Association of Serial Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Assessments With Death and Hospitalization in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Secondary Analysis of 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.
ABSTRACT: Importance:While there is increasing emphasis on incorporating patient-reported outcome measures in routine care for patients with heart failure (HF), how best to interpret longitudinally collected patient-reported outcome measures is unknown. Objective:To examine the strength of association between prior, current, or a change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores with death and hospitalization in patients with HF with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fractions. Design, Setting, and Participants:Secondary analyses of the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial of 1372 patients with HFpEF, conducted between August 2006 and January 2012, and the HF-ACTION trial that included 1669 patients with HFrEF, conducted between April 2003 and February 2007. Exposures:Prior, current, and change in KCCQ Overall Summary scores (KCCQ-os) in 5-point increments (higher scores indicate better health status). Main Outcomes and Measures:Time to cardiovascular death/first HF hospitalization (primary outcome) and all-cause death (secondary outcome). Results:Of 1767 eligible TOPCAT participants, 882 were women (49.9%), and the mean (SD) age was 71.5 (9.7) years. Of 2130 eligible HF-ACTION participants, 599 were women (28.1%), and the mean age was 58.6 (12.7) years. Each 5-point difference in prior or current KCCQ-os scores was associated with a 6% (95% CI, 4%-8%; P?
Project description:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are relevant independent outcomes in heart failure (HF) care and are predictive of subsequent hospitalization and death in HF. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) are the 2 most widely adopted PROMs specific to HF. We compared their prognostic abilities in a prospective cohort of HF patients. A prospective cohort of subjects from a single-center registry was analyzed with regard to baseline KCCQ and MLHFQ scores and the outcomes of death, transplant, or left ventricular assist device implantation and hospitalization. A total of 516 subjects with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 151 subjects with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF) were included. Discrimination was assessed using c-statistics based on time-to-event analyses and receiver-operator curves. The additive contribution of MLHFQ was assessed through the change in c-statistic, incremental discrimination index, and category-free net reclassification index. Overall, KCCQ was superior to MLHFQ for predicting death/transplant/ventricular assist device (c-statistic 0.702 [0.666 to 0.738] and 0.658 [0.621 to 0.695] respectively, p value for difference <0.001) and hospitalization (c-statistic 0.640 [0.613 to 0.666] and 0.624 [0.597 to 0.651], respectively, p value for difference 0.022). However, this difference was statistically nonsignificant in the HFpEF group alone. When analyzing the additional prognostic information afforded by adding MLHFQ to KCCQ in the overall, HFrEF, and HFpEF groups there was no significant improvement, although adding KCCQ to MLHFQ did significantly improve risk stratification. Scoring based upon the abbreviated KCCQ-12 did not reduce the prognostic accuracy of KCCQ. In conclusion, KCCQ is more prognostic of death/transplant/left ventricular assist device and hospitalization than MLHFQ in a combined cohort of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, although the effect in HFpEF was less pronounced. KCCQ should be the preferred PROM for patients with HF if prognostication is a desired goal of using the PROMs.
Project description:AIMS:The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) is a widely used patient-reported outcome measure in heart failure (HF). The KCCQ was validated in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), leaving knowledge gaps regarding its applicability in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This study addresses the psychometric properties of internal consistency and reliability, construct, and known-group validity of KCCQ in both HFrEF and HFpEF. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the KCCQ and their prognostic significance in HFpEF and HFrEF, within a large prospective multinational HF cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS:We examined the 23-item KCCQ in the prospective multinational ASIAN-HF study [4470 HFrEF (ejection fraction <40%); 921 HFpEF (ejection fraction ?50%)]. Internal consistency (using Cronbach's alpha) showed high reliability in HFrEF and HFpeF: functional status score: 0.89 and 0.91 and clinical summary score: 0.89 and 0.90, respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis in HFrEF validated the five original domains of KCCQ (physical function, symptoms, self-efficacy, social limitation, and quality of life); in HFpEF, questions measuring physical function and social limitation had strong correlation (r = 0.66) and different domains emerged. We proposed an additional physical independence summary score, especially in HFpEF (comprising the original physical function and social limitation domains), which showed good internal consistency (? = 0.89) and has comparable receiver operating characteristic curve 0.766 ± 0.037 with the clinical summary score (receiver operating characteristic curve 0.774 ± 0.037), in predicting 1 year death and/or HF hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS:Our results confirmed the robustness of the KCCQ clinical summary score in HF regardless of ejection fraction group. In the assessment of physical capacity in HFpEF, our results suggest strong interaction with social limitation, and we propose a summary score comprising both components be used.
