Multiparameter diagnostic sensor measurements during clinically stable periods and worsening heart failure in ambulatory patients. (22nd February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gardner, Roy S.; Thakur, Pramodsingh; Hammill, Eric F.; Nair, Devi G.; Eldadah, Zayd; Stančák, Branislav; Ferrick, Kevin; Sriratanasathavorn, Charn; Duray, Gábor Zoltán; Wariar, Ramesh; Zhang, Yi; An, Qi; Averina, Viktoria; Boehmer, John P.
• Is Part Of: ESC heart failure. Volume 8:Number 2(2021)
• Page Start: 1571
• Page End: 1581
• Publication Date: 2021-02-22
• Subjects: Heart failure -- CRT -- Prognostication -- Ambulatory monitoring -- Decompensation; Heart failure -- Periodicals; 616.129005
• DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.13261
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2055-5822

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: This study aims to characterize the range of implantable device‐based sensor values including heart sounds, markers of ventilation, thoracic impedance, activity, and heart rate for patients with heart failure (HF) when patients were deemed to be in clinically stable periods against the time course of acute decompensation and recovery from HF events. Methods and results: The MultiSENSE trial followed 900 patients implanted with a COGNIS CRT‐D for up to 1 year. Chronic, ambulatory diagnostic sensor data were collected and evaluated during clinically stable periods (CSP: unchanged NYHA classification, no adverse events, and weight change ≤2.27 kg), and in the timeframe leading up to and following HF events (HF admissions or unscheduled visits with intravenous HF treatment). Physiologic sensor data from 1667 CSPs occurring in 676 patients were compared with those data leading up to and following 192 HF events in 106 patients. Overall, the mean age was 66.6 years, and the population were predominantly male (73%). Patients were primarily in NYHA II (67%), with a mean LVEF of 29.6% and median NT‐proBNP of 754.5 pg/mL. Sensor values during CSP were poorer in patients who had HF events during the study period than those without HF events, including first heart sound (S1: 2.18 ± 0.84 mG vs. 2.62 ± 0.95 mG, P = 0.002), third heart sound (S3: 1.13 ± 0.36 mG vs. 0.91 ± 0.30 mG, P < 0.001), thoracic impedance (45.66 ± 8.78 Ohm vs. 50.33 ± 8.43 Ohm, P < 0.001), respiratory rate (19.09 ± 3.10 br/min vs. 17.66 ± 2.39 br/min, P = 0.002), night time heart rate (73.39 ± 8.36 b.p.m. vs. 69.56 ± 8.09 b.p.m., P = 0.001), patient activity (1.69 ± 1.84 h vs. 2.56 ± 2.20 h, P = 0.006), and HeartLogic index (11.07 ± 12.14 vs. 5.31 ± 5.13, P = 0.001). Sensor parameters measured worsening status leading up to HF events with recovery of values following treatment. Conclusions: Device‐based physiologic sensors not only revealed progressive worsening leading up to HF events but also differentiated patients at increased risk of HF events when presumed to be clinically stable.