ObjectiveEstimating survival can aid care planning, but the use of absolute survival projections can be challenging for patients and clinicians to contextualise. We aimed to define how heart failure and its major comorbidities contribute to loss of actuarially predicted life expectancy.MethodsWe conducted an observational cohort study of 1794 adults with stable chronic heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, recruited from cardiology outpatient departments of four UK hospitals. Data from an 11-year maximum (5-year median) follow-up period (999 deaths) were used to define how heart failure and its major comorbidities impact on survival, relative to an age–sex matched control UK population, using a relative survival framework.ResultsAfter 10 years, mortality in the reference control population was 29%. In people with heart failure, this increased by an additional 37% (95% CI 34% to 40%), equating to an additional 2.2 years of lost life or a 2.4-fold (2.2–2.5) excess loss of life. This excess was greater in men than women (2.4 years (2.2–2.7) vs 1.6 years (1.2–2.0); p<0.001). In patients without major comorbidity, men still experienced excess loss of life, while women experienced less and were non-significantly different from the reference population (1 year (0.6–1.5) vs 0.4 years (−0.3 to 1); p<0.001). Accrual of comorbidity was associated with substantial increases in excess lost life, particularly for diabetes, chronic kidney and lung disease.ConclusionsComorbidity accounts for the majority of lost life expectancy in people with heart failure. Women, but not men, without comorbidity experience survival close to reference controls.

No abstract

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a chronic, progressive disease that has detrimental consequences on a patient's quality of life (QoL). In part due to requirements for market access and licensing, the assessment of current and future treatments focuses on reducing mortality and hospitalizations. Few drugs are available principally for their symptomatic effect despite the fact that most patients' symptoms persist or worsen over time and an acceptance that the survival gains of modern therapies are mitigated by poorly controlled symptoms. Additional contributors to the failure to focus on symptoms could be the result of under-reporting of symptoms by patients and carers and a reliance on insensitive symptomatic categories in which patients frequently remain despite additional therapies. Hence, formal symptom assessment tools, such as questionnaires, can be useful prompts to encourage more fidelity and reproducibility in the assessment of symptoms. This scoping review explores for the first time the assessment options and management of common symptoms in CHF with a focus on patient-reported outcome tools. The integration of patient-reported outcomes for symptom assessment into the routine of a CHF clinic could improve the monitoring of disease progression and QoL, especially following changes in treatment or intervention with a targeted symptom approach expected to improve QoL and patient outcomes.

Background Observational studies investigating risk factors in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not considered the confounding effects of advanced care planning, such that a valid picture of risk for elderly, frail and multi-morbid patients is unknown. We aimed to report ceiling of care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) decisions and their association with demographic and clinical characteristics as well as outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Retrospective, observational study conducted between 5th March and 7th May 2020 of all hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Ceiling of care and CPR decisions were documented using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process. Unadjusted and multivariable regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with ceiling of care decisions and death during hospitalisation. Results A total of 485 patients were included, of whom 409 (84·3%) had a documented ceiling of care; level one for 208 (50·9%), level two for 75 (18·3%) and level three for 126 (30·8%). CPR decisions were documented for 451 (93·0%) of whom 336 (74·5%) were ‘not for resuscitation’. Advanced age, frailty, White-European ethnicity, a diagnosis of any co-morbidity and receipt of cardiovascular medications were associated with ceiling of care decisions. In a multivariable model only advanced age (odds 0·89, 0·86–0·93 p < 0·001), frailty (odds 0·48, 0·38–0·60, p < 0·001) and the cumulative number of co-morbidities (odds 0·72, 0·52–1·0, p = 0·048) were independently associated. Death during hospitalisation was independently associated with age, frailty and requirement for level two or three care. Conclusion Ceiling of care decisions were made for the majority of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, broadly in line with known predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19, but with a focus on co-morbidities suggesting ICU admission might not be a reliable end-point for observational studies where advanced care planning is routine.