Project description:AIMS:The aim of this study is to use six previously described heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) phenotypes to describe differences in (i) the biological response to spironolactone, (ii) clinical endpoints, and (iii) patient-reported health status by HFpEF phenotype and treatment arm in the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist Trial (TOPCAT). METHODS AND RESULTS:We analysed 1767 patients in TOPCAT from the Americas. Using 11 clinical variables, patients were classified according to six HFpEF phenotypes previously identified in the I-PRESERVE and CHARM-Preserved studies. Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) measured health status. All phenotypes showed increase in potassium with spironolactone, although only three phenotypes showed significant increase in creatinine, and two phenotypes showed significant decrease in systolic blood pressure. Rate of the TOPCAT primary outcome (cardiovascular death, aborted cardiac arrest, or heart failure hospitalization) differed by HFpEF phenotype (P < 0.001) but not by treatment arm within each HFpEF phenotype. Baseline KCCQ score differed by HFpEF phenotype (P < 0.001), although some phenotypes with poor health status had lower rates of the TOPCAT primary outcome, and some phenotypes with better health status had higher rates of the TOPCAT primary outcome. However, within 3/6 phenotypes, higher baseline KCCQ score was associated with lower risk of the TOPCAT primary outcome. Change in KCCQ scores at 4 and 12 months did not differ among HFpEF phenotypes overall or by treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS:Complex, data-driven HFpEF phenotypes differ according to biological response to spironolactone, baseline health status, and clinical endpoints. These differences may inform the design of targeted clinical trials focusing on improvement in outcomes most relevant for specific HFpEF phenotypes.
Project description:Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved (HFpEF) or borderline preserved ejection fraction (HFbEF) outnumber patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but limited data exist on outcomes in community-based populations of these patients. We examined clinical outcomes in a diverse population of adults with HFrEF, HFbEF, and HFpEF. All adults with diagnosed HF from 2005 to 2012 in Kaiser Permanente Northern California were categorized by left ventricular systolic function as HFpEF (EF ?50%), HFbEF (EF 41-49%), or HFrEF (EF ?40%). Demographics, clinical characteristics, and therapies were obtained from electronic records. Outcomes included death, HF hospitalization, and HF-related emergency department (ED) visit. In 28,914 eligible HF patients, there were 52% HFpEF, 16% HFbEF, and 32% HFrEF, with mean age 72.8 years and 45% women. During median follow-up of 3.5 years, crude rates (per 100 person-years) of death, HF hospitalization, and HF-related ED visit were 14.5 (95% CI 14.3 to 14.7), 15.8 (15.5 to 16.0), and 38.2 (37.8 to 38.5), respectively. Compared with HFrEF patients, adjusted hazard ratios of death, HF hospitalization, and HF-related ED visit for HFpEF patients were 0.82 (0.79 to 0.85), 0.72 (0.68 to 0.75), and 0.94 (0.90 to 0.99), respectively, and for HFbEF patients were 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88), 0.79 (0.73 to 0.84), and 0.90 (0.84 to 0.96), respectively. In conclusion, within a large community-based HF cohort, adjusted rates of death, HF hospitalization, and HF-related ED visits were similar in HFpEF and HFbEF patients, but higher in HFrEF patients. Regardless of systolic function, however, long-term mortality and morbidity in all HF patients remain high, reinforcing the need for novel strategies to improve long-term outcomes.
