg, 95% CI: 3.6-22.0), and lower PCWP
(MD -5.3 mm Hg, 95% CI: -9.4 to -1.2) compared with IABP
pts. Similar 30-day mortality (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.68-1.66)
was observed using percutaneous LVAD compared with
IABP. No significant difference was observed in incidence of
leg ischaemia (RR: 2.59, 95% CI: 0.75-8.97) in
percutaneous LVAD pts compared with IABP pts. Bleeding
(RR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.40-3.93) was significantly more
observed in TandemHeart pts compared with pts treated
with IABP.Although percutaneous LVAD provides superior
haemodynamic support in pts with cardiogenic shock
compared with IABP, the use of these more powerful
devices did not improve early survival. These results do not
yet support percutaneous LVAD as first-choice approach in
N/A
N/A
N/A
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 118 the mechanical management of cardiogenic shock.
Seyfarth M, Sibbing D,
Bauer I, Frohlich G,
Bott-Flugel L, Byrne R,
Dirschinger J, Kastrati
A, Schomig A. A
randomized clinical trial
to evaluate the safety
and efficacy of a
percutaneous left
ventricular assist device
versus intra-aortic
balloon pumping for
treatment of cardiogenic
shock caused by
myocardial infarction. J
Am Coll Cardiol 2008
November
4;52(19):1584-1588
19007597 (263)
Burkhoff D, Cohen H,
Brunckhorst C, O'Neill
WW. A randomized
multicenter clinical study
to evaluate the safety
and efficacy of the
TandemHeart
percutaneous
ventricular assist device
versus conventional
therapy with intraaortic
balloon pumping for
treatment of cardiogenic
shock. Am Heart J 2006
To test whether
the LVAD Impella
LP2.5 provides
superior
hemodynamic
support
compared with
the IABP.
RCT (ISARSHOCK Trial)
26
Cardiogenic shock post
AMI
N/A
In 25 pts the allocated device (n=13 IABP, n=12 Impella
LP2.5) could be safely placed. 1 pt died before implantation.
The CI after 30 min of support was significantly increased in
pts with the Impella LP2.5 compared with pts with IABP
(Impella: DeltaCI = 0.49 +/- 0.46 l/min/m(2); IABP: DeltaCI =
0.11 +/- 0.31 l/min/m(2); p = 0.02). Overall 30-d mortality
was 46% in both groups.percutaneously placed LVAD
(Impella LP 2.5) is feasible and safe, and provides superior
hemodynamic support compared with standard treatment
using an IABP.
mortality p=
ns
N/A
N/A
To test the
hypothesis that
the TandemHeart
(PVAD) provides
superior
hemodynamic
support
compared with
IABP.
RCT (Tandem
vs IABP)
42
Pts from 12 centers
presenting within 24 h of
developing cardiogenic
shock.randomized to
treatment with IABP
(n=14) or TandemHeart
PVAD (n=19). Thirty pts
(71%) had persistent
shock despite having an
IABP in place at the time
of study enrollment.
N/A
Cardiogenic shock was due to MI in 70% of the pts and
decompensated HF in most of the remaining pts. The mean
duration of support was 2.5 d. Compared with IABP, the
TandemHeart PVAD achieved significantly greater
increases in cardiac index and mean arterial blood pressure
and significantly greater decreases in PCWP. Overall 30dsurvival and SAEs were not significantly different between
the 2 groups
Mortality =ns
N/A
N/A
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 119 September;152(3):469-8
16923414 (264)
AMI indicates, acute myocardial infarction; CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure; IABP, intra-aortic balloon pump; LVAD, left ventricular assist device; N/A, not applicable; NIPPV, noninvasive intermittent positive-pressure ventilation; NIPSV noninvasive pressure support
ventilation; PAC, pulmonary artery catheter; PCWP, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure; PE, pulmonary edema; PVAD; percutaneous ventricular assist device; RAP, right atrial pressure; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SRCS, severe refractory cardiogenic shock;
Data Supplement 31. Sildenafil (Section Section 7.4.2)
Study Name,
Author, Year
PDE5 Inhibition
With Sildenafil
Improves LVDF,
Cardiac
Geometry, and
Clinical Status in
Pts With Stable
Systolic HF,
Guazzi M, 2011
21036891 (265)
Aim of study
To test the effects of
PDE5 inhibition
(sildenafil) on LVEF,
LVDF, cardiac
geometry, and clinical
status
Study
Type
RCT
Study
Size
45
Etiology
Ischemic/NonIschemic
50% ICM
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Patient Population
Inclusion Criteria
NYHA II-III HF with clinical
stable conditions defined
as no changes in HF
regimens or hospitalization
since 6 mo before study
entry;
Negative exercise stress
test before study;
FEV1/FVC >70%;
LVEF <40%
Presence of LV diastolic
dysfunction determined by
Doppler analysis with
documen- tation of a mitral
inflow early (E) velocity to
mitral annulus early
velocity (E') >10.
Exclusion Criteria
Unable to complete a maximal
exercise test; Resting SBP <110
mm Hg; therapy with nitrate
preparations; LVADs;
History of sildenafil intolerance;
significant lung or valvular
diseases, neuromuscular
disorders, or peripheral vascular
disease; Diabetic pt
120 Severity
Severity of
HF
Symptoms
100% NYHA
II-III
(42% NYHA
II/58% NYHA
III)
peak VO2
12.8
ml/min/kg
VE/VCO2
slope 35.3
Endpoints
Primary Endpoint
LV diastolic
function, chamber
dimensions, and
mass
Trial Duration
(Years)
1y
Absolute Benefit
D Mitral E/A @ 1yr
placebo 0 vs SIL -0.19
D IVRT @ 1y
placebo +1.4 vs SIL 6.0 D E/E', lat @ 1yr
placebo -0.8 vs. SIL
+3.7 D LVEDD (mm)@
1y placebo +0.9 vs SIL 4.2d D LVMI @ 1yr
placebo no change, SIL
decrease (value not
provided)
D peak VO2 @ 1y
placebo +0.3 vs SIL
+2.7 D VE/VCO2
Slope at 1y placebo +0.4
vs SIL -6.0; D QOL
(breathlessness, fatige,
emotional function)
P Values &
95% CI:
p<0.01 for all
parameters
PDE5A inhibitor
treatment of
persistent
pulmonary
hypertension after
mechanical
circulatory
support, Tedford
RJ, 2008
19808294 (266)
To test the hypothesis
that when PH persists
after adequate LV
unloading via recent
LVAD therapy,
phosphodiesterase
type 5A inhibition
would decrease PH in
this population.
Open
label
clinical
trial
58
56% ICM
Sildenafil
Improves
Exercise Capacity
and Quality of Life
in Pts With
Systolic HF and
Secondary
Pulmonary
Hypertension,
Lewis GD, 2007
17785618 (267)
To test the hypothesis
that sildenafil, an
effective therapy for
pulmonary arterial
hypertension, would
lower pulmonary
vascular resistance
and improve exercise
capacity in pts with HF
complicated by PH
RCT
34
50% ICM
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Advanced LV dysfunction,
treatment with LVAD
implantation, and
persistent PH (defined by
a PVR >3 Wood Units 7 to
14 d after LVAD
implantation) despite
normalization of their
PCWP to a value <15
mmHg were consented for
and received treatment
with sildenafil in an attempt
to reduce PVR before
cardiac transplantation
>18 y of age,
LVEF<40%,NYHA II-IV
chronic HF despite
standard HF therapies
Pts were required to have
secondary PH as defined
by a mean pulmonary
arterial pressure >25 mm
Hg
Combined LVAD and RVAD; Pts
receiving chronic inotrope
therapy
N/A
The primary
endpoint of the 12
to 15 wk change in
PVR
andcontractility
index (dP/dtmax/IP)
Enrollment 19992007; 12-15 wk
of sildenafil
treatment/followup;
Pts with a noncardiac limitation
to exercise, provocable
ischemia, hemodynamic
instability, or ongoing nitrate
therapy were excluded.
Additional exclusion criteria
included concentric LV
hypertrophy, critical aortic
stenosis, or long-term use of
medications that inhibit
cytochrome P450 3A4.
100% NYHA
II-IV
(53% NYHA
II / 38%
NYHA III/
9% NYHA IV)
peak VO2
11.1
ml/kg/min
No predefinied
primary endpoints;
measured exercise
capacity, invasive
hemodyanamic
parameters, QoL,
and biomarkers
12 wk trial
121 Lowering of PVR from
5.87+1.93 to 2.96+0.92
Wood Units (mm Hg/
L/min;) after 2- 4 wk of
sildenafil therapy; vs. no
change in PVR in LVAD
only group. Also,
marked improvement in
RV systolic and diastolic
function, as measured
by RV contractility index
(dP/dtmax/IP; 8.69+1.78
to 13.1+3.3) in LVAD +
sildenafil group
Peak VO2 increased
from 12.2+0.7 to
13.9+1.0 mL/ kg/min in
the sildenafil group
(p=0.02) and did not
change in the placebo
group.
Change in peak VO2
from baseline among pts
treated with sildenafil
(1.8+0.7 mL/· kg/min)
was greater than the
change in the placebo
group (-0.27 mL/kg/min;
p=0.02).
Sildenafil treated pts had
improvement in RVEF at
rest and with exercise;
control group had no
improvement in RVEF.
Mean MLHFQ score
decreased (reflecting
improvement) by 13+5
and 16+5 at wk 6 and
12, respectively, among
pts receiving sildenafil
(p=0.007) and did not
change in pts receiving
placebo.
Change in
PVR, p<0.001
for LVAD
+sildenafil
group
Change in RV
contractility
index for
LVAD+sildefanil
group,
p<0.0001
Long-term use of
sildenafil in the
therapeutic
management of
HF, Guazzi M,
2007
18036451 (268)
To test the functional
exercise capacity and
endothelial function in
a cohort of CHF pts
treated with chronic
type 5
phosphodiesterase
(PDE5) inhibitor
RCT
46
ICM 46%
Stable NHYA II-III CHF ;
negative exercise stress
test prior to study;
FEV1/FVC >70%;
LVEF <45%, determined
by echocardiography.
Unable to complete a maximal
exercise test; SBP >140 or <110
mm Hg; DM; Therapy with
nitrate; History of sildenafil
intolerance; Significant lung or
valvular diseases,
neuromuscular disorders, AF,
claudication, or peripheral
vascular disease
NYHA II-III
peak VO2 15
ml/min/kg
No predefined
primary endpoint;
assessments (at 3
and 6 mo) of
endothelial function
by brachial artery
FMD,
cardiopulmonary
exercise testing,
ergoreflex
response, and
QOL questionnaire
(CHF) were
performed
6 mo f/u
Sildenafil Effects
on Exercise,
Neurohormonal
Activation,
and Erectile
Dysfunction in
Congestive HF,
Bocci EA, 2002
12196335 (94)
To investigate the
acute effects of
sildenafil on exercise,
neurohormonal
activation, and clinical
status of CHF pts with
(ED). To evaluate the
efficacy and safety of
sildenafil for ED
treatment in a 1-mo
follow-up
RCT
23
ICM 22%
CHF outpatients who were
referred for ED treatment
(ED was defined as the
inability to achieve or
maintain an erection
sufficient to permit
satisfactory sexual
intercourse);
History of ED x > 4 mo,
present interest in sex and
in a stable relationship;
Concomitant new
symptoms of CHF,
worsening of HF clinical
status, or a change in
specific medication for
CHF;
All pts were in stable
clinical condition without
required changes in
treatment within the last 3
mo.
ED considered secondary to
causes other than CHF;
Previous therapy for ED,
Recent use of PDE inhibitors;
Severe systemic disease, visual
disturbances, psychiatric or
psychological disorder;
UA or MI within the previous 3
mo;,
Syncope,
Angina,
HR <55 bpm, high-risk
arrhythmias, new atrial
tachycardia/fibrillation/flutter or
uncontrolled high ventricular
response, new or high degree of
AV block
HCM
Valvular disease,
Symptomatic hypotension or
SBP <85 mm Hg
Unstable CHF, low systemic
NYHA II-IV
First phase: 6MWT,
exercise test
Second phase:
efficacy of sildenafil
in ED was
evaluated by the 15
questions of the
IIEF; adverse side
effects
1 mo
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 122 In the sildenafil group
only, at 3 and 6 mo,
systolic PAP decreased
from 33.7 to 25.2 mm
Hg and then 23.9 mm
Hg, ergoreflex effect on
ventilation decreased
from 6.9 to 2.3/min and
1.9L/min, VE/VCO2
decreased from 35.5 to
32.1 and 29.8, and
breathlessness (score)
from 23.6 to 16.6 and
17.2, FMD increased
from 8.5% to 13.4% and
14.2%, peak VO2 from
14.8 to 18.5 ml/min/kg
and 18.7 ml/min/kg, and
ratio of VO2 to work rate
changes from 7.7 to 9.3
and 10.
Peak VO2 (ml/kg/min)
placebo 16.6+3.4 vs
sildenafil 17.7+3.4
Ve/VCO2 slope
placebo 33+8
sildenafil 31+5
p<0.01 for all
changes
p=0.025
p=0.027
perfusion, or venous or
pulmonary congestion.
6MWT indicates 6 minute walk test; AF, atrial fibrillation; AV, atrioventricular; CHF, congestive heart failure; D, Doppler; DM, diabetes mellitus; ED, erectile dysfunction; EF, ejection fraction; FEV, forced expiratory volume; FMD, flow-mediated dilatation; FVC, forced vital capacity; HCM,
hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; HF, heart failure; HR, heart rate; ICM, ischemic cardiomyopathy; IIEF, International Index of Erectile Function; LVAD, left ventricular assist device; LVDF, left ventricular diastolic function; LVEDD, left ventricular end diastolic diameter; LVEF, left ventricular
ejection fraction; LVMI, left ventricular mass index; Mitral E/A, Mitral early-to-late velocity; MLHFQ, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionaire; MI, myocardial infarction; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PAP, pulmonary artery pressure; PCWP, pulmonary capillary wedge
pressure; PDE5A, phosphodiesterase type 5A; PH, pulmonary hypertension; pts, patients; PVR; pulmonary vascular resistance; QoL, quality of life; RCT, randomized control trial; RVAD, right ventricular assist device; RVEF, right ventricular ejection fraction; SBP, systolic blood pressure;
SIL, sildenafil; UA, unstable angina; VE/VCO2, ventilation efficiency ventilation to CO2 production slope; VO2, oxygen volume.
Data Supplement 32. Inotropes (Section 7.4.4)
Study
Name,
Author,
Year
Aim of
study
Stud
y
Type
Backgrou
nd
Therapy
Study Size
Etiology
Pretrial
standard
treatment
N (Total)
n
(Experiment)
n (Control)
Ischemic/
NonIschemic
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Patient Population
Inclusion
Criteria
Severity
Exclusion
Criteria
Severity of
HF
Symptoms
Endpoints
Study
Entry
Sverity
Criteria
Primary
Endpoint
Secondary
Endpoint
123 Mortality
Annualized
Mortality
1st Year
Mortality
Trial
Duratio
n
(Years)
Absolute
Benefit or
Major
Finding
Statistical
Analysis
(Results)
Study
Limitatio
ns
Complicatio
ns/Adverse
Events
Intermittent
6-mo lowdose
dobutamine
infusion in
severe HF:
DICE
Multicenter
Trial, Oliva
F, 1999
10426835
(269)
To reduce
hospitalizat
ions for
worsening
of CHF by
administeri
ng
intermittent
low-dose
dobutamin
e (2.55mg/kg/min
for 4872hrs/wk)
Levosimen
dan
Infusion
versus
Dobutamin
e Study
(LIDO),
Follath F,
2002
12133653
(270)
To
compared
the effects
of
levosimend
an and
dobutamin
e on
haemodyn
amic
performanc
e
and clinical
outcome in
pts with
low-output
HF
RCT
RCT
ACEI 82%
Digoxin 95%
Furosemide
95%
Nitrates 63%
Amiodarone
39%
38; 19
(dobutamine);
19 (control)
47% ICM
Age >18 y;
NYHA III-IV
CHF ;
Hospitalized
for CHF and
administratio
n of IV
inotropes in
the 6 mo
before the
evaluation;
> 48 h of
clinical
stability on
oral therapy.
CI <2.2
L/min/m2
6. LVEF <
30%.
Digoxin 75%,
Diuretics
53%,
ACEI 89%,
bblockers
38%,
oral nitrates
41%,
anticoagulant
s 43%,
Class III
antiarrhthmic
agents 15%,
CCB 4%,
antiplatelet
agents 1%
203;
103
levosimendan;
100
dobutamine
48%
Ischemic
Hospitalized
with lowoutput HF,
requiring
haemodyna
mic monitoring and
treatment
with IV
inotropic
agent. a)
deterioration
of severe
chronic HF
despite
optimum
oral therapy
with
vasodilators
and
diuretics,
including
those
awaiting
cardiac
transplantati
on; b)
severe
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. History of
documented
malignant
arrhythmias
without an
automatic
defibrillator
in place;
Neoplastic
or systemic
disease
affecting
short-term
prognosis
UA,
angiographi
cally
documented
effective
coronary
stenosis
Surgically
curable
valvular
heart
disease
Age <21 y
Childbearing
potential
HF due to
restrictive or
hypertrophic
cardiomyop
athy or to
uncorrected
stenotic
valvular
disease;
Chest pain
at the time
of
randomisati
on;
Sustained
VT/VF within
prior 2 wk;
AVB of 2nd
or 3rd
degree;
HR >120
bpm at rest;
SBP< 85
mm Hg;
Severe renal
100%
NYHA III-IV
6MWTD
298m
NYHA IIIIV
symptom
s,
CI
<2.2L/mi
n/m2
Reduction of
hospitalizatio
ns for
worsening of
CHF
Changes in
NYHA
functional class,
6-min walking
test, and
mortality rates.
Severity
determined
by invasive
hemodyna
mic
monitoring,
not
symptomat
ology
CI < 2.5
L/min/m2
Mean
PCWP >
15 mm
Hg
Proportion of
pts with
haemodyna
mic
improvement
(defined as
an increase
of 30% or
more in CO
and a
decrease of
25% or more
in PCWP) at
24 h.
