4.7 Article

Kidney Function and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 78, Issue 4, Pages 330-343

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.05.002

Keywords

glomerular filtration rate; heart failure; kidney disease; outcomes; therapy

Funding

  1. American Heart Association
  2. Novartis
  3. Boehringer Ingelheim
  4. Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance
  5. Novo Nordisk
  6. Sanofi
  7. AstraZeneca
  8. Bayer
  9. National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [KL2TR001424]
  10. NIH
  11. Amgen
  12. Bristol Myers Squibb
  13. Merck
  14. Pfizer
  15. Duke Clinical Research Institute from the American Heart Association
  16. Intra-Cellular Therapies
  17. American Regent Inc.
  18. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
  19. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
  20. NIH/NHLBI
  21. NIH/National Institute on Aging
  22. Commonwealth Fund
  23. NHLBI [R33HL14332402]
  24. Alnylam
  25. Bellerophon
  26. Celladon
  27. Cytokinetics
  28. Eidos
  29. Gilead
  30. GlaxoSmithKline
  31. Ionis
  32. Lone Star Heart
  33. Mesoblast
  34. MyoKardia
  35. NeuroTronik
  36. Respicardia
  37. Sanofi Pasteur
  38. Theracos
  39. U.S. Food and Drug Administration
  40. Galmed

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the care patterns and outcomes in heart failure patients with different degrees of kidney function. It found that patients with comorbid heart failure and kidney disease are not optimally treated with evidence-based medical therapies, leading to increased mortality risk. Further efforts are needed to mitigate the risks in these patients.
BACKGROUND Few contemporary data exist evaluating care patterns and outcomes in heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of kidney function. OBJECTIVES This study sought to characterize differences in quality of care and outcomes in patients hospitalized for HF by degree of kidney dysfunction. METHODS Guideline-directed medical therapies were evaluated among patients hospitalized with HF at 418 sites in the GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) registry from 2014 to 2019 by discharge CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration)-derived estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). We additionally evaluated the risk-adjusted association of admission eGFR with in-hospital mortality. RESULTS Among 365,494 hospitalizations (age 72 +/- 15 years, left ventricular ejection fraction [EF]: 43 +/- 17%), median discharge eGFR was 51 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (interquartile range: 34 to 72 ml/min/1.73 m(2)), 234,332 (64%) had eGFR <60 ml/ min/1.73 m(2), and 18,869 (5%) were on dialysis. eGFR distribution remained stable from 2014 to 2019. Among 157,439 patients with HF with reduced EF (#40%), discharge guideline-directed medical therapies, including beta-blockers, were lowest in discharge eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or dialysis (p < 0.001). Triple therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor + beta-blocker + mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist was used in 38%, 33%, 25%, 15%, 5%, and 3% for eGFR $90, 60 to 89, 45 to 59, 30 to 44, <30 ml/min/1.73 m(2), and dialysis, respectively; p < 0.001. Mortality was higher in a graded fashion at lower admission eGFR groups (1.1%, 1.5%, 2.0%, 3.0%, 5.0%, and 4.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). Steep covariate-adjusted associations between admission eGFR and mortality were observed across EF subgroups, but was slightly stronger for HF with reduced EF compared with HF with mid-range or preserved EF (p(interaction) = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS Despite facing elevated risks of mortality, patients with comorbid HF with reduced EF and kidney disease are not optimally treated with evidence-based medical therapies, even at levels of eGFR where such therapies would not be contraindicated by kidney dysfunction. Further efforts are required to mitigate risk in comorbid HF and kidney disease. (C) 2021 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available