Patients hospitalized with suspected heart failure have diverse clinical presentations that are associated with significantly different short-term (index-admission) mortality rates, highlighting the need to account for this heterogeneity in clinical trials.
HF heterogeneity may explain repeated trial failures; leaves open whether presentation-specific trials will succeed.
BACKGROUND: Heart failure is heterogeneous in aetiology, pathophysiology, and presentation. Despite this diversity, clinical trials of patients hospitalized for HF deal with this problem as a single entity, which may be one reason for repeated failures. METHODS: The first EuroHeart Failure Survey screened consecutive deaths and discharges of patients with suspected heart failure during 2000-2001. Patients were sorted into seven mutually exclusive hierarchical presentations: (1) with cardiac arrest/ventricular arrhythmia; (2) with acute coronary syndrome; (3) with rapid atrial fibrillation; (4) with acute breathlessness; (5) with other symptoms/signs such as peripheral oedema; (6) with stable symptoms; and (7) others in whom the contribution of HF to admission was not clear. RESULTS: The 10,701 patients enrolled were classified into the above seven presentations as follows: 260 (2%), 560 (5%), 799 (8%), 2479 (24%), 1040 (10%), 703 (7%), and 4691 (45%) for which index-admission mortality was 26%, 20%, 10%, 8%, 6%, 6%, and 4%, respectively. Compared to those in group 7, the hazard ratios for death during the index admission were 4.9 (p ≤ 0.001), 4.0 (p < 0.001), 2.2 (p < 0.001), 2.1 (p < 0.001), 1.4 (p < 0.04) and 1.4 (p = 0.04), respectively. These differences were no longer statistically significant by 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: There is great diversity in the presentation of heart failure that is associated with very different short-term outcomes. Only a minority of hospitalizations associated with suspected heart failure are associated with acute breathlessness. This should be taken into account in the design of future clinical trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shoaib et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: