The latest medical research on Heart Failure

Quantifying guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) intensity is foundational for improving heart failure (HF) care. Existing measures discount dose intensity or use inconsistent weighting.

The Kansas City Medical Optimization (KCMO) score is the average of total daily to target dose percentages for eligible GDMT, reflecting the percentage of optimal GDMT prescribed (range, 0-100). In Change the Management of Patients With HF, we computed KCMO, HF collaboratory (0-7), and modified HF Collaboratory (0-100) scores for each patient at baseline and for 1-year change in established GDMT at the time (mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, β-blocker, ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor). We compared baseline and 1-year change distributions and the coefficient of variation (SD/mean) across scores.

Among 4532 patients at baseline, mean KCMO, HF collaboratory, and modified HF Collaboratory scores were 38.8 (SD, 25.7), 3.4 (1.7), and 42.2 (22.2), respectively. The mean 1-year change (n=4061) for KCMO was -1.94 (17.8); HF collaborator, -0.11 (1.32); and modified HF Collaboratory, -1.35 (19.8). KCMO had the highest coefficient of variation (0.66), indicating greater variability around the mean than the HF collaboratory (0.49) and modified HF Collaboratory (0.53) scores, reflecting higher resolution of the variability in GDMT intensity across patients.

KCMO measures GDMT intensity by incorporating dosing and treatment eligibility, provides more granularity than existing methods, is easily interpretable (percentage of ideal GDMT), and can be adapted as performance measures evolve. Further study of its association with outcomes and its usefulness for quality assessment and improvement is needed.

When out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) becomes refractory, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a potential option to restore circulation and improve the patient's outcome. However, ECPR requires specific materials and highly skilled personnel, and it is unclear whether increased survival and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) justify these costs.

This cost-effectiveness study was part of the INCEPTION study, a multicenter, pragmatic randomized trial comparing hospital-based ECPR to conventional CPR (CCPR) in patients with refractory OHCA in 10 cardiosurgical centers in the Netherlands. We analyzed healthcare costs in the first year and measured HRQOL using the EQ-5D-5L at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio's (ICER), cost-effectiveness planes, and acceptability curves were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed for per-protocol and as-treated subgroups as well as imputed productivity loss in deceased patients.

In total 132 patients were enrolled: 62 in the CCPR and 70 in the ECPR group. The difference in mean costs after one year was €5,109 (95%CI -7,264-15,764). Mean QALY after one year was 0.15 in the ECPR group and 0.11 in the CCPR group, resulting in an ICER of €121,643 per additional QALY gained. The acceptability curve shows that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80.000, the probability of ECPR being cost-effective compared to CCPR is 36%. Sensitivity analysis showed increasing ICER in the per-protocol and as-treated groups and lower probabilities of acceptance.

Hospital-based ECPR in refractory OHCA has a low probability of being cost-effective in a trial-based economic evaluation.

The development of tools to support shared decision-making should be informed by patients' decisional needs and treatment preferences, which are largely unknown for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) pharmacotherapy decisions. We aimed to identify patients' decisional needs when considering HFrEF medication options.

This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. We recruited patients with HFrEF from 2 Canadian ambulatory HF clinics and clinicians from Canadian HF guideline panels, HF clinics, and Canadian HF Society membership. We identified themes through inductive thematic analysis.

Participants included 15 patients and 12 clinicians. Six themes and associated subthemes emerged related to HFrEF pharmacotherapy decision-making: (1) patient decisional needs included lack of awareness of a choice or options, difficult decision timing and stage, information overload, and inadequate motivation, support and resources; (2) patients' decisional conflict varied substantially, driven by unclear trade-offs; (3) treatment attribute preferences-patients focused on both benefits and downsides of treatment, whereas clinicians centered discussion on benefits; (4) quality of life-patients' definition of quality of life depended on pre-HF activity, though most patients demonstrated adaptability in adjusting their daily activities to manage HF; (5) shared decision-making process-clinicians' described a process more akin to informed consent; (6) decision support-multimedia decision aids, virtual appointments, and primary-care comanagement emerged as potential enablers of shared decision-making.

Patients with HFrEF have several decisional needs, which are consistent with those that may respond to decision aids. These findings can inform the development of HFrEF pharmacotherapy decision aids to address these decisional needs and facilitate shared decision-making.