Changes from
baseline in
haemo-dynamic
variables other
than CO and
PCWP (eg, CI,
stroke volume,
PADP, mean
RAP, BP, HR
and total peripheral
resistance) at
24 h;
Changes from
baseline to 24 h
in HF symptoms
(dyspnoea and
fatigue) on a 4grade scale
(much better,
slightly better,
no change,
worse);
Proportion of
pts needing IV
rescue therapy
with positive
inotropic
124 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enrollmen
t 18 mo
(7/9412/95); 6
mo f/u
No benefit in
hospitalization,
functional status,
or mortality rate.
Time to first CV death
or hospitalization for
any cause, p=0.91
Small
sample size
N/A
Enrollmen
t 1/9711/98
(23mo);
study
drug
infusion
up to 24
hrs, follow
up out to
180 d
The primary
haemodynamic
endpoint was
achieved in 28%
levosimendangroup pts and
15% in the
dobutamine
group.
Secondary end
point:
At 180 d, 26%
levosimendan
group pts had
died, compared
with 38% in the
dobutamine
group
Primary endpoint:
HR; 1.9; 95% CI 1.13.3; p=0.022;
Secondary endpoint:
HR 0.57; p=0.029
No placebo
control
Small study
size
No
information
on the
duration of
infusion of
levosimenda
n needed for
optimum
benefit or on
how often it
may be
repeated in
pts who do
not respond
initially or
who relapse
after an
initial
response.
Exclusion of
pts with
cardiogenic
shock.
Short-term
Angina, chest
pain, or
myocardia
ischaemia (7%
dobutamine vs
0%
levosimendan,
p=0.013);
Arrhythmias
(13%
dobutamine vs
4%
levosimendan,
p=0.023
OPTIMECHF, Cuffe
MS, 2002
11911756\
(271)
To
prospective
ly test
whether a
strategy
that
includes
short-term
use of
milrinone in
addition to
standard
therapy
can
improve
clinical
outcomes
of pts
hospitalize
d with an
exacerbatio
n of chronic
HF
RCT
ACEI 70%,
ARB 12%,
bblocker
22%,
Diuretic 90%,
Digoxin 73%,
CCB 11%
placebo v
16%
milrinone
ASA 46%
Amiodarone
15%
949; 477
(milrinone);
472 (placebo)
ICM 51%
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. HF after
cardiac
surgery; or
c) acute HF
related to a
cardiac or
non-cardiac
disorder of
recent
onset.
LVEF<35%
(by echo or
radio-nuclide
ventriculogra
phy w/in 1
mo of study
enrolment)
CI < 2.5
L/min/m2
Mean
PCWP >15
mm Hg.
failure (SCr
>450
mol/L);
Hepatic
failure
Cardiac
tamponade;
ARDS;
Septic
shock.
Age >18 y
LVEF <40%
within the
past y.
Known
systolic
chronic HF
Hospitalized
for
exacerbation
of chronic
HF <48 h
earlier.
If treating
physician
judged that
IV inotrope
was
essential
(eg, for
shock,
metabolic
acidosis, or
severe
hypotension
).
Active
myocardial
ischemia
within the
past 3 mo
Atrial
fibrillation
with poor
ventricular
rate control
(>110/min)
Sustained
ventricular
tachycardia
or
100%
NYHA II-IV
7% NYHA
II
46% NYHA
III
47% NYHA
IV
NYHA IIIV
symptom
s
Total number
of d
hospitalized
for CV
causes (or d
deceased)
within the 60
d after
randomizatio
n. Hospital d
were defined
as
inpt d and
ED
visit d.
drugs,
vasodilators, or
diuretics during
the infusion of
study drug;
No. of d alive
and out of
hospital and not
receiving IV
drugs during the
1st mo;
Time to
development of
worsening HF
or death.
Safety
endpoints: a)
AEs, b)
laboratory
safety tests
(blood and
urine), and c)
all-cause
mortality at 31 d
and 180 d after
randomization.
Main secondary
outcome
included the
proportion of
cases failing
therapy
because of AE
or worsening
HF 48 h after
initiation of
therapy.
Other
secondary
outcomes
included the
proportion of pts
achieving target
doses of ACEI
therapy and
time to achieve
target dose,
symptoms,
improvement in
HF score,
length of initial
hospitalization,
d of
hospitalization
125 hemodynami
c
assessment
Not powered
to assess
mortality
N/A
N/A
Recruitm
ent 7/9711/99 (29
mo);
Study
drug
treatment
for up to
72 h with
60 day
follow-up
period
from time
of
randomiz
ation
No difference in
primary efficacy
end point
Milrinone was
associated with
higher rate of
treatment failure
at 48 h due to AE
(12.6% vs 2.1%)
p=0.71, d of
hospitalization for CV
causes within 60 d
p=0.92, death or
readmission within 60 d
p<0.001 for treatment
failure due to AE
Did not
directly
address
pts with
ADHF for
whom
inotropic
therapy was
felt to be
essential
(eg, low
cardiac
output state
with tissue
hypoperfusio
n), Not
structured to
assess pts
for NSVT, a
known
adverse
effect of
milrinone.
Inadequately
powered to
evaluate
mortality.
Sustained
hypotension,
(SBP< 80 mm
Hg for more
than 30 min,
requiring
intervention);
10.7% with
milrinone, 3.2%
with placebo,
p<0.001
Significant atrial
arrhythmias
during index
hospitalization;
4.6% milrinone,
1.5% placebo,
p=0.004
ventricular
fibrillation.
Baseline
SBP< 80
mm Hg
SCr level >
3.0mg/dL
HF Etiology
and
Response
to Milrinone
in
Decompen
sated HF
(subanalysi
s of
OPTIMECHF),
Felker GM,
2003
12651048
(272)
To assess
the
interaction
between
HF etiology
and
response
to milrinone
in
decompens
ated HF
Posthoc
analysi
s
ACEI 70%,
bblocker
23%,
Amiodarone
15%,
Digoxin 73%,
949 (total);
477
(randomized
to milrinone);
242 (ICM,
milrinone) ;
235 (NICM,
milrinone);
243 (ICM,
placebo); 229
(NICM,
placebo)
485 ICM
(51% of
total)
464 NICM
(49% of
total)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Age >18 y
LVEF < 40%
within the
past year.
Known
systolic
chronic HF
Hospitalized
for
exacerbation
of chronic
HF < 48 h
earlier.
100%
NYHA II-IV
7% NYHA
II
46% NYHA
III
47% NYHA
IV
If treating
physician
judged that
IV inotrope
was
essential
(eg, for
shock,
metabolic
acidosis, or
severe
hypotension
).
Active
myocardial
ischemia
within the
past 3 mo
Atrial
fibrillation
with poor
ventricular
rate control
(>110/min)
Sustained
ventricular
tachycardia
or
ventricular
fibrillation.
Baseline
SBP< 80
mm Hg
SCr level >
3.0mg/dL
NYHA IIIV
symptom
s
D
hospitalized
for CV
causes or
death within
60 d after
randomizatio
n
for CV events
from initial
hospital
discharge to 60
d, d of
hospitalization
for CV events
within 30 d after
randomization,
all-cause
hospitaliz-ation,
and mortality.
Main secondary
outcome
included the
proportion of
cases failing
therapy
because of
adverse events
or worsening
HF 48 hr after
initiation of
therapy.
Other
secondary
outcomes
included the
proportion of pts
achieving target
doses of ACEI
therapy and
time to achieve
target dose,
symptoms,
improvement in
HF score,
length of initial
hospitalization,
d of
hospitalization
for CV events
from initial
hospital
discharge to 60
d, d of
hospitalization
for CV events
within 30 d after
randomization,
all-cause
hospitaliz-ation,
and mortality.
126 N/A
N/A
Recruitm
ent 7/9711/99
(29mo);
Study
drug
treatment
for up to
72 h with
60 d f/u
period
from time
of
randomiz
ation
D hospitalized for
CV causes or
death w/in 60d
after
randomization
was 13.0+14.2d
for ischemic HF
pts, 11.7+13.9d
for nonischemic
HF pts
60 d mortality
was greater for
ischemic (11.6%)
than for nonischemic pts
(7.5%).
Combined end
point of death or
rehospitalization
at 60 d was
38.7% in
ischemic pts and
31.5% in the
nonischemic pts.
More pts with
nonischemic HF
were able to
reach target
dosing of ACEI at
hospital
discharge (49%)
compared
w/ischemic HF
pts (36%).
Treatment failure
while on the
study drug was
similar btwn the 2
groups (14.2% for
ischemic vs.
15.2% for
nonischemic pts).
Primary endpoint, p=0.2
60d mortality, P=0.03
Combined endpoint,
p=0,02
Able to reach target
ACEI dose, p=0.001
Treatment failure on
study drug, p=0.7
Retrospectiv
e study;
No data
collected on
the level of
care that pts
received
(i.e., ICU vs.
monitored
bed), which
potentially
could have
affected the
results of
study;
Imbalanced
follow up
btwn
etiologic
groups (4 pts
in ischemic
group vs. 8
pts in
nonischemic
group lost to
follow-up)
In pts with
ischemic HF,
milrinone tended
to be associated
with prolonged
hospitalization
and higher
mortality.
Composite of
death or
rehospitalization
at 60 d was 42%
for ischemic pts
treated with
milrinone and
36% for those
treated
w/placebo
(p=0.01 for
etiologytreatment
interaction). Inhospital
mortality for
milrinonetreated pts with
ischemic HF
was 5.0% vs.
1.6% for
placebo (p
=0.04 for
etiologytreatment
interaction), and
60 d mortality
was 13.3% for
milrinone vs
10% for placebo
(p= 0.21
for etiologytreatment
interaction).
Baseline QoL
data did not differ
between the
2groups.
Inhospital
mortality in
pts with
acute
decompens
ated HF
requiring
intravenous
vasoactive
medication
s: an
analysis
from the
Acute
Decompen
sated HF
National
Registry
(ADHERE),
Abraham
WR, JACC
2005
15992636
(273)
Survival of
Pts with
Acute HF in
Need of
Intravenous
Inotropic
Support
(SURVIVE)
, Mebazaa
A, 2007
17473298
(274)
To
compare in
hospital
mortality in
pts with
acute
decompens
ated HF
receiving
treatment
with 1 of 4
vasoactive
meds
(NTG,
nesiritide,
milrinone,
dobutamin
e)
Regist
ry
Beta blocker
50%
ACEI 43%
ARB 12%
Spironolacto
ne 15%
(varied
amongst
subgroups 724%)
65180; 6549
(NTG); 5220 ;
(nesiritide) ;
2021
(milrinone) ;
4226
(dobutamine) ;
49950 (all
others)
56% ICM
admitted to
a
participating
acute care
hospital and
given a
discharge
diagnosis of
HF
HF is not the
principal
focus of
diagnosis or
treatment
during the
admission or
if their
medical
record
cannot be
accessed for
administrativ
e reasons
NYHA IV
45%
(dyspneic
at rest)
N/A
Inhospital
mortality
Total LOS, ICU
LOS
N/A
Inpatient
mortality
Milrinone:
12.3%
Dobutami
ne: 13.9%
NTG:
4.7%
Nesiritide:
7.1%
All others:
3.1%
10/017/03
Worse inpatient
mortality and
longer LOS with
IV inotropes
compared to IV
vasodilators or
neither.
Inhospital Mortality Dob
vs Milrinone: OR: 1.24;
95% CI: 1.03-1.55:
p=0.027
NTG vs Dobutamine:
OR: 0.46; 95% CI:.370.57, p<0.005
NTG vs Milrinone: OR:
0.69; 95% CI:0.53-0.89;
p<0.005
Observation
al analysis
Retrospectiv
e analysis
Clinician
judgement
for medical
management
/choice of IV
med
Nonrandomized
Differences
in clinical
severity
between
subgroups
N/A
To assess
the effect
of a shortterm IV
infusion of
levosimend
an
or
dobutamin
e on longterm
survival
RCT
Beta blocker
51%
ACEI/ARB
69%
Aldosterone
antagonist
53%
IV diuretics
79%
IV nitrates
37%
IV dopamine
6%
1327; 664
(levosimendan
); 663
(dobutamine)
76%
Age >18 y
Hospitalized
with ADHF.
LVEF <30%
within prior
12 mo
Required IV
inotropic
support,
as
evidenced
by an
insufficient
response to
IV diuretics
and/or
vasodilators,
and >1 of
the following
at screening:
(a) dyspnea
at rest or
mechanical
ventilation
for ADHF;
(b) oliguria
Severe
ventricular
outflow
obstruction;
SBP
persistently
<85 mm Hg
HR
persistently
> 130 bpm;
IV inotrope
use during
the index
hospitalizati
on (except
dopamine 2
μg/kg/min or
digitalis);
History of
torsade de
pointes;
SCr> 5.1
mg/dL (450
μmol/L) or
on dialysis.
86% NYHA
IV
Lowoutput
ADHF
All-cause
mortality
during the
180 d
following
randomizatio
n.
All-cause
mortality during
31 d, change in
BNP level from
baseline to 24
h; No. of d alive
and out of the
hospital during
the 180 d;
change in pt
assessed
dyspnea at 24
h; Pt assessed
global
assessment at
24 h; CV
mortality
through
180 d.
N/A
N/A
Enrollmen
t 3/0312/04
(22mo),
study
drug
infusion
for
minimum
of 24 h
and total
duration
of
unknown
period,
follow up
at 180 d,
During the 180 d
after study drug
infusion, there
were 173 deaths
(26%) in the
levosimendan
group and 185
deaths in the
dobutamine
group (28%).
No difference in
secondary
endpoints, except
in mean change
in BNP at 24 h
from baseline (631
levosimendan vs
-397 dobutamine)
Primary endpoint:
HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.741.13; p=0.40
Secondary endpoint
(DBNP): p<0.001
Short
duration of
treatment.
Detail of
duration of
infusion and
dose of
study drug
used is not
provided.
No
information
regarding
clinical
symptomatol
ogy at
baseline.
Hypokalemia
(9.4%
levosimedan vs
5.9%
dobutamine,
p=0.02)
AF (9.1%
levosimedan vs
6.1%
dobutamine,
p=0.05),
Headache
(8.3%
levosimedan vs
4.7%
dobutamine,
p=0.01)
PVCs (6.1%
levosimedan vs
3.6%
dobutamine,
p=0.05)
Agitation (1.1%
levosimedan vs
0% dobutamine,
p=0.02)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 127 Enoximone
in
Intravenous
InotropeDependent
Subjects
Study
(EMOTE),
Feldman
AM, 2007
17967591
(275)
To
determine
whether
low-dose
oral
enoximone
could wean
pts with
ultraadvanced
HF (UAHF) from
intravenous
(IV)
inotropic
support
RCT
Diuretic 88%,
ACEI 62%,
ARB 18%,
bblocker
40%,
digoxin 70%,
antiarrhythmi
c 37%,
ICD 42%,
Milrinone
62%,
dobutamine
36%,
both
dobutamine
and milrinone
3%
Continuous
IV inotrope
74%
201; 101
(enoximone);
100 (placebo)
61% ICM
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. not as a
result of
hypovolemia
; or (c)
PCWP >18
mm Hg
and/or CI <
2.2
L/min/m2.
Age > 18 y
NYHA III or
IV CHF
Ongoing
need for > 5
d of
continuous
IV inotropic
therapy or
the need for
intermittent
IV inotropic
therapy with
either
dobutamine
(≥2
μg/kg/min)
or milrinone
(≥0.125
μg/kg/min)
for ≥6 h at a
frequency of
>1x/ wk, and
for ≥4 wk.
LVEF of
≤25% by
radionuclide
ventriculogra
phy or ≤30%
by 2dimensional
echocardiog
raphy
Cardiac
dilatation
(LVEDD
≥2.7 cm/m2
or ≥5.4 cm
as
measured
by 2dimensional
echocardiog
raphy
within 26 wk
100%
NYHA III-IV
(56%
NYHA IV)
Received a
positive
inotropic
agent other
than digoxin,
dobutamine,
or milrinone
within 12 h
of
randomizati
on
Trough
digoxin
levels were
>1.0 ng/mL.
ICD firing
within 90 d.
Lowoutput
ADHF
Ability to
wean
subjects from
IV inotropic
support.
Assessed
using the
prespecified
CMH test,
adjusted for
cardiomyopa
thy etiology.
The primary
efficacy
variable was
also
assessed as
a protocol
and
statistical
analysis
plan–
prespecified
secondary
end point
using timeto-event
(KaplanMeier)
curves and
the log-rank
statistic, over
the entire
182 d study
period.
Time to
reinitiation of IV
inotrope
Total number of
d on IV inotrope
Total number of
hospitalization d
for all cause,
CV, and
CV/vascular
events;
Measurements
of symptoms
(SAS scale,
NYHA) and pt
well-being
(Visual Analog
Scale, global
assessments)
at 4 and 26 wk.
128 N/A
N/A
Enrollmen
t 7/002/04
(44mo);
26 wk trial
30 d after
weaning, 51% of
placebo pts and
61.4%
enoximone pts
were alive and
free of IV
inotropic therapy
At 60 d, the wean
rate was 30% in
placebo group
and 46.5% in
enoximone group
Kaplan-Meier
curves
demonstrated a
trend toward a
decrease in the
time to death or
reinitiation of IV
inotropic therapy
over the 182-day
study
period and a
reduction at 60 d
and 90 d after
weaning in the
enoximone
group.
Unadjusted primary end
point p=0.14, adjusted
for etiology p= 0.17
60d wean rate
unadjusted p=0.016
Time to death/
reinitiation of IV
inotrope: 95% CI 0.551.04
Reduction at 60d, 95%
CI 0.43-0.89, p = 0.009
Reduction @ 90d, 95%
CI 0.49-0.97, P = .031
Time to death/
reinitiation of IV
inotrope: HR 0.76
Reduction @60d HR
0.62
Reduction @90d HR
0.69
Small
sample size.
Not designed
or powered
as mortality
study
Exacerbation of
CHF in 54%
enoximone vs
52% placebo,
NS
Dyspnea, 5%
enoximone vs
0% placebo,
P<0.05
Use and
impact of
inotropes
and
vasodilator
therapy
in
hospitalize
d pts with
severe HF
(ESCAPE),
Elkayam U,
Am Heart J
2007
17174645
(276)
To
determine
6-mo risks
of all-cause
mortality
and allcause
mortality
plus
rehospitaliz
ation
associated
with the
use of
vasodilator
s,
inotropes,
and their
combinatio
n
Posthoc
analysi
s of
RCT
ACEI 79%
Diuretics
98%
bBlocker
62%
IV inotrope
42%
IV
vasodilator
28%
433; 75
(vasodilator);
133 (IV
inotrope); 47
(both); 178
(neither
inotrope/vaso
dilator)
50% ICM
Prospective
Randomize
d Milrinone
Survival
Evaluation
(PROMISE
), Packer
To
determine
the effect
of oral
milrinone
on the
mortality of
RCT
Nitrates 58%
Antiarrhythmi
cs 25%
Digoxin level
1.5nmol/l
1088; 561
(milrinone);
527 (placebo)
54% ICM
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. of the
baseline
visit).
Ongoing and
stable (>30
d) therapy
with optimal
and stable
doses of
conventional
medications
Hospitalized
for severe
ADHF
Age>18 y;
Hx of HF for
>3 mo;
On ACEI
and diuretics
for z3 mo;.
LVEF<30%
in the 12 mo
before
randomizatio
n;
SBP <125
mm Hg;
elevated LV
filling
pressure as
indicated by
at least 1
physical
sign and 1
symptom;
At least 1
prior
admission
for ADHF
during the
previous 12
mo or
aggressive
outpatient
therapy for
at least the
previous mo.
NYHA III-IV
CHF x >3mo
LVEF < 35%
Medical
regimen of
digoxin,
diuretics,
N/A
Mean peak
VO2 10.0
mean
6MWTD
414 ft
N/A
All- cause
mortality
Combined end
point of allcause mortality
plus
rehospitalization
N/A
6 mo
mortality
N/A
Worse 6 mo
outcomes
(mortality and
either
mortality/rehospit
alization) with
inotropes
(whether alone or
with vasodilator)
6 mo mortality
(adjusted), p, 95% CI
Inotrope 1.10-4.15,
p=0.024
Both ino & vasodilator
2.34-9.90, p<0.001
6mo mortality or rehosp
(adjusted)
Inotrope 1.37-2.82,
p<0.001
Both ino & vasodilator
1.88-4.48, p<0.001
6 mo mortality HR
adjusted
Inotrope 2.14
Both inotrope and
vasodilator 4.81
6 mo mortality or
rehosp HR (adjusted)
Inotrope 1.96
Both ino & vasodilator
2.90
Severe
ADHF
Conducted
by HF
specialists at
academic
medical
centers
Small study
size
Nonrandomized
Retrospectiv
e analysis
N/A
Obstructive
valvular
disease
Active
myocarditis
HCM or
cardiac
100%
NYHA III-IV
58% NYHA
III /42%
NYHA IV
NYHA IIIIV
All cause
mortality
CV mortality,
No. of
hospitalizations,
Addition of
vasodilators for
treatment of
worsening hf,
N/A
N/A
Enrollmen
t 22mo
(1/8910/90);
stopped
early
because
Increased
mortality with
milrinone (30%
milrinone vs 24%
placebo);
Log-rank test,
milrinone
All-cause mortality:
nominal P=0.038, 95%
CI 0.01-0.61; adjusted
P=0.06,
CV mortality: 95% CI
0.06-0.69, nominal
P=0.016; adjusted
Background
medical
management
is outdated
and
suboptimal
Stopped study
drug due to
worsening HF,
1.8% milrinone v
0.9% placebo
129 M, 1991
1944425
(277)
Continuous
intravenous
dobutamine
is
associated
with an
increased
risk of
death in pts
with
advanced
HF:
Insights
from the
Flolan
Internation
al
Randomize
d Survival
Trial
(FIRST),
O'Connor
CM, 1999
10385768
(278)
pts with
severe
chronic HF
who
remained
symptomati
c despite
convention
al therapy
To
evaluate
clinical
characterist
ics and
outcomes
of pts with
advanced
HF
receiving
intravenous
continuous
dobutamin
e in the
FIRST Trial
(Flolan
Internation
al
Randomize
d Survival
Trial).
Posthoc
analysi
s
N/A
471; 80
(dobutamine);
391 (no
dobutamine)
67%
Ischemic
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. and ACEI for
> 4wk
amyloid
Uncorrected
thyroid
disease
Malfunctioni
ng artificial
heart valve
NYHA IIIB or
IV HF for >1
mo while
receiving a
regimen
including a
loop diuretic,
digitalis
glycoside,
and an
ACEI,
unless
contraindicat
ed.
LVEF <25%
by a
multigated
angiocardiog
ram within 3
mo of
enrollment,
unless the pt
was
being
treated with
an IV
inotropic
agent, in
which case
LVEF <30%
was
accepted.
Pts receiving
IV
vasoactive
medications
were
required to
have not
responded
to an
attempt to
wean from
the
medicines
SBP<80 mm
Hg;
Significant
valvular
stenosis;
Anticipated
revasculariz
ation or
valvular
surgery;
MI within 3
mo;
Uncontrolled
tachyarrhyth
mias;
Unstable or
symptomlimiting
angina;
Requiremen
t for a
mechanical
assist
device to
maintain life;
Major
change in IV
vasoactive
medicat-ions
within 12 hr
of
randomizati
on;
CHF caused
by
uncontrolled
thyroid
disease,
myocarditis,
high output
failure, or
infiltrative
cardiomyopathy;
Significant
Symptoms,
Adverse
reactions
No
dobutamine
:
47% NYHA
III
53% NYHA
IV
Dobutamin
e:
11% NYHA
III
89% NYHA
IV
NYHA
IIIB-IV
Occurrence
of clinical
events from
the FIRST
trial,
including
worsening
HF, need for
mechanical
assist
device,
resuscitation
from sudden
cardiac
death, MI,
and death
QoL meaures
130 N/A
N/A
of
adverse
effect of
milrinone;
median
duration
of followup, 6.1mo
associated with
28% increase in
mortality;
Log-rank test,
milrinone
associated with
34% increase in
CV mortality
P=0.037
N/A
The dobutamine
group had a
higher
occurrence of first
event (85.3% vs
64.5%) and a
higher mortality
rate (70.5% vs
37.1%) compared
with the no
dobutamine
group.
No difference in
QOL between
groups.
Primary endpt
1st
event p=0.0006
mortality p=0.0001
Observation
al analysis
No details
provided
regarding
duration and
dose of
dobutamine
At 6 mo
First event
85.3%
dobutamine vs
64.5% no
dobutamine ,
p=0.0006
Death 70.5%
dobutamine vs
37.1% no
dobutamine,
p=0.0001
within 1 wk
of
enrollment.
Ineligibility
for cardiac
transplantation and
eligibility for
long-term
oral
anticoagulati
on therapy
were also
required.
Care
processes
and clinical
outcomes
of
continuous
outpatient
support
with
inotropes
(COSI) in
pts with
refractory
endstage
HF,
Hershberge
r RE, J
Cardiac
Failure
2003
12815567
(279)
To assess
the
outcomes
of chronic
home
inotropic
support in
Stage D
HF pts
Cohort
Study
ACEI/ARB
72%
Dobutamine
100%
Dopamine
22%
Milrinone
11%
36
47% ICM
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Hospitalized
advanced
end-stage
HF pts
Declined
cardiac
transplantati
on or
ineligible for
cardiac
transplantati
on
congenital
heart
disease with
shunts,
valvular or
vascular
obstruction;
Substance
or alcohol
abuse w/in
1year;
Moderate or
severe lung
disease;
Other
comorbid
conditions
likely to
shorten
survival;
Current use
of another
investigation
al drug or
device.
N/A
N/A
presumably
NYHA IIIbIV
N/A
Survival after
hospital
discharge
Total
hospitalizations,
causes for
rehospitalization
, cause of death
131 N/A
1y
mortality
94%
6 mo
mortality
74%
N/A
>2
rehospitalizations
: 36%
0-1
rehospitalization:
64%
30% of
rehospitalizations
2/2 worse HF
Cause of death
Worsening HF
80%
SCD 14%
Unknown 6%
N/A
Lack of QOL
assessment
Lack of cost
evaluation
Small study
size
Retrospectiv
e
Line
infection/sepsis
(15% of
rehospitalization
s)
Prognosis
on chronic
dobutamine
or milrinone
infusions
for stage D
HF,
Gorodeski
EZ, Circ HF
2009
19808355
(280)
The
Studies of
Oral
Enoximone
Therapy in
Advanced
HF
(ESSENTI
AL), Metra
M, 2009
19700774
(281)
To
investigate
the
relationship
between
choice of
dobutamin
e or
milrinone
and
mortality in
inotropedependent
stage D HF
pts
To
investigate
the effects
of low
doses of
the positive
inotrope
enoximone
on
symptoms,
exercise
capacity,
and major
clinical
outcomes
in pts with
advanced
HF who
were also
treated with
beta
blockers
and other
guidelinerecommen
ded
backgroun
d therapy
Casecontrol
led
ASA 39%
beta blocker
5% (dob) v
34% (mil)
ACEI 43%
ARB 5%
Aldosterone
blocker 52%
Amiodarone
50%
Furosemide
78%
Other diuretic
17%
112; 56
(dobutamine);
56 (milrinone)
41% ICM
Stage D HF
pts deemed
inotrope
dependent
N/A
N/A
presumably
NYHA IIIbIV
Inotrope
depende
nt
Survival
N/A
N/A
RCT
ESSENTIALI
beta blockers
83%,
ACEI/ARBs
94%,
Aldosterone
antagonist
62%
Diuretics
95%,
DIgitalis
glycosides
69%
Warfarin
31%
Amiodarone
22%
ICD 21%
ESSENTIALII
bblocker
90%
ACEI/ARBs
99%
Aldosterone
antagonist
54%
Digitalis
glycosides
46%
Warfarin 8%
Amiodarone
14%
ICD 5%
ESSENTIAL-I:
904
ESSENTIALII: 950
enoximone
ESSENTIAL-I
454
ESSENTIAL-II
472
placebo
ESSENTIAL-I
450
ESSENTIAL-II
478
ESSENTI
AL-I 52%
ICM
ESSENTI
AL-II 59%
ICM
Age >18 y
HF caused
by
ischaemic or
nonischaemi
c
cardiomyopa
thy
LVEF <
30%,
LVEDD >
3.2 cm/m2
or 6.0 cm;
NYHA III–IV
for >2 mo
>1
hospitalizati
on or 2
outpatient
visits
requiring IV
diuretic or
vasodilator
therapy w/in
12 mo
before
screening;
Optimal
medical
therapy
including
diuretics,
betablockers,
and ACEIs
or ARBs
unless
intolerant or
contraindicat
Acute MI in
previous 90
d,
CV surgery
in prior 60 d,
Symptomati
c ventricular
arrhythmias
or ICD firing
in prior 90 d
Serum
potassium
<4.0 or >5.5
mEq/L,
Digoxin
levels >1.2
ng/mL
Magnesium
levels <1.0
mEq/L
SCr> 2.0
mg/dL
Serum
bilirubin >
3.0 mg/dL.
91% NYHA
III
8% NYHA
IV
6MWT
274m
(ESSENTI
AL-I)
6MWT
293m
(ESSENTI
AL-II)
NYHA IIIIV x > 2
mo
First coprimary
endpoint
(time to allcause
mortality or
CV
hospitalizatio
ns) and for
safety (allcause
mortality)
(ESSENTIAL
-I and II,
combined)
Co-primary
endpoint
6MWTD
(ESSENTIAL
-I,-II
separately)
Co-primary
endpoint
Patient
Global
Assessment,
(ESSENTIAL
-I and -II,
separately)
N/A
N/A
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 132 6 mo
mortality
(propensit
y
matched)
Dobutami
ne 60%
Milrinone
54%
1yr
mortality
Dobutami
ne 69%
Milrinone
63%
N/A
N/A
No difference in
mortality between
inotrope type
(multivariate
analysis)
Propensity matched
mortality,
log-rank p= 0.74
Retrospectiv
e analysis
Single center
study
Small study
size
Lack of QOL
assessment
N/A
Enrollmen
t 2/025/04
(28mo);
Median
follow-up
duration
16.6 mo
No difference in
first co-primary
endpoint: allcause mortality,
all-cause
mortality and CV
hospitalizations
No difference in
change in
6MWTD
No difference in
PGA changes
All-cause mortality,
p=0.73, 95% CI: 0.801.17
All-cause mortality and
CV hospitalizations,
p=0.71, 95% CI 0.861.11
Change in 6MWTD,
p=0.16 (ESSENTIAL-I),
p=0.57 (ESSENTIAL-II)
Change in PGA, p=0.79
(ESSENTIAL-I), p=0,11
(ESSENTIAL-II)
All cause mortality, HR
0.97
All-cause mortality and
CV hospitalizations, HR
0.98
Crude global
assessment
for QOL;
6MWT may
not be
sensitive
enough to
detect
improvement
s in exercise
capacity/func
tional status
1Worsening HF,
39% enoximone
vs 39% placebo,
p=0.88
Diarrhea, 12%
enoximone vs
7% placebo,
p=0.0001,
Palpitations 8%
enoximone vs
5% placebo,
p=0.01
ed
A
Prospective
Sutdy of
Continuous
Intravenous
Milrinone
Therapy for
Status IB
Pts
Awaiting
Heart
Transplant
at Home,
Brozena
SC, 2003
15454175
(282)
To
determine
the
feasibility
and safety
of
continuous
IV
milrinone
therapy
administere
d at home
in pts listed
as Status
IB for heart
transplant
Cohort
study
Digoxin
96.6%
Loop diuretic
88.3%
Warfarin
83.3%
Beta-blocker
73.3%
ACE-I 66.6%
Statin
therapy
63.3%
Aspirin
63.3%
Spironolacto
ne 41.6%
Amiodarone
28.3%
ARB 25.0%
Hydralazine/
nitrate 13.3%
60; 60
(milrinone);
none
66.6%
ICM
Compariso
n of
dobutamine
versus
milrinone
therapy in
hospitalize
d pts
awaiting
cardiac
trnsplantati
on, Aranda
JM, 2003
12595851
(283)
To
compare
clinical
outcomes
and costs
associated
with the
use of
dobutamin
e or
milrinone in
hospitalize
d pts
awaiting
cardiac
transplanta
RCT
N/A
36; 19
(dobutamine);
17 (milrinone)
56% ICM
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Milrinone
dose <0.5
mg/kg/min;
Stable dose
of diuretic to
maintain dry
weight;
Long-term
venous
access;
AICD;
Adequate
social
support
system as
assessed by
a transplant
social
worker;
Functional
class
<NYHA IV
on therapy
Age >18 y;
Prior
approval for
cardiac
transplant;
Exacerbatio
n of HF not
only
necessitatin
g
hospitalizati
on but
demonstrati
ng inotropic
dependency.
Uncontrolled
arrhythmia;
SBP<80 mm
Hg;
Recurrent
electrolyte
abnormality;
Infection
requiring IV
antibiotic;
Requiremen
t for >1
inotropic
agent;
Acute renal
failure;
Hepatic
transaminas
es >2x
normal
NYHA II-III
Peak VO2
11.4
ml/kg/min
NYHA IIIII
Survival to
transplant
Hospitalizations
,
QoL measures
cost
N/A
N/A
43 mo f/u
88.3% of pts
underwent OHT
3.2% died before
transplant
1.6% LVAD
3.2% BIVAD
QoL improved
(MLHFQ score
decreased by 13.3+3.4 points)
QOL/MLHFQ score
change from baseline,
p=0.0061
Not
randomized;
No control;
Limited cost
data;
Small study
size
8% hospitalized
for IV line
infection
65%
rehospitalized
for ADHF during
study period
Any history
of
intolerance
to either
dobutamine
or milrinone,
Hemodynam
ic instability
at time of
random
assignment
requiring
mechanical
cardiac
support
(IABP or
Not
presented
(presumabl
y NYHA
IIIb-IV)
not
presente
d
Hemodynami
c
decompensa
tion
(assessed by
periodic right
heart
catheterizatio
n),
occurrence
of ventricular
arrhythmias
requiring
increased
antiarrhythmi
c therapy,
death,
need for
mechanical
cardiac support,
heart
transplantation,
and
need to add or
cross over to
the alternative
inotropic agent
N/A
N/A
Enrollmen
t 17mo
(1/995/00);
No difference
between
milrinone and
dobutamine with
respect to clinical
outcomes or
hemodynamic
measures
N/A
Background
medical
management
not included
in
manuscript.
Data not
presented for
beta-blocked
use in
milrinone
arm.
Small study
size
No report of
SAE/complic
N/A
133 tion
LVAD as
Destination
for pts
undergoing
intravenous
inotropic
therapy: a
subset
analysis
from
REMATCH,
Stevenson
LW, 2004
15313942
(284)
To analyze
outcomes
in pts
undergoing
inotropic
infusions at
randomizati
on for
LVAD
destination
therapy
91 (on
inotrope at
randomization
);
45 (LVAD);
46 (OMM)
LVAD),
Normal LV
filling
pressures
(mean
PCWP < 15
mm Hg),
Developmen
t of
noncardiac
medical
illness
sufficient to
remove pts
from the
cardiac
transplant
waiting list
Advanced
age,
diabetes
with endorgan
damage,
SCr>2.5
mg/dL for
>90 d,
ations from
continuous
inotrope (e.g.
line
infections,
etc)
and
need for
additional
vasodilator
or inotropic
therapy
(nitroprussid
e or
dopamine).