Project description:BACKGROUND:This study aimed to compare the independent and incremental prognostic value of peak oxygen consumption (VO2) and minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2) in heart failure (HF) with preserved (HFpEF), midrange (HFmEF), and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS:In 195 HFpEF (LVEF ?50%), 144 HFmEF (LVEF 40-49%), and 630 HFrEF (LVEF <40%) patients, we assessed the association of cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables with the composite outcome of death, left ventricular assist device implantation, or heart transplantation (256 events; median follow-up of 4.2 years), and 2-year incident HF hospitalization (244 events). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, greater association with outcomes in HFpEF than HFrEF were noted with peak VO2 (HR [95% confidence interval]: 0.76 [0.67-0.87] versus 0.87 [0.83-0.90] for the composite outcome, Pinteraction=0.052; 0.77 [0.69-0.86] versus 0.92 [0.88-0.95], respectively for HF hospitalization, Pinteraction=0.003) and VE/VCO2 slope (1.11 [1.06-1.17] versus 1.04 [1.03-1.06], respectively for the composite outcome, Pinteraction=0.012; 1.10 [1.05-1.15] versus 1.04 [1.03-1.06], respectively for HF hospitalization, Pinteraction=0.019). In HFmEF, peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope were associated with the composite outcome (0.79 [0.70-0.90] and 1.12 [1.05-1.19], respectively), while only peak VO2 was related to HF hospitalization (0.81 [0.72-0.92]). In HFpEF and HFrEF, peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope provided incremental prognostic value beyond clinical variables based on the C-statistic, net reclassification improvement, and integrated diagnostic improvement, with models containing both measures demonstrating the greatest incremental value. CONCLUSIONS:Both peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope provided incremental value beyond clinical characteristics and LVEF for predicting outcomes in HFpEF. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables provided greater risk discrimination in HFpEF than HFrEF.
Project description:The prognostic impact of long-term glycemic variability on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains unclear. We determined and compared hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) variability and clinical outcomes for patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in a prospective longitudinal study.Patients with HF and T2DM, undergone 3 or more HbA1c determinations during the first 18 months, were then followed for 42 months. The primary outcome was death from any cause. Secondary outcome was composite endpoints with death and HF hospitalization. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare outcomes for patients with HFpEF, HFmrEF and HFrEF.Of 902 patients enrolled, 32.2% had HFpEF, 14.5% HFmrEF, and 53.3% HFrEF. During 42 months of follow-up, 270 (29.9%) patients died and 545 (60.4%) patients experienced composite endpoints of death and HF readmission. The risk of all-cause death or composite endpoints was lower for HFpEF than HFrEF. Moreover, higher HbA1c variability was associated with higher all-cause mortality or composite endpoints and HbA1c variability was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality or composite endpoints, regardless of EF.This prospective longitudinal study showed that the all-cause death and composite events was lower for HFpEF than HFrEF. HbA1c variability was independently and similarly predictive of death or combined endpoints in the three HF phenotypes.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This observational study aimed to examine the prognostic association of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) in different left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) categories. METHODS:In 3717 patients enrolled in the KCHF Registry, a multicentre registry including consecutive patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF), we assessed patient characteristics and association between ACE-I/ARB and clinical outcomes according to LVEF. In the three LVEF categories (reduced LVEF [HFrEF], mid-range LVEF [HFmrEF] and preserved LVEF [HFpEF]), we compared the patients with ACE-I/ARB as discharge medication and those without, and assessed their 1-year clinical outcomes. We defined the primary outcome measure as a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization. RESULTS:The 1-year cumulative incidences of the primary outcome measure were 36.3% in HFrEF, 30.1% in HFmrEF and 33.8% in HFpEF (log-rank P = 0.07). The adjusted risks of the ACE-I/ARB group relative to the no ACE-I/ARB group for the primary outcome measure were significantly lower in HFrEF and HFmrEF (HR 0.66 [95%CI 0.54-0.79], P<0.001, and HR 0.61 [0.45-0.82], P = 0.001, respectively), but not in HFpEF (HR 0.95 [0.80-1.14], P = 0.61). There was a significant interaction between the LVEF category and the ACE-I/ARB use on the primary outcome measure (Pinteraction = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:ACE-I/ARB for patients who were hospitalized for acute HF was associated with significantly lower risk for a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization in HFrEF and HFmrEF, but not in HFpEF. ACE-I/ARB might be a potential treatment option in HFmrEF as in HFrEF.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:This study sought to investigate sex differences in outcomes and responses to spironolactone in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). BACKGROUND:HFpEF affects women more frequently than men. Sex differences in responses to effects of mineralocorticoid antagonists have not been reported. METHODS:This was an exploratory, post hoc, non-pre-specified analysis of the TOPCAT (Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy for Adults With Heart Failure and Preserved Systolic Function) trial. Subjects with symptomatic HF and a left ventricular ejection fraction ?45% were randomized to spironolactone or placebo therapy. Subjects enrolled from the Americas were analyzed. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, cardiac arrest, or HF hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, CV, and non-CV mortality and CV, HF, and non-CV hospitalization. Sex differences in outcomes and treatment effects were determined using time-to-event analysis. RESULTS:In total, 882 of 1,767 subjects (49.9%) were women. Women were older with fewer comorbidities but worse patient-reported outcomes. There were no sex differences in outcomes in the placebo arm or in response to spironolactone for the primary outcome or its components. Spironolactone therapy was associated with reduced all-cause mortality in women (hazard ratio: 0.66; p = 0.01) but not in men (pinteraction = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:In TOPCAT, women and men presented with different clinical profiles and similar clinical outcomes. The interaction between spironolactone and sex in TOPCAT overall and in the present analysis was nonsignificant for the primary outcome, but there was a reduction in all-cause mortality associated with spironolactone therapy in women, with a significant interaction between sex and treatment arm. Prospective evaluation is needed to determine whether spironolactone therapy may be effective for treatment of HFpEF in women. (Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy for Adults With Heart Failure and Preserved Systolic Function [TOPCAT]; NCT00094302).