Aims Current guidelines recommend that disease-modifying pharmacological therapies may be considered for patients who have heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). We aimed to describe the characteristics, outcomes, provision of pharmacological therapies and dose-related associations with mortality risk in HFmrEF. Methods and results We explored data from two prospective observational studies, which permitted the examination of the effects of pharmacological therapies across a broad spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The combined dataset consisted of 2388 unique patients, with a mean age of 73.7 ± 13.2 years of whom 1525 (63.9%) were male. LVEF ranged from 5 to 71% (mean 37.2 ± 12.8%) and 1504 (63.0%) were categorised as having reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), 421 (17.6%) as HFmrEF and 463 (19.4%) as preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Patients with HFmrEF more closely resembled HFrEF than HFpEF. Adjusted all-cause mortality risk was lower in HFmrEF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74–0.99); p = 0.040) and in HFpEF (HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.52–0.71); p < 0.001) compared to HFrEF. Adjusted all-cause mortality risk was lower in patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF who received the highest doses of beta-blockers or renin-angiotensin inhibitors. These associations were not evident in HFpEF. Once adjusted for relevant confounders, each mg equivalent of bisoprolol (HR 0.95 [95% CI 0.91–1.00]; p = 0.047) and ramipril (HR 0.95 [95%CI 0.90–1.00]; p = 0.044) was associated with incremental reductions in mortality risk in patients with HFmrEF. Conclusions Pharmacological therapies were associated with lower mortality risk in HFmrEF, supporting guideline recommendations which extend the indications of these agents to all patients with LVEF < 50%. Graphic abstract HFmrEF more closely resembles HFrEF in terms of clinical characteristics and outcomes. Pharmacological therapies are associated with lower mortality risk in HFmrEF and HFrEF, but not in HFpEF.

Aims An increasing proportion of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have co-morbidities. The effect of these co-morbidities on modes of death and the effect of disease-modifying agents in multi-morbid patients is unknown. Methods and results We performed a prospective cohort study of ambulatory patients with HFrEF to assess predictors of outcomes. We identified four key co-morbidities-ischaemic aetiology of heart failure, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and chronic kidney disease (CKD)-that were highly prevalent and associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. We used these data to explore modes of death and the utilization of disease-modifying agents in patients with and without these co-morbidities. The cohort included 1789 consecutively recruited patients who had an average age of 69.6 ± 12.5 years, and 1307 (73%) were male. Ischaemic aetiology of heart failure was the most common comorbidity, occurring in 1061 (59%) patients; 503 (28%) patients had diabetes mellitus, 283 (16%) had COPD, and 140 (8%) had CKD stage IV/V. During mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 1.6 years, 737 (41.5%) patients died, classified as progressive heart failure (n = 227, 32%), sudden (n = 112, 16%), and non-cardiovascular deaths (n = 314, 44%). Multi-morbid patients were older (P < 0.001), more likely to be male (P < 0.001), and had higher New York Heart Association class (P < 0.001), despite having higher left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (P = 0.001) and lower LV end-diastolic diameter (P = 0.001). Multi-morbid patients were prescribed lower doses of disease-modifying agents, especially patients with COPD who received lower doses of beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (2.7 ± 3.0 vs. 4.1 ± 3.4 mg, P < 0.001) and were less likely to be implanted with internal cardioverter defibrillators (7% vs. 13%, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, COPD and diabetes mellitus conferred a >2.5-fold and 1.5-fold increased risk of sudden death, whilst higher doses of beta-adrenoceptor antagonists were protective (hazard ratio per milligram 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.86-0.98, P = 0.009). Each milligram of bisoprolol-equivalent betaadrenoceptor antagonist was associated with 9% (P = 0.001) and 11% (P = 0.023) reduction of sudden deaths in patients with <2 and ≥2 co-morbidities, respectively. Conclusions Higher doses of beta-adrenoceptor antagonist are associated with greater protection from sudden death, most evident in multi-morbid patients. Patients with COPD who appear to be at the highest risk of sudden death are prescribed the lowest doses and less likely to be implanted with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, which might represent a missed opportunity to optimize safe and proven therapies for these patients.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Aims Understanding of the pathophysiology of progressive heart failure (HF) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is incomplete. We sought to identify factors differentially associated with risk of progressive HF death and hospitalization in patients with HFpEF compared with patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and resultsProspective cohort study of patients newly referred to secondary care with suspicion of HF, based on symptoms and signs of HF and elevated natriuretic peptides (NP), followed up for a minimum of 6 years. HFpEF and HFrEF were diagnosed according to the 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Of 960 patients referred, 467 had HFpEF (49%), 311 had HFrEF (32%), and 182 (19%) had neither. Atrial fibrillation (AF) was found in 37% of patients with HFpEF and 34% with HFrEF. During 6 years follow-up, 19% of HFrEF and 14% of HFpEF patients were hospitalized or died due to progressive HF, hazard ratio (HR) 0.67 (95% CI: 0.47-0.96; P = 0.028). AF was the only marker that was differentially associated with progressive HF death or hospitalization in patients with HFpEF HR 2.58 (95% CI: 1.59-4.21; P < 0.001) versus HFrEF HR 1.11 (95% CI: 0.65-1.89; P = 0.7). Conclusions De novo patients diagnosed with HFrEF have greater risk of death or hospitalization due to progressive HF than patients with HFpEF. AF is associated with increased risk of progressive HF death or hospitalization in HFpEF but not HFrEF, raising the intriguing possibility that this may be a novel therapeutic target in this growing population.