LVEF <25%
NYHA IV
Peak
All-cause
N/A
N/A
Enrollmen In pts undergoing
QoL at 1 y
p=0.0014
Did not
N/A
NYHA IV
VO2 <14
mortality
t 5/98inotropic therapy
capture
symptoms
mL/kg/mi
during the
7/01;
at randomization,
inotropic
for 60 of 90
n
180 d
1 y survival with
dependency
d despite
following
LVAD was 49%
status in all
attempted
randomizatio
vs. 24% for OMM
pts.
therapy with
n.
and by 2 y, 28%
Post-hoc,
ACEIs,
were alive with
subgroup
diuretics,
LVAD group
analysis.
and digoxin.
compared with
Outdated
Peak VO2
11% in OMM
LVAD model.
<12-14
group
mL/kg/min
with
evidence of
anaerobic
metabolism,
Dependence
on IV
inotropic
agents
supported
by
completion
of a weaning
failure form.
ACEI indicates angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; ADHF, acute decompensated heart failure; AE, adverse event; AICD, automated implantable cardioverter defibrillator; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; ASA, aspirin; AVB, atrioventricular block; BIVAD, biventricular assist device; BNP, B-type natriuretic
peptide; BP, blood pressure; CCB, calcium channel blockers; CHF, congestive heart failure; CMH, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel; CO, cardiac output; CrCl, creatinine clearance; CV, cardiovascular; ED, emergency department; F/U, follow-up; HCM, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; HF, heart failure; HR, heart rate; IABP, intraaortic balloon pump; ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; ICM, ischemic cardiomyopathy; ICU, intensive care unit; IV, intravenous; LOS, length of stay; LVAD, left ventricular assist device; LVEDD, left ventricular end diastolic diameter; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MLHFQ, Minnesota Living with Heart
Failure Questionaire; MWTD, minute walk test distance; N/A, not applicable; NSVT, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia; NTG, nitroglycerin; NYHA, New York Heart Association; OHT, orthotopic heart transplantation; OMM, optimal medical management; OPTIME_CHF, the Outcomes of a Prospective Trial of Intravenous
Milrinone for Exacerbations of Chronic Heart Failure study; PADP, pulmonary artery diastolic pressure; PCWP, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure; PGA, polyglycolide; pts, patients; PVC, premature ventricular contraction; QoL, quality of life; RAP, right atrial pressure; RCT, randomized control trial; SAE, serious adverse
event; SAS, specific activity scale; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SCD, sudden cardiac death; SCr, serum creatinine; UA, unstable angina; UAHF, ultra-advanced; VF, ventricular fibrillation; VT, ventricular tachycardia.
Posthoc
analysi
s
Diuretic 95%
>1 Diuretic
52%
bblocker
20%
ACE-I 55%
N/A
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 134 Data Supplement 33. Inotropic Agents in HF (Section 7.4.4)
Study
Study
Design
PROMISE
1944425 (277)
RCT
Drug
M vs. P
Results
Support
Duration
Chronic
Patients
HemoFunctional
dynamics Capacity
NYHA III-IV
QoL
Hospitalization
Survival
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
↓
LVEF <35%
Aranda JM 2003*
12595851 (283)
FIRST
10385768 (278)
RCT
M, D
Chronic
Txplt-C
M≅D
N/A
N/A
N/A
M≅D
RCT
D vs. none
Chronic
NYHA III-IV
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
↓
N/A
N/A
NS
N/A
6% @ 1 y
(post-hoc)
LVEF <25-30%
Txplt-IE
COSI
12815567 (279)
Cohort
M, D
Chronic
Hospitalized
Txplt-IE
Brozena SC 2004*
15454175 (282)
Gorodeski EZ 2009
19808355 (280)
OPTIME-CHF
11911756 (271)
Cohort
M
Chronic
Txplt-C (1B)
N/A
N/A
↑
N/A
N/A
Case
Control
M vs. D
Chronic
stage D
N/A
N/A
N/A
65%
M≅D
RCT
M vs. P
ino-dpdt
Short-term
(<72 h)
ESCAPE
17174645 (276)
RCT
Retro
Obs
Hospitalized for
HF, NYHA II-IV,
LVEF <40%
N/A
N/A
NS
NS
NS
Short-term
Hospitalized for
HF, LVEF <30%
N/A
N/A
N/A
↑
↓
M, D
Short-term
Hospitalized for
HF
N/A
N/A
N/A
↑
↓
LOS
in-hosp
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 31%-37% @ 1 y
M,D
(post-hoc)
ADHERE
15992636 (273)
26% @ 6 mo
135 DICE
10426835 (269)
RCT
D
Intermittent
Hospitalized
(48-72 h/wk x
NYHA III-IV
6 mo)
N/A
NS
N/A
NS
NS
LVEF <30%, prior
h/o ino
*Study limited to patients awaiting cardiac transplantation.
1B indicates UNOS Status 1B; ADHERE, Acute Decompensated HF National Registry; ADHF, acute decompensated heart failure; COSI, continuous outpatient support with inotropes;
D, dobutamine; DICE, Dobutamina nell’Insufficienza Cardiaca Estrema; ESCAPE, Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness; FIRST, Flolan
International Randomized Survival Trial; in-hosp, in-hospital mortality; ino-dpdt, inotrope-dependent; LOS, length of stay; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; M, milrinone; N/A, not applicable; NS,
no significant benefit; NYHA, New York Heart Association; OPTIME-CHF, the Outcomes of a Prospective Trial of Intravenous Milrinone for Exacerbations of Chronic Heart Failure study; P, placebo; Post-hoc
(RCT), post-hoc analysis of an RCT; PROMISE, PROspective Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain; RCT, randomized, controlled clinical trial; RetroObs, retrospective observational study; QoL,
quality of life; Txplt-C, cardiac transplantation candidate; and Txplt-IE, transplantation ineligible.
Data Supplement 34. Mechanical Circulatory Support (Section 7.4.5)
Study
Study
Design
Device
(n)
Control
(n)
Patients
DOS
Survival
HD Support
REMATCH
11794191, 15313942
(284,285)
RCT
HM XVE (68)
OMM (61)
Txplt-IE
74% ICM
71% ino
P
+
N/A
INTrEPID
17707178 (286)
HMII-DT
19920051 (287)
pNRCT
NovaCor (37)
OMM (18)
P
+
N/A
RCT
HMII (134)
HM XVE (66)
Txplt-IE
38% ICM 100% ino
Txplt-IE
67% ICM
P
+
HMII-BTT
17761592, 19608028
(288,289)
Cohort
HMII (281)
None
Txplt-C
43% ICM
T
EuroHMII
19616963 (290)
Registry
HMII (411)
None
21% Txplt-IE
73% Txplt-C
70% ICM
100% ino
INTERMACS
21545946 (291,292)
pNRCT
HMII (169)
HM XVE (135) Th- Txplt-C
IVAD (34)
80-89% ino
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Evidence of Benefit
Adverse Events
Function
Comments
QoL
+
Bleeding Neuro
SVT
Sepsis
1 y Mortality RR 0.52
No benefit at 2 y
N/A
N/A
N/A
+
+21
+
+21
Neuro
Infxn
PumpRplt Sepsis RespFail
RenalFail RV Fail Rehosp
+
N/A
+8, 21
+8, 21
1 y Survival 27% (NovaCor)
vs. 11% (OMM)
2 y Survival 58% (HMII) vs.
24% (HM XVE)
Lower AE rate with HMII
Mortality
12mo: 27%; 18mo: 28%
21% P
79% T
+
N/A
N/A
N/A
T
+
N/A
N/A
N/A
136 N/A
Bleeding RespFail Infxn (NV)
VT
Sepsis
RV Fail
MOF
Infxn
RV Fail
Bleeding
VT
Neuro
Infxn
Bleeding
1 y mortality 28.5%
1 y Survival
85% (HMII) vs
70% (comp)
Lower rate of infxns with HMII
Grady K,
Ann Thorac Surg 2004
15063260 (293)
ADVANCE
pNRCT
HM XVE (78)
None
N/A
+/-
+/-
n/a
N/A
pNRCT
Heart Ware (137)
INTER MACS (499) Txplt-C
41% ICM
82% ino
T
+
N/A
+
+
Infxn
Bleeding
Neuro
T
+
N/A
N/A
N/A
Infxn/ Sepsis
RVAD
MOF
No pHTN (32)
Txplt-C
NovaCor 4, HMXVE 22% ICM
19, HMII 9
T
+/-
N/A
N/A
N/A
n/a
No pHTN (44)
Txplt-C
NovaCor, Th-LVAD, 100% ino
Th-IVAD, HM XVE 40% ICM
T
+
+
N/A
N/A
Infxn
N.S
NS
N/A
NS
Bleeding
Infxn
IABP (13)
ADHF
T
100% ino or vasodilator
47% ICM
Post-MI CS
T
HeartWare is NON-INFERIOR
to control
Lower AE rate for bleeding,
infxn
No difference in BTC vs. BTT
Post-OHT survival
1 y: 67% vs. 100%
2 y: 67% vs. 90% and
3 y: 64% vs. 87%
Comparable post-OHT
survival 1 y: 93% vs. 96%
5 y: 77% vs. 86%
Higher peri-OHT mortality in
fixed pHTN: 18% vs. 0%
Comparable post-VAD and
post-OHT survival
Early ↓TPG with VAD,
sustained ↓mPAP with
ongoing MCS
65d mortality 33.9% (pVAD)
vs. 32.2% (OMM)
Elhenawy A,
J Card Surg 2011
21883463 (294)
ObsRS
BTC (22)
BTT (15)
NovaCor 6, HMXVE
11, HMII 5
41% Txplt-C
59% Txplt-IE
NovaCor 1, HMXVE 27% ICM
7, HMII 7,
Alba A,
JHLT 2010
20620083 (295)
Obs
Fixed pHTN (22)
NovaCor 2, HMXVE
14, HMII 6
Nair P,
JHLT 2010
20113910 (296)
Obs
pHTN (14)
MOMENTUM
18765394 (297)
RCT
Orqis Cancion (109)
OMM (59)
Seyfarth M,
JACC 2008
19007597 (263)
Burkhoff D, AHJ 2006
16923414 (264)
RCT
Impella (12)
N/A
+
N/A
N/A
n/a
No difference in MOF or
sepsis
RCT
TandemHeart (19)
IABP (14)
CS
T
N/A
+
N/A
N/A
Not powered to fully assess
hemodynamic effects or
clinical outcomes
Tandem Heart (21)
IABP (20)
Post-MI CS
T
NS
+
N/A
N/A
Arrhythmia
Bleeding
Neuro
(NS)
Infxn/Sepsis
DIC (VAD)
Thiele H,
EHJ 2005
15734771 (298)
RCT
NovaCor, Th-LVAD,
Th-IVAD, HM XVE
Txplt-C
T
Not powered to detect
mortality benefit
+ indicates survival benefit; ADHF, hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure; AE, adverse event; BTC, bridge to candidacy; BTT, bridge to transplantation; DOS, duration of support; Expt, Experimental group; HMII, HeartMate II; HIMI-BTT, HeartMate II bridge to transplant;
HIMI-DT, HeartMate II destination therapy; HM XVE, HeartMate XVE; IABP, intra-aortic balloon pump; ICM, ischemic cardiomyopathy; ino, inotrope-dependent at time of randomization/implantation; Infx, infection; Infxn (NV), non-VAD related infection; INTERMACS, Interagency Registry
for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support; INTREPID, Investigation of Nontransplant-Eligible Patients Who Are Inotrope Dependent; MCS, mechanical circulatory support; MOF, multi-organ failure; MOMENTUM, Multicenter Trial of the Orqis Medical Cancion System for the
Enhanced Treatment of Heart Failure Unresponsive to Medical Therapy; mPAP, mean pulmonary artery pressure; N/A, not applicable; Neuro, neurological complication (e.g. stroke); NS, no significant difference; Obs, Observational study; OHT, orthotopic heart transplantation; OMM,
optimal medical management; P, permanent; pNRCT, prospective non-randomized clinical trial; post-MI CS, post-myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock; PumpRplt, pump replacement; RCT, randomized clinical trial; Rehosp, rehospitalization; REMATCH, Randomized Evaluation of
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 137 Mechanical Assistance in Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure; RenalFail, renal failure; RespFail, respiratory failure; RV Fail, right ventricular failure requiring inotropic support; RVAD, need for right ventricular assist device; RR, relative risk; SVT, supraventricular tachycardia; T, temporary;
Th-IVAD, Thoratec implantable ventricular assist device; Th-LVAD, extracorporeal VAD; TPG, transpulmonary gradient; Txplt-C, transplant candidate; Txplt-IE, transplant ineligible; and VT, ventricular tachycardia.
Data Supplement 35. LVADs (Section 7.4.5)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Aim of Study
Study
Type
Study
Size
N (Total
Study Size)
SELECTION OF VAD CANDIDATES
CaseClinical
To compare
controlle
outcomes for
post-implant
continuous-flow outcomes across d
LVAD pts
different
stratified by pre- INTERMACS
operative
classification
INTERMACS
levels.
classification,
Boyle AJ, JHLT
2011
21168346 (299)
Patient Population
Inclusion Criteria
Endpoints
Primary
Endpoint
Exclusion Criteria
Secondary
Endpoint
Mortality
Trial
Duration
(Years)
Absolute Benefit or
Major Study Findings
Complications/
Adverse Events
1st Year Mortality
101
Pts implanted with an
LVAD prior to 8/27/07 at
University of Minnesota,
University of Pittsburgh,
and Columbia University
with either a VentraAssist
or HM II, classified by
INTERMACS level at time
of implant (Goup 1:
INTERMACS profile 1;
Group 2: INTERMACS
profiles 2-3; Group 3:
INTERMACS profiles 4-7)
N/A
Survival to
discharge,
LOS after
VAD
implantation,
actuarial
survival while
on MCS
N/A
N/A
~2 y
Actuarial survival
Group 3: 95.8%,
Group 2: 68.8%,
p=0.065 vs Group 3
Group 1: 51.1%,
p=0.011 vs Group 3
survival to discharge
Group 3: 95.8%,
p=0.02 vs Group 1
Group 2: 93.8%,
p=0.009 vs Group 1
Group 1: 70.4%
N/A
129
Adults with chronic endstage HF
and contraindications to
transplantation. NYHA IV
HF for >60 of 90 d
despite attempted therapy
with ACEI, diuretics, and
digoxin;
LVEF < 25%
Peak VO2 <1214ml/kg/min or a
continued need for IV
inotropic therapy owing to
symptomatic hypotension,
decreasing renal function,
or worsening pulmonary
HF due to thyroid disease,
obstructive
cardiomyopathy,pericardial
disease, amyloidosis, or
active myocarditis
Technical obstacles that
pose an inordinately high
surgical risk
INR >1.3 or PT >15 sec
BSA <1.5 m2
BMI >40 kg/m2
Severe COPD (FEV<1.5
L/min)
Positive serum pregnancy
test
Fixed pHTN with PVR> 8
The primary
end point was
death from
any cause
and was
compared
between
groups with
the use of the
log-rank
statistic.
Secondary
endpoints
included the
incidence of
SAEs, the no.
of d of
hospitalizatio
n, the QoL,
symptoms of
depression,
and functional
status.
1 y Mortality:
LVAD 48%
OMM 75%
p=0.002
2yr Mortality:
LVAD 77%
OMM 92%
p=0.09
Enrollment
5/98-7/01
(39mo);
Reduction of 48 % in
the risk of
death from any cause
— the primary endpoint
— in LVAD group, as
compared with medicaltherapy group (OMM)
QoL suggested greater
improvement in LVAD
group, though not all
measures reached
statistical significance.
(RR 0.52; 95% CI:
0.34-0.78; p=0.001)
Sepsis (Rate Ratio 2.03)
Non-neurologic bleeding (Rate
Ratio 9.47)
Neurologic dysfunction (Rate
Ratio 4.35)
SVT
(Rate Ratio 3.92)
Suspected malfunction of
LVAD (0.75 rate/pt-y)
VAD AS DT
Randomized
Evaluation of
Mechanical
Assistance for
the Treatment
of CHF
REMATCH,
Rose E, 2001
11794191 (285)
To evaluate the
suitability of
implantable
LVAD for their
ultimate intended
use as a longterm myocardialreplacement
therapy for pts
who are ineligible
for cardiac
transplantation
RCT
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 138 congestion.
NYHA III-IV for > 28 d
and who had received at
least 14 d of support with
IABP or with a
dependence on IV
inotropic agents, with 2
failed weaning
attempts.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Wood units
Candidate for CABG,
valvular repair, LV
reduction, or
cardiomyoplasty
Hx of cardiac
transplantation, LV
reduction or
cardiomyoplasty
Mechanical AV that will not
be converted to
bioprosthesis
AST, ALT, TBili > 5x normal
or biopsy-proved liver
cirrhosis
Stroke w/in 90d or
cerebrovascular dz with >
80% extracranial stenosis
Impaired cognitive function,
Alzheimer’s disease and/or
other irreversible dementia,
Untreated AAA >5 cm
Suspected or active
systemic infection
Platelet count <50x103/mm3
SCr >3.5 mg/dL or dialysis
Peripheral vascular disease
with rest claudication or leg
ulceration
CCB (except amlodipine) or
type I or type III
antiarrhythmic agent.
Abdominal operation
planned
Psychiatric disease
/Substance abuse
Participating in another
clinical study
Other condition with survival
<3y
139 LVAD as
Destination for
pts undergoing
intravenous
inotropic
therapy: a
subset analysis
from
REMATCH,
Stevenson LW,
2004
15313942 (284)
To analyze
outcomes in pts
undergoing
inotropic
infusions at
randomization for
LVAD destination
therapy
Posthoc
analysis
91 (on
inotrope at
randomizat
ion)
Investigation of
NontransplantEligible Pts Who
Are Inotrope
Dependent
(INTrEPID
Trial), Rogers
JG, 2007
17707178 (286)
To evaluate the
impact of LVAD
support on
survival and QoL
in inotropedependent HF
pts ineligible for
cardiac
transplantation
Prospec
tivenonr
andomiz
ed
clinical
trial
55
Advanced HF
treated with
continuous-flow
LVAD,
(HeartMateII
DT), Slaughter
MS, 2009
19920051 (287)
To compare the
outcomes of pts
ineligible for
cardiac
transplantation
with pulsatile
versus
continuous flow
RCT
200
LVEF <25%
NYHA IV symptoms for
60 of 90 d despite
attempted therapy with
ACEI, diuretics, and
digoxin.
