Why the study?
Although lung-impedance-guided treatment of heart failure was shown to improve clinical outcomes, the mechanism underlying this improved outcome compared with conventional therapy remained to be explored.
Does lung-impedance guided therapy reduce hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality in heart failure patients with LVEF ≤ 45% compared to conventional therapy?
Does lung-impedance guided therapy reduce hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality in heart failure patients with LVEF ≤ 45% compared to conventional therapy?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Lung-impedance guided management in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction allows for earlier diuretic up-titration, leading to reduced pulmonary congestion, heart failure hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality.
Background: Lung-impedance (LI) guided treatment of heart failure (HF) patients was shown to improve clinical outcomes. Objectives: To perform a post-hoc analysis of the IMPEDANCE-HF extended trial in order to explore the mechanism underlying the improved outcome of the LI-guided compared with conventional therapy of HF patients. Methods: The study included 290 HF patients with LVEF≤ 45% randomized 1:1 to LI-guided or conventional therapy. The normal LI (NLI), representing the dry lung status, was calculated upon enrollment. The level of pulmonary congestion (LPC) was represented by ΔLIR= [(measured LI/NLI)-1] × 100%. Results: There were 11473 outpatient visits in the LI-guided group and 10245 visits in the control group during follow-up, or 15.5 and 15.9 visits/patient×year, respectively (p=0.74). The LI-guided patients were on average less congested during follow-up than those in the control group (by 20 %, p<0.01). Multivariate regression analysis showed that the likelihood of hospitalization for HF [hazard ratio (HR): 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-0.72, p<0.01) and of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.83, 95%CI: 0.70-0.98, p=0.03] were lower in the LI-guided group than in the control group. In the LI-guided group, diuretic up-titration was 2-fold more frequent and at an earlier timepoint and at a 21% lower LPC (p<0.01). In both groups the diuretic response was more prominent when up-titration was done at a lower LPC (p<0.01). Conclusion LI-guided diuretic titration prompted earlier, and more frequent diuretic dose increase when the LPC was only beginning to increase and this resulted in a greater decongestive response with better clinical outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shochat et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: