European Journal of Heart Failure最新文献

Aims: The TRANSFORM-HF trial found no difference in clinical outcomes between torsemide versus furosemide after hospitalization for heart failure. This analysis aimed to assess the impact of diuretic dosing on the primary and secondary clinical outcomes.

Methods and results: This post-hoc analysis of TRANSFORM-HF categorized patients into three groups by discharge diuretic dose: (1) ≤40 mg, (2) >40-80 mg, and (3) >80 mg of furosemide equivalents. The associations between discharge dose and 12-month clinical events, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS), were assessed. Overall, 2379 patients were included, aged 65 years (interquartile range 56-75), 883 (37.1%) women, and 812 (34.2%) Black. Furosemide had adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for all-cause mortality of 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.59) for discharge dose group 2 and 1.40 (95% CI 1.04-1.88) for group 3, compared with group 1. For torsemide, aHRs were 1.74 (95% CI 1.32-2.30) for group 2 and 1.58 (95% CI 1.14-2.19) for group 3. No evidence of heterogeneity for the association between increased mortality and higher dose was found by loop diuretic type (p_interaction = 0.17). Higher doses of furosemide and torsemide were associated with increased risk of all-cause hospitalization and the composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization, without evidence of heterogeneity by loop diuretic type (p_interaction > 0.2). Changes in KCCQ-CSS from baseline at 12 months was similar across dose groups for both drugs.

Conclusion: Following hospitalization for heart failure, higher loop diuretic dosing was independently associated with worse clinical and patient-reported outcomes. The correlation between higher loop diuretic dose and outcomes was consistent, regardless of loop diuretic used.

Aims: Pilot studies indicate that immunoadsorption with subsequent IgG substitution (IA/IgG) induces beneficial effects in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and heart failure. This placebo-controlled study investigates whether IA/IgG treatment enhances left ventricular (LV) systolic function as compared to a control group receiving pseudo-treatment.

Methods: This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial aims to include 200 patients with heart failure due to DCM (LV ejection fraction [LVEF] <40%) on optimized guideline-directed heart failure medication. Participants are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to IA/IgG using protein-A columns, or to pseudo-immunoadsorption followed by an intravenous infusion without IgG. Follow-up visits take place by telephone after 1 and 3 months and at the study centres after 6, 12 and 24 months. The primary efficacy endpoint is the change in LVEF from baseline to 6 months determined by contrast echocardiography, analysed at a core lab. In addition, LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes will be analysed as secondary endpoints over the entire study period to assess whether IA/IgG affects LV remodelling. As main secondary outcome, a composite of all-cause death, cardiac resuscitation, hospitalization for heart failure, and need for cardiac surgery to improve myocardial pump function will be evaluated after 24 months. In addition, exploratory outcomes as well as safety endpoints related to the treatment will be assessed throughout the whole study period.

Conclusion: IASO-DCM is a randomized study which will provide comprehensive insights into the effects of immunoadsorption with subsequent IgG substitution in patients with DCM.