Peak
VO2 <12-14 mL/kg/min
with evidence of
anaerobic metabolism,
Dependence on IV
inotropic agents
supported by completion
of a weaning
failure form.
Adults with inotropedependent stage D HF;
LVEF < 25%,
NYHA IV symptoms for >
3 mo before enrollment
and were not candidates
for cardiac transplantation
Treated with maximally
tolerated doses of ACEI,
beta-blockers, digoxin,
diuretics, and/or other
vasodilators.
Age >18 y
BSA > 1.5m2 for a pt to
be randomized HM XVE HM II. If BSA < 1.5
m2and > 1.2 m2, the pt
must meet the remaining
criteria and can be
enrolled in the Small Size
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Advanced age,
Diabetes with end-organ
damage,
SCr >2.5 mg/dL for >90 d
All-cause
mortality
during the
180 d
following
randomization
.
QoL at 1 y
1 y Mortality:
LVAD 51%
OMM 76%
p=0.0014
2yr Mortality:
LVAD 72%
OMM 89%
Enrollment
5/98-7/01;
In pts undergoing
inotropic therapy at
randomization, 1 y
survival with LVAD was
49% vs 24% for OMM
and by 2 y, 28% were
alive with LVAD group
compared with 11% in
OMM group
(p=0.0014).
N/A
BSA <1.5 m2
Contraindication to chronic
anticoagulation
Presence of a mechanical
aortic valve constituted an
exclusion criterion for LVAD
support
CVA or TIA within 6 mo
before enrollment, a 70%
carotid stenosis, or an
ulcerated carotid plaque.
Unresolved drug or alcohol
dependency
Active systemic infection
SCr >5.0 mg/dL,
Tbilli >5.0 mg/dL
Mechanical ventilatory
support for >48 h at the time
of enrollment
Comorbid medical condition
limiting life expectancy < 2 y
HF is due to uncorrected
thyroid disease, obstructive
cardiomyopathy, pericardial
disease, amyloidosis, active
myocarditis or RCM.
Technical obstacles, which
pose an inordinately high
surgical risk, in the
All-cause
mortality at 6
mo
AEs,
functional
capacity
HRQoL
1st y mortality
73% (LVAD) vs
89% (OMT)
6mo mortality:
54% (LVAD) vs
78% (OMT)
Enrollment
39 mo (3/005/03); 12 mo
follow-up
6 mo survival
46% (LVAD) vs 22%
(OMT)
(HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.230.93; p=0.03)
1 y survival
27% (LVAD) vs 11%
(OMT)
Absolute reduction of 1
y mortality by 16% with
LVAD
(HR: 0.48; 95% CI:
0.25-0.85; p=0.02)
CVA 34.5%
Infection 24%
The primary
composite
endpoint was,
at 2 y,
survival free
from disabling
stroke and
reoperation to
Secondary
endpoints
included
survival,
frequency of
AE, the QoL,
and functional
capacity.
1st y mortality:
32% (continuous
flow LVAD) vs
42% (pulsatile
flow LVAD)
Enrollment
5/05-5/07 (2
y)
Follow-up >2
y or until
death,
cardiac
transplant, or
The primary composite
endpoint was achieved
in more pts assigned to
receive a continuousflow LVAD than in
those assigned to
receive a pulsatile-flow
LVAD (46% vs. 11%)
Higher complication rate with
pulsatile LVAD (p<0.001)
Pump replacement
Sepsis
Respiratory failure
Renal failure
RV failure requiring extended
inotrope Rehospitalization
140 LVAD destination
therapy
Cohort.
NYHA IIIB or IV HF and 1
of following:
i. On OMM, including
dietary salt restriction,
diuretics, digitalis, beta
blockers, spironolactone
and ACE-I, for > 45 out of
the last 60 d and failing
to respond;
ii. NYHA III-IV HF for >14
d and dependent on IABP
for 7 d and/or inotropes
for >14 d
iii. Treated with ACE-I or
beta blockers for > 30 d
and found to be
intolerant.
Female pts of
childbearing potential
must agree to use
adequate contraception
Ineligible for cardiac
transplant.
VO2max < 14 mL/kg/min
or <50% of predicted
VO2max with attainment
of anaerobic threshold, if
not contraindicated due to
IV inotropes, angina or
physical disability.
LVEF is < 25%.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. judgment of the investigator.
Ongoing mechanical
circulatory support other
than IABP.
BMI >40 kg/m2.
Positive pregnancy test
Presence of mechanical AV
that will not be converted to
a bioprosthesis
History of cardiac transplant
or cardiomyoplasty.
Platelet count < 50,000
Untreated aortic aneurysm >
5cm.
Psychiatric disease,
irreversible cognitive
dysfunction, psychosocial
issues that are likely to
impair compliance
Active, uncontrolled
infection.
Intolerance to anticoagulant
or antiplatelet therapies or
any other peri/post
operative therapy that may
be required
INR > 2.5, not due to anticoagulant therapy, or Plavix
within 5 days
AST, ALT, or total bilirubin
> 5x normal or biopsy
proven liver cirrhosis
Severe COPD or restrictive
lung disease.
Fixed pHTN with a PVR >8
Wood units
Stroke w/in 90 d, or cerebral
vascular disease with >80%
extra cranial stenosis.
SCr >3.5 mg/dl or on
dialysis
Significant peripheral
vascular disease with rest
explant of
LVAD
repair or
replace the
device.
On the basis of the astreated analysis, the
Kaplan–Meier estimate
of actuarial survival was
significantly better for
pts who had a
continuous- flow LVAD
as compared with those
with a pulsatile-flow
LVAD
Improvements in
functional status by
NYHA Class and
6MWT did not differ
between the two
groups.
Primary composite
endpoint:
HR 0.38; 95%CI: 0.27
to 0.54; p<0.001
Actuarial survival, RR:
0.54
95% CI, 0.34 to 0.86;
p=0.008
141 pain or ulceration.
Moderate to severe AIy
without plans for correction
Participation in any other
clinical investigation
CCB (except amlodipine), or
Type I /III antiarrhythmic
(except amiodarone) within
28 d prior to enrollment.
Any condition that could
limit survival to <3 y.
BTT
Use of a
continuous-flow
device in pts
awaiting heart
transplantation
(HMII BTT),
Miller LW, 2007
17761592 (289)
To assess the
efficacy of
continuous-flow
LVAD for
providing
hemodynamic
support of at
least 6 mo to pts
awaiting heart
transplantation
Cohort
133
Transplant listed.
BSA > 1.2 m2.
NYHA IV HF symptoms.
Female pts of childbearing
potential must agree to
use adequate
contraception
On inotropic support, if
tolerated.
Despite medical therapy,
the pt must meet one of
the following criteria:
a. No contraindication for
Status 1A listing
b. No contraindication for
Status 1B listing
PCWP or PAD > 20
mmHg,
CI < 2.2 L/min/m2 or SBP
< 90 mmHg
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. HF due to uncorrected
thyroid disease,
obstructive/restrictive
cardiomyopathy, pericardial
disease, or amyloidosis.
Technical obstacles, which
pose an inordinately high
surgical risk.
Ongoing mechanical
circulatory support other
than IABP
BMI > 40 kg/m2.
Positive pregnancy test
Mechanical aortic valve that
will not be converted to a
bioprosthesis
Hx of cardiac transplant.
Platelet count <50,000/mL.
Untreated aortic aneurysm
> 5cm.
Psychiatric dz irreversible
cognitive dysfunction,
psychosocial issue
Active uncontrolled
infection.
Intolerance to anticoagulant
or antiplatelet therapies or
any other peri/post
operative therapy that may
be required
Any one of the following
The principal
outcomes
were the
proportions of
pts who, at
180 d, had
undergone
transplantatio
n, had
undergone
explantation
of the device
because of
recovery of
ventricular
function,
or had
ongoing
mechanical
support and
remained
eligible for
transplantatio
n (i.e., were
not removed
from the
waiting list
owing to
irreversible
complications
or clinical
142 Secondary
outcomes
included
overall
survival,
survival while
receiving
device
support,
survival after
transplantatio
n,
frequency of
AEs,
assessment
of functional
class by a 6min walk test,
independent
evaluation of
NYHA
functional
class by a
physician,
and QoL.
1 y mortality
32%
Enrollment
3/05-5/06
(15mo);
follow-up
through 180d
75% reached principal
outcomes
18.8% died before
180d of support
Bleeding requiring pRBCs
Local infection, non-LVAD
Ventricular arrhythmias
Sepsis
Right HF
Extended
Mechanical
Circulatory
Support with a
ContinuousFlow Rotary
LVAD (HMII
BTT), Pagani
FD, 2009
19608028 (288)
To evaluate the
use of a
continuous-flow
rotary LVAD as a
bridge to heart
transplantation
over an extended
period, up to 18
mo
Cohort
Study
281
Same as above (HMII
Study)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. risk factors for and
indicators of severe endorgan dysfunction or failure:
a) INR >2.5 not due to
anticoagulant therapy or
Plavix within 5 d.
b) Total bilirubin > 5mg/dl,
or shock liver (AST, ALT
>2,000), or biopsy proven
liver cirrhosis.
c) Severe COPD or severe
restrictive lung disease.
d) Fixed pulmonary
hypertension, with a recent
PVR >6 Wood units,
e) Unresolved stroke or
uncorrectable
cerebrovascular disease.
f) SCr >3.5 mg/dL or the
need for chronic dialysis.
g) Significant peripheral
vascular disease with rest
pain or ulceration
Moderate to severe aortic
insufficiency without plans
for AVR
Participation in any other
clinical investigation
Same as above (HMII
Study)
deterioration)
Survival and
transplantatio
n rates were
assessed at
18 mo.
143 Pts were
assessed for
AEs
throughout
the study and
for
QoL,
functional
status, and
organ
function for 6
mo.
6 mo Mortality
18% (95% CI:
77-87%)
1 y Mortality
27% (95% CI:
66-80%) 18 Mo
Mortality 28%
(95% CI: 6579%)
Enrollment
3/05-4/08 (38
mo); 18 mo
follow-up
79% of LVAD pts
reached primary
outcome measure,
either received
a transplant,
recovered cardiac
function and
underwent device
explantation, or
remained alive with
ongoing LVAD
support at 18-mo
follow-up
Bleeding requiring pRBCs
Respiratory failure
Local infection, non-LVAD
Ventricular arrhythmias
Sepsis
Right HF requiring extended
inotropic support
Evaluate the
Safety and
Efficacy of a
Percutaneous
LVAD vs. IABP
for Treatment of
Cardiogenic
Shock Caused
by Myocardial
Infarction,
Seyfarth M,
2008
19007597 (263)
To test whether
the percutaneous
LVAD Impella
LP2.5 provides
superior
hemodynamic
support
compared with
IABP
RCT
26
Pts with acute MI within
48 h and cardiogenic
shock within 24 h
CI < 2.2 l/min/m2 and
PCWP >15 mm Hg or an
angiographically
measured LVEF <30%
and LVEDP >20 mm Hg
Impact of
Center Volume
on Outcomes of
LVAD
Implantation as
DT: Analysis of
the Thoratec
HeartMate
Registry, 1998
to 2005, Lietz K,
2009
19808309 (300)
To examine the
impact of LVAD
center volume on
the outcomes of
DT
Registry
;
Retrosp
ective
analysis
351
NYHA IV symptoms for >
60 d despite maximized
oral therapy or
requirement of inotropic
support
LVEF <
25%
Peak VO2 <12 mL/kg/min
or documented failure to
wean IV inotropic therapy;
Contraindication to HT
attributable to age >65 y,
insulin-dependent DM with
end organ damage,
chronic renal failure, or
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Age <18 y;
Prolonged resuscitation
(>30 min)
HCM;
LV thrombus;
Treatment with intra-aortic
balloon pump;
Severe valvular disease or
mechanical heart valve;
Cardiogenic shock caused
by mechanical
complications of AMI such
as ventricular septal defect,
acute mitral regurgitation
greater than second
degree, or rupture of the
ventricle;
Predominant RV failure or
the need for a RVAD;
Sepsis;
Known cerebral disease;
bleeding with a need for
surgical intervention;
Allergy to heparin or any
known coagulopathy;
Moderate to severe AI;
Pregnancy;
Inclusion in another study
or trial
Not specifically outlined;
similar to REMATCH
The
hemodynamic
improvement
at 30 min
after
implantation
defined as the
change in CI
from baseline.
1 y survival
with DT
144 Hemodynami
c and
metabolic
parameters;
All-cause
mortality at 30
d;
Devicerelated
complications
including
hemolysis,
major
bleeding,
cerebrovascular events,
limb
ischemia, and
multipleorgan
dysfunction
scores at 30 d
using MODS
and SOFA
criteria.
n/a
N/A; follow-up
of 30d
The CI after 30 min of
support was
significantly increased
in pts with
the Impella LP2.5
compared with pts
with IABP
(Impella:DCI=0.49+0.4
6 l/min/m2; IABP:
DCI=0.11+ 0.31
l/min/m2).
p= 0.02
No difference in adverse
effects between pLVAD and
IABP
1 y Mortality
low volume:
52.2%
medium
volume:42.8%
high volume:
32.6%
Enrollment:
5/98-12/05
(92 mo); total
duration of
observation:
102 mo;
median
follow-up
period 9.5mo
High volume center
compared with low
volume center has an
absolute benefit of
19.6% reduction in
mortality at 1 y (1y
mortality of 32.6% vs
52.2%)
OR 0.4; 95% CI 0.20.7; p=0.006;
Sepsis
Multiorgan failure
Stroke
Right HF
LVAD failure/complications
other comorbidities.
Predictors of
death and
transplant in pts
with a
mechanical
circulatory
support device:
a multiinstitutional
study
(INTERMACS),
Holman WL,
2009
19134530 (301)
To identify
predictors for
death and
transplantation
based on initial
results from
INTERMACS
Registry
420
Pt underwent implantation
of mechanical circulatory
support device
(INTERMACS registry)
Not specifically stated
1 y survival
post LVAD
implantation
AEs
1 y Mortality
DT: 37%
BTT: 24%
19 mo, 12 mo
follow-up
Risk factors for death
1. INTERMACS level
1 (p=0.02)
2. Older age (> 60yr)
(p<0.01)
3. Presence of ascites
(p=0.003)
4. Elevated total
bilirubin
(p=0.05)
5. BiVAD (p=0.002)
6. Total artificial heart
(p=0.03)
CNS events
Infection
European
results with a
continuous-flow
VAD for
advanced HF
pts, Lahpor J,
2010
19616963 (290)
To report on the
European
experience with
the Heart Mate II
LVAD
Registry
411
NYHA IIIB-IV CHF on
maximum medical
treatment including IV
inotropic support
At least LVAD
implantation took place at
least 6 mo prior to closing
date of study
Not specifically stated
6 mo and 1 y
survival
AEs
6 mo mortality:
26%
1st y mortality:
8.5%
52mo (3/048/08)
Overall survival to
transplantation,
recovery of natural
heart function with
evice removal, or
ongoing device
support at end of
study: 69%
Multiorgan failure
Infections (sepsis, local nonVAD related, drive line)
Right heart failure
Bleeding
Ventricular arrhythmias
Neurologic complications
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 145 Post–cardiac
transplant
survival after
support with a
continuous-flow
LVAD: Impact of
duration of
LVAD support
and other
variables, John
R, 2010
20447659 (302)
To determine
factors related to
posttransplant
survival in pts
supported with
continuous-flow
LVADs
Registry
468
Adult pts with end-stage
HF and listed for heart
transplantation
(SAME AS HMII BTT
STUDIES)
Results of the
Post-U.S. FDAApproval Study
With a
Continuous
Flow LVAD as a
Bridge to Heart
Transplantation
(INTERMACS),
Starling RC,
JACC 2011
21545946 (291)
BIVAD
To determine
whether results
with the HMII
LVAD in a
commercial
setting are
comparable to
other available
devices for the
same indication
Registry
338
INTERMACS registry,
LVAD for BTT
Survival after
biventricular
assist device
implantation: An
analysis of
INTERMACS
database,
Cleveland JC,
2011
21621423 (303)
To identify the
underlying preimplant
characteristics of
the population
requiring BiVAD
support that
contribute to
reduced survival,
and to identify
differences in
postoperative
outcomes with
respect to AEs
compared with
pts supported
with LVAD alone.
Registry
1852
INTERMACS registry,
LVAD or BiVAD
implantation
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Severe renal, pulmonary, or
hepatic dysfunction,
Active uncontrolled
infection
Mechanical aortic valve or
aortic insufficiency,
Aortic aneurysm,
Other MCS (other than
IABP)
Technical obstacles thought
to pose an increased
surgical risk
1 mo and 1 y
survival;
survival after
transplantatio
n
Survival
(transplant or
death)
N/A
Survival
30 d mortality,
inhospital
mortality,
LOS, QOL,
AE
AEs
146 Overall 1 y
mortality: 13%
Enrollment 38
mo (3/054/08); followup for 1 y
posttransplant
and for 18 mo
post-LVAD if
not
transplanted
Post-transplant
survival at 1y:
<30 d LVAD support:
94%
30-89 d LVAD
support: 93%
90-179 d LVAD
support: 84%
>180 d LVAD support:
81%
(p=0.18)
Bleeding requiring pRBCs
12 mo mortality
13% HMII vs.