Project description:Objective:To assess the effects of comorbidities, fragility, and quality of life (QOL) on long-term prognosis in ambulatory patients with heart failure (HF) with midrange left ventricular ejection fraction (HFmrEF), an unexplored area. Patients and Methods:Consecutive patients prospectively evaluated at an HF clinic between August 1, 2001, and December 31, 2015, were retrospectively analyzed on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction category. We compared patients with HFmrEF (n=185) to those with reduced (HFrEF; n=1058) and preserved (HFpEF; n=162) ejection fraction. Fragility was defined as 1 or more abnormal evaluations on 4 standardized geriatric scales (Barthel Index, Older Americans Resources and Services scale, Pfeiffer Test, and abbreviated-Geriatric Depression Scale). The QOL was assessed with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. A comorbidity score (0-7) was constructed. All-cause death, HF-related hospitalization, and the composite end point of both were assessed. Results:Comorbidities and QOL scores were similar in HFmrEF (2.41±1.5 and 30.1±18.3, respectively) and HFrEF (2.30±1.4 and 30.8±18.5, respectively) and were higher in HFpEF (3.02±1.5, P<.001, and 36.5±20.7, P=.003, respectively). No statistically significant differences in fragility between HFmrEF (48.6%) and HFrEF (41.9%) (P=.09) nor HFpEF (54.3%) (P=.29) were found. In univariate analysis, the association of comorbidities, QOL, and fragility with the 3 end points was higher for HFmrEF than for HFrEF and HFpEF. In multivariate analysis, comorbidities were independently associated with the 3 end points (P?.001), and fragility was independently associated with all-cause death and the composite end point (P<.001) in HFmrEF. Conclusion:Comorbidities and fragility are independent predictors of outcomes in ambulatory patients with HFmrHF and should be considered in the routine clinical assessment of HFmrEF.
Project description:Despite the growing epidemic of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), no valid measure of patients' health status (symptoms, function, and quality of life) exists. We evaluated the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), a validated measure of HF with reduced EF, in patients with HFpEF.Using a prospective HF registry, we dichotomized patients into HF with reduced EF (EF? 40) and HFpEF (EF?50). The associations between New York Heart Association class, a commonly used criterion standard, and KCCQ Overall Summary and Total Symptom domains were evaluated using Spearman correlations and 2-way ANOVA with differences between patients with HF with reduced EF and HFpEF tested with interaction terms. Predictive validity of the KCCQ Overall Summary scores was assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves for death and all-cause hospitalization. Covariate adjustment was made using Cox proportional hazards models. Internal reliability was assessed with Cronbach's ?. Among 849 patients, 200 (24%) had HFpEF. KCCQ summary scores were strongly associated with New York Heart Association class in both patients with HFpEF (r=-0.62; P<0.001) and HF with reduced EF (r=-0.55; P=0.27 for interaction). One-year event-free rates by KCCQ category among patients with HFpEF were 0 to 25=13.8%, 26 to 50=59.1%, 51 to 75=73.8%, and 76 to 100=77.8% (log rank P<0.001), with no significant interaction by EF (P=0.37). The KCCQ domains demonstrated high internal consistency among patients with HFpEF (Cronbach's ?=0.96 for overall summary and ?0.69 in all subdomains).Among patients with HFpEF, the KCCQ seems to be a valid and reliable measure of health status and offers excellent prognostic ability. Future studies should extend and replicate our findings, including the establishment of its responsiveness to clinical change.