22%COMP
Enrollment
9/07-2/09; at
least 12 mo
follow-up post
VAD
12 mo survival:
85% HMII vs 70%
COMP
no difference between
INTERMACS profiles
within each group
12 mo survival:
log rank p<0.001
Bleeding event rate/pt-y
1.44 HMII v 1.79 COMP,
p=0.19
Infection event rate/pt-y
1.0 HMII v 2.12 COMP,
p<0.0001
6 mo mortality
BiVAD: 44%
LVAD: 14%
p<0.0001
15 mo (6/069/09)
Risk factors for death
with BiVAD
Older age
Higher BSA
Presence of Ascites
Elevated creatinine
Elevated total bilirubin
Elevated INR
History of valve surgery
Failure to wean from
bypass
Bleeding
Infection
PERCUTANEOUS VAD
Multicenter Trial
of the Orqis
Medical
Cancion System
for the
Enhanced
Treatment of HF
Unresponsive to
Medical
Therapy
(MOMENTUM),
Greenberg B,
2008
18765394 (297)
To compare
percutaneous
continuous aortic
flow
augmentation
(flow<.5 L/min for
up to 96 h) plus
medical therapy
vs. medical
therapy alone
RCT
168
LVEF<35%
Persistent clinical,
hemodynamic,
and renal derangement
despite standard oral
medication and treatment
for > 24 h with >1 of the
following drugs at
minimum dosage (stable
for >6 h):
a) dobutamine 2.5
mg/kg/min
b) milrinone 0.3mg/kg/min
c) dopamine 5 mg/kg/min ,
d) nesiritide
0.01mg/kg/min
e) nitroprusside
0.25mg/kg/min , or
f) nitroglycerine
0.25mg/kg/min
PCWP >18 mm Hg
continuously for 12 h and
>20 mm Hg at time of
randomization;
CI < 2.4 L/min/m 2;
SCr >1.2 mg/dL or IV
furosemide dose >120
mg/d or equivalent.
Recent Q-wave MI or
cardaic
revascularization;
Severe lung disease;
Primary liver disease;
SCr >4.0 mg/dL or on
dialysis;
CRT device
implanted within 14 d;
SBP <80 mm Hg;
Need for cardiac
mechanical support;
Platelet count
<50 000/ L;
INR > 1.5 in the
absence of
anticoagulation;
Systemic infection;
CVA or TIA within 3
mo;
Active status on the
cardiac
transplantation list
unless transplant was
considered unlikely
within 65 d;
Peripheral vascular
disease with absent
pedal pulse or
evidence of
limb ischemia;
Significant
uncorrected primary
valvular disease.
Overall success
composite based
on technical
(device group
only),
hemodynamic, and
clinical success
defined as follows:
technical success
(device group
only), insertion and
attainment of flow
>1 L/min for >24 h;
hemodynamic
success, mean
PCWP decrease
from baseline of 5
mmHg calculated
as the average of
values at 72-96 h;
and clinical
success, from d 135 after
randomization, any
of the following:
>10 consecutive d
alive out of
hospital, no
alternative
mechanical
support, absence
of death, and
absence of
readmission for HF
Change in SCr
at d 3 Change
in body weight
at d 4
Change in CI
(72- 96 h
average),
Change in NTproBNP at d 3;
Change in
KCCQ Overall
Summary
score at 2 wk
and 35 d.
QOL
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 147 65 d mortality
pVAD 33.9%
control 32.2%
(HR:1.05;
p=0.87)
Enrollment
9/04-8/07
(3y), out to 64
d since
randomization
Primary efficacy
endpoint success
(hemodynamic and
clinical success for both
groups plus technical
success in
the device group) was
seen in 13.6% of the
control group and 17.4%
of the device group pts
(p=0.45)
No significant difference
was found in SCr, NTproBNP, or body weight.
KCCQ Overall Summary
and
Clinical Summary scores
increased more in the
device group (p=0.10)
than in the control group
(p=0.095), but treatment
differences were not
significant
Any bleed (40.4% device vs
13.6% control, p=0.0004)
Longitudinal
Change in QoL
and Impact on
Survival After
LVAD
Implantation,
Grady KL, 2004
15063260 (293)
To describe
change with time
(from 1mo to 1 y)
in pts who
received a Heart
Mate vented
elecric LVAD as
BTT and to
identify QOL
(predictors of
survival after
LVAD
implantation)
Cohort
Study
78
Received either
HeartMate VE LVAD or
Heart Mate implantatble
pneumatic LVAD between
8/1/94 and 8/31/99 at 1 of
9 medical centers in US
and one medical center in
Australia as BTT
Age > 18 y
Able to read and write
English
Physically able to
participate
N/A
QOL
questionnaires:
QOL Index, Rating
Question Form, HF
Symptom
Checklist, and
Sickness Impact
Profile
N/A
N/A
N/A
Continuous
Flow LVAD
Improves
Functional
Capacity and
QoL of
Advanced HF
Pts, Rogers JG,
2010
20413033 (304)
To assess the
impact of
continuous flow
LVADs on
functional
capacity and HFrelated QoL
Cohort
Study
655
Pts enrolled in either HM II
BTT or DT clinical trials
N/A
NYHA Functional
Class assess by
clinician
Pt reported activity
levels (METS) and
6MWT
Heart failurerelated QOL by
MLWHF and
KCCQ
N/A
N/A
N/A
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 148 QoL outcomes were
fairly good and stable
from 1 mo to 1 y after
LVAD implantation.
Overall QoL was
unchanged, however
both positive and
negative changes in
subareas of QoL were
noted. Pt satisfaction
with life improved in
area of
health/functioning but
worsened in satisfaction
with significant others.
Cardiopulmonary,
neurologic,
psychological, and
physical symptom
distress improved.
Functional disability with
respect to work,
sleep/rest, self-care, and
physical disability
improved over time.
However, functional
disability with respect to
home management and
social interaction
worsened.
LVAD pts demonstrated
early and sustained
improvements in
functional status and
QOL. NYHA functional
class improved from
class IV to class I or II in
majority of pts (about
80%). Improved 6MWT
distance as well as
MLWHF and KCCQ
scores.
N/A
N/A
QOL and
functional status
in pts surviving
12 mo after
LVAD
implantation,
Allen JG, 2010
19837607 (305)
To review QoL in
pt on LVAD
support for >1 y
Retrosp
ective
analysis
30
Pts who underwent HMII
or HMI LVAD implantation
between 2000-2008 at
Johns Hopkins Hospital
Pt transplanted or
died before 365 d of
MCS
6MWT distance,
MET tolerance,
MLHFQ, NYHA
functional class
Hospital
readmissions,
infectious
complications
N/A
LVAD pts spend the
majority of time outside
the hospital enjoying a
good QoL
90% of pts experienced
hospital readmissions, with
mean no. of readmissions
per year of 2.9 with mean
length of stay of 13.8 d. 43%
of readmissions were for
infectious complications. 77%
of LVAD pts required
additional operations for
various indications.
AAA indicates abdominal aortic aneurysm; ACEI, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; AE, adverse event; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; AV, atrioventricular; AVR, aortic valve replacement; BMI, body mass index; BSA, body surface area;
BTT, bridge to transplantation; CABG, coronary artery bypass surgery; CCB, calcium channel blocker; CHF, congestive heart failure; Cl, clearance; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CVA, cerebrovascular accident; DM, diabetes mellitus; DT, destination therapy; dz,
disease; FEV, forced expiratory volume; HCM, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; HF, heart failure; HM II, HeartMate II; HM XVE, HeartMate XVE; HT, heart transplantation; hx, history; IABP, intra-aortic balloon pump; INR, international normalized ratio; INTERMACS, Interagency
Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support; IV, intravenous; KCCQ, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; LOS, length of stay; LV, left ventricle; LVAD, left ventricular assist device; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MCS, mechanical circulatory support; METS, metabolic equivalents; MLWHF, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure; MWT, minute walk test; MODS, multiple organ dysfunction scores; N/A, not applicable; NT-proBNP, N-terminal pro-B-Type natriuretic peptide; NYHA, New York Heart Association; OMM, optimal medical
management; PAD, peripheral arterial disease; pRBC, packed red blood cells; PCWP, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure; pHTN, pulmonary hypertension; pts, patients; PVR, peripheral vascular resistance; QoL, quality of life; RCM, Restrictive cardiomyopathy; RCT, randomized
control trial; RV, right ventricule; SAE, serious adverse event; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SCr, serum creatinine; SOFA, sequential organ failure assessment; SVT, supraventricular tachycardia; Tbilli, total bilirubin; TIA, transient ischaemic attack; VAD, ventricular assist device; and
VO2, oxygen volume.
Data Supplement 36. Transplantation (Section 7.4.6)
Study Name,
Author, Year
Aim of study
PATIENT SELECTION
Value of peak
To determine
exercise oxygen
whether
consumption for
measurement of
optimal timing of
peak VO2 during
cardiac
maximal exercise
transplantation in
testing can be
ambulatory pts with used to identify
HF, Mancini DM,
pts in whom
Circulation, 1991
transplantation
1999029 (27)
can be safely
deferred
Study Type
Case-control
Background Therapy
Study
Size
Pretrial standard
treatment.
N (Total
Study
Size)
ACEI 95%
Diuretics 100%
Digoxin 100%
Vasodilators 98%
PDE3 inhibitors 13%
Antiarrhythmics 10%
ICD 1%
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Patient Population
Inclusion
Criteria
122
Exclusion
Criteria
Ambulatory HF
pt referred for
cardiac
transplantation
evaluation
Dependent on
inotrope or
mechanical
support;
Unable to
achieve
anaerobic
threshold on
CPX
Severity
Endpoints
Mortality
Severity of
HF
Symptoms
Primary
Endpoint
1st Year
Mortality
NYHA II
13%
NYHA III
70%
NYHA IV
17%
149 Death
1 y mortality
peak VO2 <14,
accepted for
transplant: 30%
peak VO2 >14:
6%
peak VO2 <14,
rejected for
transplant: 53%
Trial
Duratio
n
(Years)
3
Absolute Benefit
or Major Finding
Pts with preserved
exercise capacity
despite severe resting
hemodynamic
impairment have
survival and
functional capacity
equal to those afforded
by cardiac
transplantation
P Values &
95% CI:
N/A
Predicting Survival
in Ambulatory Pts
With Severe HF on
Beta Blocker
Therapy, Lund LH,
Am J Cardiol 2003
14636921 (306)
To examine the
predictive value
of peak VO2 and
the HFSS in pts
referred for
cardiac
transplantation in
the beta blocker
era
Case-control
Beta blockers 65%
221
Ambulatory HF
pts referred for
heart transplant
evaluation
N/A
N/A
Outcome events:
death before
transplant, LVAD
implantation,
inotropedependent
transplantation
1 y event-free
survival:
beta blocker
75%
no beta blocker
56%
6
No difference in 1 y
event-free survival
amongst beta blocker
users by peak VO2
statum;
however, significant
difference by HFSS
statum
Selection of Pts for
Heart
Transplantation in
the Current Era of
HF Therapy, Butler
J, JACC 2004
14998618 (307)
To assess the
relationship
between
survival, peak
exercise oxygen
consumption
(VO2), and HF
survival score
(HFSS) in the
current era of HF
(HF) therapy
Case-control
507
HF pts with
LVEF <40%;
Underwent CPX
in 1994-1997
(past era) or
1999-2001;
(current era)
Underwent OHT
in 1993-2000
On inotrope;
Angina or
orthopedic issue
restricting
exercise
capacity;
Significant
valvular stenosis;
Exertional
oxygen
desaturation
NYHA IIIIV 84%
1 y event-free
survival (without
need for LVAD or
urgent- Status
1Atransplantation)
for HF pts;
Overall 1-y
survival for
transplanted pts
Overal 1-y
survival
Transplanted:
88%
Current era HF:
88%
Past era HF:
78%
N/A
No difference in 1 y
event-free survival in
current era by initial
peak VO2; trend
towards difference in
survival when stratified
by HFSS
Peak VO2 and
VE/VCO2 slope in
pts with HF: a
prognostic
comparison, Arena
R, Am Heart J,
2004
14760336 (308)
To examine the
ability of peak
VO2 and
VE/VCO2 slope
to predict
cardiac-related
mortality and
hospitalization
Retrospectiv
e analysis
ACEI 92%
Diuretic 96%
Digoxin 94%
beta blocker 10%
(past) vs. 72%
(current)
Spironolactone 2%
(past) vs. 41%
(current)
Antiarrhythmic 13%
AICD 11% (past) v
19% (current)
ACEI 70%
Digitalis 57%
Diuretic 63%
Oral nitrate 29%
beta blocker 42%
CCB 15%
anticoagulant 35%
Antiarrhythmic 15%
N/A
Cardiac-related
mortality and
hospitalization 1y after exercise
testing via
medical chart
review and the
Social Security
Death Index
1 year mortality
VE/VCO2 < 34:
0.8%
VE/VCO2 >34:
16.9%
8 y, 7
mo
(CPX
from
4/9310/01),
plus 1 y
f/u
Peak VO2 (<14
ml/kg/min) was
revealed by
multivariate Cox
regression analysis to
add significantly to the
VE/VCO2 slope (>34)
in predicting 1-y
cardiac-related
hospitalization
(residual X2 =6.5;
p=0.01). The addition
of peak VO2 did
not provide additional
value to the VE/VCO2
slope in predicting
overall cardiac-related
mortality (residual
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 213
HF diagnosis;
Evidence of LV
systolic
dysfunction by
echocardiogram
or cardiac
catheterization
150 Survival by
HFSS,
p<0.0002
(total
cohort),
p<0.02 (beta
blocker pts)
Survival by
VO2, p=0.3
(total
cohort),
p=0.29 (beta
blocker pts)
N/A
1 y cardiac
mortality
VE/VCO2
slope >34, p
<0.0001
X2 = 0.2; p=0.89) or
1-year cardiac-related
mortality (residual X2=
1.5; p=0.29).
Prognostic
usefulness of the
functional aerobic
reserve in pts with
HF, Chase P, Am H
J, 2010
21095281 (309)
To develop a
prognostic model
using FAR as a
continuous
variable that
incorporates pts
with an
undetectable VT.
Secondarily, to
determine the
prognostic power
of the FAR with
that of VO2pk
and the
VE/VCO2 slope
in pts with HF
Case-control
Beta blocker 86% (no
VT) vs 75% (VT)
ACEI 76%
CCB 7%
Diuretic 90% (no VT)
vs 70% (VT)
874
Chronic HF with
stable HF
symptoms and
medications for
at least 1 mo
before exercise
testing,
LVEF<45%
N/A
NYHA IIIIV
89% (no
VT) vs.
45% (VT)
Major cardiacrelated events
(heart
transplantation,
LVAD
implantation, and
cardiac-related
death) for 2 y
after CPX testing
Ventilatory
Efficiency and the
Selection of Pts for
Heart
Transplantation,
Ferreira AM,
Circulation HF,
2010
20176714 (310)
To assess
whether
Ve/VCO2 slope
would identify
individuals likely
to benefit from
heart transplant
more accurately
than current
exercise criteria
for listing
Case-control
N/A
663
HF pts who
underwent
cardiopulmonary
testing at 4
laboratories;
NYHA II-IV;
LVEF <40%
Primary valve
disease;
Congenital heart
disease;
Planned
coronary;
revascularization;
Planned cardiac
surgery;
Age <18 y;
Primary
pulmonary
disease;
Previous cardiac
transplantation;
Submaximal
CPX (peak RER
NYHA II-IV
Death or heart
transplant
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 151 2 y event-free
survival based
upon CPX
responses--favorable
responses
defined as
VE/VCO2 <36,
VO2pk > 10 mL
O2/kg/min, FAR
> 3ml O2/kg/
min)
All favorable
responses:
95%
1 unfavorable:
83.1%
2 unfavorable:
76.0%
All unfavorable:
58.3%
During follow-up
period,
15.2%
underwent
transplant
13,7% died
11 y
(CPX
between
5/975/08); 2
yfollowup
Pts without a
detectable VT had
worse prognosis.
VE/VCO2 slope (>36)
is the strongest overall
univariate and
multivariate predictor;
FAR (<3 ml O2/kg/min)
and peak VO2 (<10ml
O2/kg/min) are
additive to the
VE/VCO2 slope
No VT vs
VT:
p<0.001,
95% CI 2.34.8
Prognostic
classification
p<0.001
Median
f/u 26
mo
Ve/VCO2 slope <43,
1y survival 97%
3y survival 89.4%
Ve/VCO2 slope >43
1y survival 77.8%
3y survival 55.1%
Ve/VCO2
slope <43,
1y survival:
95% CI:
95.4-98.6, y
survival:
95% CI:
85.8-93.0
p<0.001
Ve/VCO2
slope >43
1 y survival:
95% CI:
71.3-84.3%,
3 y survival:
95% CI:
45.2-65.0
ratio <1.05).
The HF Survival
Score outperforms
the peak oxygen
consumption for
heart
transplantation
selection in the era
of device therapy,
Goda A, JHLT
2011
21093299 (311)
To evaluate peak
VO2 and HFSS
as prognostic
tools in pts with
and without
CRT-D referred
for heart
transplant
evaluation
FUNCTIONAL/QOL OUTCOME
Improvement in
To compare QoL
QoL in Pts with HF of pts with HF at
who Undergo
time of loisting
Transplantation,
for a heart
Grady KL, 1996
transplant with
8878757 (312)
that 1 y after
transplantation
Case-control
ACEI/ARB 80%
b-blocker 64% (no
device) v 76% (any
device)
715
Systolic HF pt
referred for
heart transplant
evaluation
Excluded pts
unable to
exercise for any
reason
mean
NYHA
class 2.82
(total), 2.7
(no device)
vs 2.9 (any
device)
Outcome events
were defined as
death, urgent
transplantation
(UNOS Status 1),
or implantation
of LVAD. Pts
who underwent
transplant as
non-urgent
(UNOS status 2)
were censored
alive on the date
of the transplant.
1 y event-free
survival with
peak VO2 10.114
Total cohort:
77%
CRT+/-ICD:
84%
ICD +/- CRT:
80%
Any device: 80%
1 year eventfree survival with
peak VO2 < 10
Total cohort:
65%
CRT+/-ICD:
52%
ICD +/- CRT:
59%
Any device: 58%
N/A
HFSS significantly
discriminates between
the 3 risk strata across
all device groups,
whereas peak VO2
<10 only discriminates
high risk from
low/medium risk.
1y eventfree survival,
amongst
CRT+/-ICD
pts
low risk
HFSS 90%,
medium risk
HFSS 72%,
high risk
HFSS 56%
Cohort
Post-transplant
maintanence
immunosuppression
included cyclosporine,
prednisone and
azathioprine. Some
received induction antiT-cell therapy.
148
Underwent
cardiac
transplantation
at Loyola
University of
Chicago Medical
Center or
University of
Alabama at
Birmingham
N/A
N/A
Symptoms,
health
perception,
functional status,
stress, coping,
life satisfaction,
and overall QoL
as measured by
6 pointcompleted
instruments.
Demographic
and clinical data
from chart
review.
N/A
N/A
Total symptom
distress decreased
after heart
transplantation.
Overall level of
functional disability
improved after heart
transplantation, though
remained low.
N/A
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 152 A Controlled Trial
of Exercise
Rehabilitation After
Heart
Transplantation,
Kobashigawa JA,
1999
9920951 (313)
Predictors of QoL
in Pts at 1 y After
Heart
Transplantation,
Grady KL, 1999
10328145 (314)
Lifestyle and QoL
in Long- Term
Cardiac Transplant
Recipients, Salyer
J, 2003
12633699 (315)
To assess the
effects of
structured 6 mo
training
(cardiopulmonary
rehabilitation) on
the capacity for
exercise early
after cardiac
transplantation
To describe QoL,
examine
relationships
between quality
of life and
demographic,
physical, and
psychosocial
variables, and
identify
predictors of Q0L
in pts 1 y posttransplant
To describe
long-term (>1 y)
cardiac
transplant
recipients’
perceptions of
barriers to
health-promoting
behaviors; ability
to manage their
health, healthpromoting
lifestyle, health
status and QoL;
and determine
predictors of
QoL.
RCT
All pts were treated
with triple-drug
immunosuppression-cyclosporine,
azathioprine, and
prednisone.
27
Underwent
cardiac
transplantation
Multiple medical
issues limiting
ability to
participate in
exercise training
N/A
Differences in
results of
cardiopulmonary
exercise stress
testing at 1- and
6- mo after
transplantation
N/A
Enrollme
nt 11
mo; 6
mo
followup
(total
17mo)
6 mo D peak VO2:
+4.4 L/min/kg
(exercise)
+1.9 L/min/kg (control)
p=0.01
Cohort study
Some pt receieved
induction anti-T celll
therapy with HATG or
OKT3, some did not.
All pts were on
maintenance
immmunosuppression
consisting of
cyclosporine,
prednisone, and
azathioprine.
Prednisone was rapidly
tapered to 0.1mg/kg/d
by 1 y post-OH.
232
Pts who
survived to 1 y
post-cardiac
transplant and
completed the
study booklet
N/A
N/A
QoL domains
and multiple
subscales within
these domains:
somatic
sensation,
psychological
state, physical
and occupational
function, social
interaction
N/A
Recruite
d pts
listed for
OHT
from
3/888/96
p<0.00001
for all
Crosssectional
study
N/A
93
Cardiac
transplant
recipients who
were: (1) >18 y
of age at the
time of
transplant; (2)
could read and
write English;
and (3) had the
visual acuity to
read and
respond to
written
questionnaires.
N/A
N/A
Self-report
questionnaire
incorporating: (1)
pt characteristics;
(2) barriers to
health promotion,
perceived health
competence and
health-promoting
lifestyle; (3)
perceived health
status; and (4)
QoL.
N/A
Mean
time
since
transpla
nt was
101.4
mo (SD
49.44
mo,
range
12-188
mo)
Predictors of better
QoL at 1 y post-OHT
were: less total stress,
more helpfulness of
information, better
health perception,
better compliance with
transplant regimen,
more effective coping,
more functional ability,
less symptom distress,
older age, fewer
complications
Predictors of POOR
outcome were
primarily psychological
Despite having
multiple co-morbidities,
heart transplant
recipients evaluate
their health as good.
QoL in recipients who
are, on average, 8.5 y
post-transplant and
demonstrate that,
overall, they are
moderately satisfied
with their lives
Predictors of better
perceptions of QoL
included less
education, longer time
since transplant,
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 153 N/A
Changes in
exercise capacity,
ventilation, and
body weight
following heart
transplantation,
Habedank D, 2007
17023206 (316)
To prospectively
examine
changes in peak
VO2 and
ventilatory
efficiency
(VE/VCO2 slope)
over 24 mo
following heart
transplantation
and evaluate the
potentially
confounding
effects of weight
gain
Case control
In txplt pts
Immunosuppression:
cyclosporine/tacrolimus
100%
prenisolone 100%
azathioprine/MMF
100%
ACE-I/ARB 99%
CCB 93%
Diuretics 92%
alpha blocker 17%
beta blocker 12%
125
Underwent
cardiac
transplantation
between 9/97
and 1/02 at
German Heart
Institute, Berlin;
Healthy
volunteers
N/A
Patterns and
Predictors of QoL
at 5 to 10 Y After
Heart
Transplantation,
Grady KL, 2007
18022086 (317)
To describe QoL
over time and
identify
predictors of QoL
longitudinally
from 5-10 y after
heart
transplantation
Cohort
N/A
555
Transplanted
between 7/1990
and 6/1999;
Survived 5-10 y
post-transplant
Completed pt
survey
pamphlet;
Age >21y;
Literate in
English
N/A
N/A
N/A
Peak VO2,
Ve/VCO2 slope
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ischemic etiology of
HF, fewer barriers,
higher perceived
health competence
and a healthpromoting lifestyle (R2
=0.51; F=14.77;
p=0.001).
Ve/VCO2 slope
improved (decreased)
at 6 mo and remained
improved at 12, 24 mo
post-txplt compared
with pre-txplt value
and no different than
matched normal at 6
mo.
Peak VO2 improved at
6 mo and remained
improved at 12, 24 mo
post-txplt compared to
pre-txplt baseline but
remained lower than
normal matched
controls.
QoL is positive and
stable at 5 to 10 y after
heart transplantation.
Bio-psychosocial
variables predicted
satisfaction with
overall QoL and
HRQoL.
Ve/VCO2,
p<0.001 vs.
baseline,
p=0.12 vs
matched
normals
Peak VO2,
p<0.01 vs
baseline,
p<0.0001 vs
matched
normals
N/A
SURVIVAL OUTCOMES
Long-term Results
of Cardiac
Transplantation in
Pts Older than 60
Y,
Bull DA, 1996
To examine the
long-term results
of cardiac
transplantation in
pts >60 y
Case-control
N/A
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 527
NYHA IV HF
unremedial to
surgical
treatment other
than cardiac
replacement,
Severe pHTN
(PVR >6 Wood
units,
irreversible)
Severe
irreversible
NYHA IV
154 Survival after
transplant
6 y mortality
>60y/o: 46%
<60y/o: 28%
9y
18% worse
survival/higher
mortality at 6 y posttransplant for pts
transplanted at age >
60 y.
6-y
mortality:
p<0.05
Death from
infection:
p<0.003
8583816 (318)
Comparative
Outcome and
Clinical Profiles in
Transplantation
(COCPIT) Study,
Deng MC, 2000
10968814 (319)
To determine
whether there is
a survival benefit
associated with
cardiac
transplantation in
Germany.
Prospective
observational
cohort
N/A
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. hepatic, renal or
pulmonary
disease,
Active systemic
or pulmonary
infection,
Recent
pulmonary
infarction,
Uncontrollable
HTN,
Uncorrectable
peripheral
vascular disease,
Active peptic
ulcer disease,
History of
substance abuse
(including
alcohol) or
behavior problem
that would
interfere with
medical
compliance
N/A
Limited life
expectancy, 1-y
mortality >50%
Age <65 y;
No systemic
illness other
than
abnormalities
related to HF,
Emotional
stability,
Strong family
support system.
889
Age >16 y,
listed for cardiac
transplantation
NYHA IV
155 Mortality,
stratified by HF
severity.
1 y mortality
after listing:
high risk: 51%
medium risk:
32%
low risk: 29%
p <0.0001
1y mortality
while waiting on
transplant list:
high risk: 32%
medium risk:
20%
low risk: 19%
p <0.0003 for
high risk
compared with
low/medium
N/A
Older transplant
recipient (>60y/o)
more likely to die of an
infectious complication
after transplantation.
Older transplant
recipient (>60y/o)
more likely to die of
malignant disease
after transplantation.
Older pts (>60y/o) had
significantly fewer
rejection episodes per
pt than those < 60
years at
transplantation
(1.9+1.3 vs 2.6 +1.8)
Death from
cancer:
p=0.015
Rejection
episodes:
p=0.009
For the total cohort
there was no survival
benefit from
transplantation.
However, for high risk
pts, a mortality risk
reduction was
observed within 2 wk
of transplantation (RR
<1.0). This benefit
disappeared after eight
months.
p=0.04
(mortality
risk
reduction for
high risk pts)
Reversible
pulmonary HTN in
heart transplant
candidates—
pretransplant
evaluation and
outcome after
OHT, Klotz S, 2003
14607204 (320)
To assess the
value of
prostaglandin E1
(PG-E1) for
reduction of PHT
and to predict
the postoperative
outcome,
compared to pts
without PHT
Case-control
ACEI 81%
Digitalis 74%
Diuretics 75%
beta blockers 38%
151
Referred for
heart transplant
evaluation at
Munster
University
between 3/984/01
Evolving trends in
risk profiles and
causes of death
after heart
transplantation: A
10 y multiinstitutional study,
Kirklin JK, 2003
12698152 (321)
To examine
differences in
risk-adjusted
expected versus
observed
actuarial
outcomes of
cardiac
transplantation
over time at a
single institution
Cohort,
Registry
N/A
7290
7290 pts
undergoing
cardiac transplantation at 42
institutions over
a 10-y period
(1990-2000)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Pts with
implanted MADs;
clinical
decompensation
or inotropicsupport at initial
evaluation
N/A
NYHA IIIBIV
1 y posttransplant
Mortality
N/A
The primary end
point of this study
was death from
all causes.
156 1y mortality s/p
transplant
high risk: 64%
medium risk:
76%
low risk: 75%
p=0.2
1y post-txplt
mortality
Non-pHTN:
14.8%
Reversible
pHTN: 22%
Wait list
mortality
Non-pHTN:
17%
Reversible
pHTN: 17%
Non-wait list
Mortality
Non-pHTN: 7%
Reversible
pHTN: 13%, p=
0.39
Irreversible
pHTN: 50%,
p<0.05
1y post-txplt
mortality 19901992: 16%
1993-1995: 15%
1996-1999: 15%
3 y post-txplt
mortality
1990-1992: 24%
1993-1995: 21%
1996-1999: 21%
>3 y
Non-wait list, wait list,
and 1y post-txplt
mortality rates are
similar for pts with
reversible pHTN as
those without pHTN.
N/A
10 y
registry
+3y
followup, 13 y
observat
ion
period
Later transplantation
date reduced late posttransplant mortality,
particularly that due to
rejection and graft
vasculopathy,
refelcting increasing
institutional expertise,
changing
immunosuppression
regimens.
N/A
Retransplantation
in 7,290 Primary
Transplant Pts: A
10-Y
Multi-Institutional
Study (Cardiac
Transplant
Research
Database Group),
Radovancevic B,
2003
12909465 (322)
To determine
subsets of pts for
whom cardiac
retransplantation
is appropriate
therapy
Cohort,
Registry
N/A
7290
Pts in CTRD
that underwent
a second
cardiac
transplantation
between
January 1990
and December
1999
Outcome in
Cardiac Recipients
of Donor Hearts
With Increased LV
WT, Kuppahally
SS, 2007
17845572 (323)
To evaluate the
outcome in
recipients of
donor hearts with
increased LVWT
>1.2
Case-control
Cyclosporine 58%
Tacrolimus 41%
Sirolimus 31%
Mycophenolate 69%
157
Long-term
outcomes of
cardiac
transplantation for
PPCM: a
multiinstitutional
analysis (CTRDG),
Rasmusson KD,
2007
18022074 (324)
To assess
outcomes in a
relatively large
group of PPCM
allograft
recipients with
long-term followup
Registry
Induction cytolytic rx
31%
Steroids (at 1y): 88%
671
Pts transplanted
between 1/01
and 12/04 at
Stanford
University
Medical Center
and the affiliated
Northern
California Kaiser
Permanente
heart transplant
programs
1. Age <40 y at
time of cardiac
transplant
2. Etiology of
HF: PPCM or
IDCM
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. NYHA IIIBIV
Freedom from
events
(retransplantation
and
subsequent
death, rejection,
and infection)
Pediatric pts,
multiple organ
recipients,
recipients who
died within 3 d
after
transplantation
N/A
Incidence of
cardiac recipient
death or cardiac
retransplantation
N/A
N/A
Rejection,
infection, cardiac
allograft
vasculopathy,
and survival
157 1y
retransplantation
rate: 0.8%
10 y
retransplantation
rate: 3.2%
1y mortality
15% after first
transplant
46% after 2nd
transplant
1y mortality
post-2nd txplt by
indication for retxplt
68% acute
rejection
50% early graft
failure
Overall mortality
(mean 3 y f/u)
donor LVH
(>1.2): 21.3%
donor normal
LVWT: 20%
donor LVH
(>1.4): 50%
total: 20.4%
10 y
N/A
15 y
registry
N/A
Major indications for
cardiac
retransplantation:
1. Acute rejection
2. Early graft failure
3. Allograft
vasculopathy
Improved survival post
re-txplt if primary
reason is allograft
vasculopathy, not
acute rejection or early
graft failure; survival
similar to that of pts
undergoing primary
OHT
Improved
survival
post-retxplt
if done for
CAV,
p=0.02
Post-retxplt
survival for
CAV no
different
than that for
primary txplt
of any
cause,
p=0.67
Donor heart
LVWT>1.4cm
increases posttransplant mortality
and risk of allograft
vasculopathy
Increased
mortality
with donor
LVWT>1.4,
p=0.003,
95% CI 1.821.5
VAD BTT,
p=0.04, 95%
CI 1.02-6.85
PPCM recipients had
similar long-term
survival as male IDCM
recipients; PPCM
recipients trended
towards better survival
compared with female
IDCM, +h/o pregnancy
recipients;
PPCM recipients
appeared to have
better survival than
Overall
survival
PPM vs
male IDCM,
p=0.9
PPM vs +P,
P=0.05
PPM vs -P,
p=0.07
femail idiopathic DCM,
never pregnancy
recipients but not
statistically significant.
Clinical outcomes
after cardiac
transplantation in
muscular dystrophy
pts (CTRDG), Wu
RS, 2010
19864165 (325)
The effect of
transplant center
volume on survival
after heart
transplantation: A
multicenter study,
Shuhaiber JH,
2010
20138635 (326)
To investigate
the clinical outcomes of cardiac
transplantation in
muscular
dystrophy pts
with an extended
follow-up period
and to assess
the outcomes in
comparison with
an age-matched
control cohort
To elucidate the
effect of
transplant center
volume on 1-y
mortality
Casecontrolled
Calcineurin inhibitors
Cyclosporine 87%
Tacrolimus 9%
Unknown
4%
Azathioprine 61%
Mycophenolate 33%
Uknown
6%
Steroids (@1yr) 25%
304
Muscular
dystrophy pts
who underwent
cardiac
transplantation
and matchedcontrol cohort of
IDCM pts
(matched by
age, BMI,
gender, and
race)
N/A
N/A
Survival after
transplant
Case-control
N/A
147
transplant
centers/
13230
heart
transplants
Data from the
Scientific
Registry of
Transplant
Recipients of
heart
transplantations
between 1/1/99
and 5/31/05
N/A
N/A
1 y mortality
1y post-txplt
mortality:
Muscular
dystrophy 11%
Matched-control
9%
5 y post-txplt
mortality:
Muscular
dystrophy 17%
Matched-control
21%
p=0.5
1st y posttransplant
mortality
significantly
higher at very
low-volume
transplant
centers
compared with
low to high
volume
transplant
centers.
15 y
registry
N/A
p=0.5 (posttxplt
mortality)
5.5 y
registry
Low-, medium, and
high-volume transplant
centers have lower 1y
post-transplant
mortality than very-low
volume transplant
centers.
p<0.001 for
each group
compared
with verylow volume
center
group,
95% CI:
Low volume
0.62-0.82
Med volume
0.56-0.74
High volume
0.48-0.65
ACEI indicates angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; AICD, automatic internal cardiac defibrillator; BMI, body mass index; BTT, bridge to transplant; CAV, cardiac allograft vasculopathy; CCB, calcium channel blocker; COCPIT, Comparative Outcome and Clinical Profiles in
Transplantation; CPX, cardiopulmonary stress testing; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; CRT-D, cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator; CTRD, Cardiac Transplant Research Database; DCM, dilated cardiomyopathy; FAR, functional aerobic reserve; f/u, follow-up;
HATG, anti-T cell therapy; HF, heart failure; HFSS, heart failure survival score; h/o, history of; HTN, hypertension; ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; IDCM, idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVSD, left ventricular systolic dysfunction;
LVWT, left ventricular wall thickness; MAD, mechanical assist device; N/A, not applicable; NYHA, New York Heart Association; OH, organ harvest; OHT, orthotopic heart transplantation; OKT3, Othoclone; PG-E1, prostaglandin E1; PDE3, phosphodiesterase enzyme; pHTN,
pulmonary hypertension; PPCM, peripartum cardiomyopathy; PVR, pulmonary vascular resistance; QoL, quality of life; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RER, espiratory exchange ratio; SD, standard deviation; txplt, transplant; UNOS, United Network for Organ Sharing; VAD,
ventricular assist device; VE/VCO2, carbon dioxide production; VO2, oxygen consumption; and VT, ventricular tachychardia.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 158 Data Supplement 37. Comorbidities in the Hospitalized Patient (Section 8.1)
Study Name, Author,
Year
Aim of Study
Study
Type
Background
Therapy
Study Size
Etiology
Pretrial standard
treatment.
N (Total
Study Size)
Ischemic/NonIschemic
Patient Population
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
Endpoints
Absolute
Benefit
P Values &
95% CI:
OR: HR: RR:
Primary
Endpoint
Diabetes and Hyperglycemia
Intensive vs. Conventional
Glucose Control in Critically
Ill Pts: The NICE-SUGAR
Investigators. NEJM 2009;
360: 1283-97 (327)
19318384
Randomization of
ICU pts to
intensive vs.
conventional
glucose control
RCT
Tight glucose
control
recommended by
some
6104
N/A
Hospitalized pts
N/A
Death
-2.60%
95% CI: 1.02 1.28 (p=0.02)
OR:1.02 death at 90
d
Elevated Admission
Glucose and Mortality in
Elderly Pts Hospitalized
with HF. Kosiborod M,
Inzucchi SE, Spertus JA,
Wang Y, Masoudi FA,
Havranek EP, Krumholz
HM. Circulation 2009; 119:
1899-1907. (328)
19332465
Seven-Year mortality in HF
pts with undiagnosed DM:
an observational study.
Flores-LeRoux JA et al.
Cardiovasc Diabetol 2011;
10:39 (329)
21569580
To investigate the
association
between
admission
glucose and
mortality in
elderly pts
hospitalized with
HF
Cohort
Tight glucose
control
recommended by
some
50,532
59.7% ischemic
Hospitalized pts
N/A
Death
N/A
p=0.64
0.998 fully adjusted
model per 10 mg/dL
increase in admission
glucose
To assess the
prognosis of
hyperglycemia
(previously
undiagnosed DM)
in pts admitted to
the hospital with
HF
To investigate the
nature and
importance of
blood glucose
abnormalities in
an unselected HF
population
Cohort
N/A
400
43% ischemic
Acute HF
admission
Lost to follow-up
Total
mortality
N/A
95% CI: 1.17 2.46 (p=0.006);
95% CI: 1.10 1.99 (p=0.009)
aHR unknown DM
1.69 (ACM); HR
clinical DM 1.48
(ACM)
Cohort
N/A
454
Inhospital
mortality
N/A
p=0.0023; (95%
CI: 1.03-1.13)
1.08, aHR per 2
mmol/L increase in
glucose
Berry C, Brett M, Stevenson
K, McMurray JJV, Norrie J.
Nature and prognostic
importance of abnormal
glucose tolerance and
diabetes in acute HF. Heart
2008;94:296-304. (330)
17664189
N/A
N/A
N/A
Anemia
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 159 Blood Transfusions for
Acute Decompensated HF:
Friend or Foe? Garty et al.
Am Heart J 2009;158:6538. (331) 19781427
To assess the
impact of blood
transfusion
among pts with
ADHF
Propensity
score
analysis,
national HF
survey
COPD
Bronchodilator Therapy in
ADHF in Pts without a
History of Chronic
Obstructive Pulmonary
Disease. Singer AJ et al.
Ann Emerg Med. 2008;51:
25-34. (332) 17949853
The association
between inhaled
bronchodilators
and HF pts with
and without
COPD
Registry (AD
HF National
Registry
Emergency
Module
registry)
To determine the
safety and
efficacy of acute
administration of
inhaled beta-2
agonists to pts
with HF
Review;
evidence
synthesis
from
MEDLINE
and
EMBASE
searches
Should acute treatment with
inhaled beta agonists be
withheld from patients with
dyspnea who may have
heart failure? Maak CA et
al. J Emerg Med. 2011
Feb;40(2):135-45. (333)
18572345
Unknown
2335
~85% ischemic
ADHF
N/A
10,978
N/A
ED discharge
diagnosis of
ADHF as a
primary
condition, adult
N/A
N/A
N/A
Chronic HF
admitted for another
reason
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mortality;
39.6 vs.
28.5% in BT
vs. no BT pts
N/A
In hosp 0.08
(95% CI: 0.211.11); 30 d 0.02
(95% CI: 0.130.64); 1 y 0.12
(95% CI: 0.501.09); 4 y 0.29
(95% CI: 0.641.14)
aOR for BT: 0.48;
0.29; 0.74; 0.86
Mortality
(inhospital)
N/A
For pts without
COPD
bronchodilator
use associated
with mortality
(95% CI: 0.67–
1.56);
mechanical
ventilation (95%
CI: 1.21–2.37)
[adjusted,
propensityscored model].
For pts with
COPD, no
significant
difference
N/A
1.02; 1.69
N/A
N/A
N/A
ACM indicates all cause mortality; ADHF, acute decompensated heart failure; BT, blood transfusion; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; DM, diabetes mellitus; ED, emergency department; EMBASE, Excerpta Medica Database; HF, heart failure;
ICU, intensive care unit; MEDLINE, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online; N/A, not applicable; NICE-SUGAR, Normoglycaemia in Intensive Care Evaluation and Survival Using Glucose Algorithm Regulation; pt, patient; and RCT,
randomized control trial.
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. 160 Data Supplement 38. Worsening Renal Function, Mortality and Readmission in Acute HF (Section 8.5)
Study
Name,
Author,
Year
Aim of Study
Study Type
Study Size
Damien
Logeart,
2008 (334)
17651843
Study prevalence,
causes and
consequences of
WRF during
hospitalization for
acute HF
Observational
416 pts admitted for
acute HF
Inclusion Criteria
Pts hospitalized for acute
HF
Exclusion Criteria
Chronic and severe renal
failure (admission SCr >230
μmol/lol/L); cardiogenic
shock or severe low output
requiring inotropic agents
during the hospitalization;
inhospital death
Primary Endpoint
Combined death; first
unscheduled readmission for
HF Outcome during the 6 mo
after discharge was
determined by contacting the
pts or their general
practitioners by telephone.
Secondary Endpoint
N/A
Grace L.
Smith,
2006 (335)
16697315
Estimate
prevalence of renal
impairment in HF
pts and the
magnitude of
associated
mortality risk using
a systematic
review of published
studies.
Meta-analysis
80,098 hospitalized
and nonhospitalized HF pts.
Cohort studies and
secondary analyses of
several RCTs.
Studies with <6 mo follow-up
and a study that defined
renal impairment using ICD9 code but no direct serum
measures
All-cause mortality risks
associated with any renal
impairment (Cr>1.0 mg/dL,
CrCl or estimated eGFR <90
mL/min, or cystatinclopidogrel >1.03 mg/dL)
and moderate to severe
impairment (Cr≥1.5, CrCl or
eGFR <53, or cystatinclopidogrel ≥1.56)
Cardiovascular mortality (all
cardiovascular mortality and
HF or pump failure mortality)
and functional decline by
validated functional status
scales such as NYHA
functional class or activities of
daily living assessment
Marco
Metra,
2008 (336)
18279773
Association
between
hospitalizations for
acute HF and WRF
Observational
318 consecutive pts
admitted for acute
HF.
Diagnosis of acute HF,
as established by the
ESC guidelines;
treatment with an IV
agent, which in all cases
included furosemide with
or without other
vasoactive medications.
Inability to give informed
consent and those with
evidence of ACS, acute
arrhythmia, myocarditis,
valve stenosis, cardiac
tamponade, aortic
dissection, pulmonary
embolism, high output
syndrome or evidence of
non-cardiovascular factors
Cardiac death and urgent,
unplanned hospitalizations
N/A
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Patient Population
Endpoints
161 Statistical Analysis (Results)
WRF occurred in 152 cases (37%), 5±3 d after
admission. Old age, DM, HTN and acute coronary
syndromes increased the risk of WRF. Inhospital
furosemide doses as well as discharge treatment
were similar in WRF and no-WRF pts. Serum
Crelevation was the strongest independent
determinant of a longer hospital stay (p=0.001).
AEs occurred in 158 pts (38%) during follow-up,
with 23 deaths and 135 readmissions. Cox analysis
showed that WRF, transient or not, was an
independent predictor of the risk of death or
readmission (HR: 1.74 95%CI: 1.14–2.68; p=0.01).
A total of 63% of pts had any renal impairment, and
29% had moderate to severe impairment. After
follow-up ≥1 y, 38% of pts with any renal
impairment and 51% with moderate to severe
impairment died vs 24% without. Adjusted allcause mortality was increased with any impairment
(aHR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.53-1.60, p <0.001) and
moderate to severe impairment (aHR: 2.31; 95%
CI: 2.18-2.44, p<0.001). Mortality worsened
incrementally across the range of renal function,
with 15% (95% CI: 14%-17%) increased risk for
every 0.5 mg/dL increase in Crand 7% (95% CI:
4%-10%) increased risk for every 10 mL/min
decrease in eGFR.
53 pts (17%) died and 132 (41%) were
rehospitalized for HF. WRF-Abs-% occurred in 107
(34%) pts. In multivariable survival analysis, WRFAbs-% was an independent predictor of death or
HF rehospitalization (aHR: 1.47; 95%CI: 1.13–1.81;
p=0.024). The independent predictors of WRF-Abs%, evaluated using multivariable logistic
regression, were history of chronic kidney disease
(p=0.002), LVEF (p=0.012), furosemide daily dose
(p=0.03) and NYHA class (p=0.05) on admission.
as main cause of symptoms
development of
complications or undergoing
procedures which may
cause a rise in Cr during the
hospitalization
Cowie MR,
2006
16624834
(337)
To determine the
prevalence and risk
factors for WRF
among pts
hospitalized for
decompensated
HF and the
association with
subsequent
rehospitalization
and mortality.
Observational
299
Age >20 y, documented
history of chronic HF
defined according to the
ESC criteria;
documented evidence of
impaired LVSF, as
demonstrated by an EF
40% on TTE or other
imaging technique on the
index admission or within
the preceding 6 mo
Komukai
K, 2008
18577827
(338)
To investigate
whether renal
dysfunction is
associated with
rehospitalization for
CHF after
successful
discharge
Observational
109 pts
Pts with CHF who had
been admitted and
followed up after
discharge at the
outpatient clinic were
reviewed. CHF was
diagnosed by ≥2
cardiologists on the basis
of the Framingham
criteria
Akhter
MW, 2004
15464689
(339)
Evaluate the
relation between
elevated SCr at
baseline, as well as
WRF during
hospitalization, and
Secondary
analysis of the
VMAC trial
481 (215 had RI and
266 did not)
Patients with dyspnea at
rest caused by acute HF
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Pts with a planned discharge
within 24 h of admission; an
investigator-defined history
of ACS or cardiogenic shock
within 1 mo prior to the index
admission; receiving a new
prescription for potentially
nephrotoxic drugs within 2 d
prior to admission; severe
aortic stenosis, valvular
disease anticipated to
require surgery within 6 mo,
‘high output’ cardiac failure,
or those undergoing chronic
renal replacement therapy or
cancer chemotherapy
HF complicated by acute MI,
undergoing or starting
dialysis during the follow-up
period, or undergoning
cardiac surgery during the
follow-up period
N/A
All-cause mortality during the
initial hospitalization and
within
30+7 d and 180+7 d of the
index hospitalization; date
and cause of subsequent
hospital re-admissions
were also recorded.
N/A
1/3 of pts [72 of 248 pts, 29% (95% CI: 26-32%)]
developed WRF during hospitalization. The risk of
WRF was independently associated with SCr levels
on admission (OR: 3.02, 95% CI: 1.58-5.76),
pulmonary edema OR: 3.35, 95% CI: 1.79-6.27,
and a history of AF: OR 0.35: 95% CI: 0.18-0.67.
Although the mortality of WRF pts was not
increased significantly, the length of stay was 2 d
longer [median 11 d (90% range (4-41) vs 9 d (434), p=0.006]. The rehospitalization rate was
similar in both groups.
Rehospitalization for HF
after discharge
N/A
Length of hospitalization, 30
d readmission rate as well as
30-d and 6-mo mortality
N/A
Pts with decreased renal function (estimated GFR
on admission <45ml Emin.1 E1.73m2) were
rehospitalized more frequently than were pts with
preserved renal function (estimated GFR on
admission .45). Pts with decreased renal function
were older and had higher rates of anemia, WRF
during hospitalization, and previous HF
hospitalization. Independent predictors of
rehospitalization for HF identified with multivariate
analysis were age, previous hospitalization for HF,
decreased renal function, and non-use of an ACEI
or ARB.
Elevated baseline Cr was associated with length of
hospital stay (median 6 vs 7 d, p=0.003). RI was
associated with a 59% increase in 30-d
readmissions (17% vs 27%, p=0.016). Higher Cr
on admission was associated with both morbidity
and mortality. All-cause mortality at 6 mo increased
162 outcomes pts
hospitalized for
decompensated
HF in the VMAC
trial
(37.4% vs 12.3%, p <0.0001). Baseline RI was an
independent predictor of 6-mo mortality with a RR:
2.72; 95% CI 1.76-4.21; p=0.0001.
Nohria A,
2008
18371557
(340)
Examine the
ESCAPE
database to assess
the impact of renal
dysfunction in
patients with acute
HF
Secondary
analysis of the
ESCAPE trial
A total of 433 pts
were enrolled at 26
sites
LVEF ≤30%, recent
hospitalization or
escalation of outpatient
diuretic therapy, and
SBP ≤125 mm Hg who
were admitted to the
hospital with at least 1
sign and 1 symptom of
HF, despite adequate
treatment with ACEIs
and diuretics
Owan et
al., 2006
16679257
Whether the
severity of renal
dysfunction, the
incidence of WRF
or outcomes has
changed over time
(secular trends) in
pts hospitalized for
HF therapy.
To determine the
incidence and
identify factors
associated with the
development of
worsening renal
function in elderly
patients with acute
HF and to examine
the impact of WRF
on clinical and
economic
outcomes.
Observational
6440
All consecutive HF pts
admitted to Mayo Clinic
hospitals in Rochester,
MN, between January 1,
1987, and December 31,
2002
Retrospecrive
1,681 pts from 18
Connecticut
hospitals
Age ≥65 y; discharge
with HF without having
clear precipitants for
renal dysfunction
Krumholz,
2000
10781761
(341)
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. Creatinine >3.5 mg/dL, the
use of dobutamine/dopamine
>3 μg/kg/min or milrinone
before randomization, and
requirement for early right
heart catheterization.
N/A
Pts <65 y of age; pts whose
diagnosis could not be
validated by medical record
review, pts with severe aortic
stenosis, severe mitral
stenosis, or HF secondary to
a medical illness (e.g.,
sepsis); major complications
(stroke, acute MI shock,
heart arrest, hypotension,
pneumonia, and infection) or
underwent a cardiac
procedure requiring contrast
(cardiac catheterization or
angioplasty) or bypass
D alive and out of the
hospital for 6 mo after
randomization
30-d mortality and length of
stay
Change in the incidence of
WRF or outcomes over time
N/A
The outcome variable for the
first phase of the study was
worsening renal function,
defined as in the ELITE
study as an increase in SCr
level during hospitalization of
>0.3 mg/dL from admission.
The principal endpoints for
the 2nd phase of the study
were inhospital mortality,
length of stay and cost, 30-d
mortality and readmission,
and 6-mo mortality and
readmission
N/A
163 Baseline and discharge RI, but not WRF, were
associated with an increased risk of death and
death or rehospitalization. Among the
hemodynamic parameters measured in pts
randomized to the PAC arm (n=194), only right
atrial pressure correlated weakly with baseline SCr
(r=0.165; p=0.03). There was no correlation
between baseline hemodynamics or change in
hemodynamics and WRF. A PAC-guided strategy
was associated with less average increase in Cr,
but did not decrease the incidence of defined WRF
during hospitalization or affect renal function after
discharge relative to clinical assessment alone.
The incidence of WRF, defined as an increase in
Crof >0.3 mg/dL increased slightly over the study
period (p=0.01). Renal dysfunction and
development of WRF were associated with
mortality. When adjusted for the changes in
baseline characteristics, later admission year was
associated with lower 3-mo (aOR: 0.98 per y; 95%
CI: 0.96–0.99; p=0.008) and overall mortality (HR:
0.99 per y; 95% CI 0.98–1.00; p 0.002).
WRF occurred in 28% of the cohort and was
associated with male gender, HTN, rales > basilar,
pulse >100 beats/min, SBP >200 mm Hg, and
admission Cr>1.5 mg/dL. Based on the number of
these factors, a pt’s risk for developing WRF
ranged between 16% (≤1 factor) and 53% (≥5
factors). After adjusting for confounding effects,
WRF was associated with a significantly longer
length of stay by 2.3 d, higher inhospital cost by
$1,758, and an increased risk of inhospital mortality
(aOR:2.72; 95% CI:1.62-4.58)
surgery during
hospitalization
Forman ,
2004
14715185
(342)
To determine the
prevalence of WRF
among hospitalized
HF pts, clinical
predictors of WRF,
and hospital
outcomes
associated with
WRF.
Cohort
(retrospective)
1,004
© American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association, Inc. HF pts hospitalized
between July 1, 1997,
and June 30, 1998, at 11
academic medical
centers.
Pts were excluded if their
hospitalizations were for an
elective procedure (e.g.,
percutaneous transluminal
coronary angioplasty,
pacemaker, or cardioversion)
or if their hospital length of
stay was <2 d. Other
exclusion criteria included
severe aortic stenosis,
anticipated cardiac
transplantation, transfer from
another inhospital setting,
chronic dialysis, use of a LV
assist device, high-output
HF, age <20 y, concomitant
use of an investigational
product or device, and
patients receiving
chemotherapy. Subjects
were also excluded if
Crvalues were not
documented at admission.
The principal outcome was
WRF, defined as an increase
in SCr of >0.3 mg/dL (26.5
μmol/L) from admission,
consistent with several
previous investigations;
hospital length of stay,
inhospital mortality, and
complications occurring after
the rise in creatinine.
Complications were defined
as shock, MI, stroke, major
infection/sepsis, clinically
significant hypotension, and
new onset AF with
ventricular rates >100
beats/min.
164 N/A
Among 1,004 HF pts studied, WRF developed in
27%. In the majority of cases, WRF occurred within
3 d of admission. History of HF or DM, admission
Cr≥1.5 mg/dL (132.6 μmol/L), and SBP >160 mm
Hg were independently associated with higher risk
of WRF. A point score based on these
characteristics and their RR ratios predicted those
at risk for WRF. Hospital deaths aRR: 7.5; 95% CI:
2.9-19.3), complications (aRR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.53.0), and length of hospitalizations >10 d (aRR: 3.2,
95% CI: 2.2-4.9) were greater among pts with WRF
Klein,
2008
19808267
(343)
To investigate the
relation between
admission values
and changes in
BUN and eGFR
and rate of death
by 60 d after
discharge
R