English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Clinical trial applicability to routine clinical practice is a fundamental consideration. Little is known about eligibility and enrolment in ischaemic heart failure (iHF) trials. Aim To compare clinical characteristics and medical therapy between subjects eligible-and-enrolled vs eligible-but-not-enrolled in iHF interventional randomized controlled trials (RCT). Material and methods Using our detailed database of consecutive hospitalizations, iHF patients clinical characteristics and medical treatment were compared for 4 following periods: P1 (6 months of RCT#1 recruitment), P2 (6 months after the RCT#1), P3 (6 months of RCT#2 recruitment), P4 (6 months after RCT#2). RCT#1 and RCT#2 had similar criteria that involved 18–80 years old, NYHA Class II-IV inclusion and LVEF ≤40% (inclusion), and tumor/neoplasm history, recent (≤3 months) or planned major surgery, heart transplant waiting list (exclusion). Eligibility and enrolment, and reasons for non-eligibility and non-enrolment, were evaluated along baseline clinical characteristics and medical treatment. Results Data of 5,436 patients were reviewed. Eligibility rate was similar between the periods evaluated (P1–56.45%, P2–43.14%, P3–58.49%, P4–50.25%). One in 2 (50.62%) ineligible patients had a single-only reason for ineligibility (recent [≤3 months] or recommended cardiac surgery/cardiovascular intervention outside the trial 16.3%, age&amp;gt;80 years 14.6%, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). 13.2% of eligible patients were not enrolled due to lack of consent. Eligible-and-enrolled patients did not differ in baseline clinical characteristics such as sex, age, diabetes, and the clinical stage of heart failure against the eligible-but-not-enrolled patients. However, the eligible-and-enrolled had lower left ventricle ejection fraction (echocardiography; 31.2% vs. 33.9%, p=0.0393) and higher end-diastolic volume (197.8ml vs 160.4ml, p&amp;lt;0.0001). There were no differences in ACE/ARB inhibitor, B-blocker, diuretic (thiazide, loop, K+ sparing), sacubitril/valsartan and statin therapy between the groups. Eligible patients characteristics were not different between the recruitment (P1, P3) and non-recruitment periods (P2, P4). Conclusion Enrolment rate was high. Ineligibility resulted mainly from recent or recommended cardiovascular intervention outside RCT. Medical treatment was similar between eligible-and-enrolled and eligible-but-not-enrolled patients. Age (when within the inclusion criteria), gender and time frame were not factors of bias. However, the trial-enrolled patients had more severe left ventricle impairment. This argues, for iHF RCTs, against the routinely assumed lower-risk patient enrolment bias as signalled in other trial types and populations. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): John Paul II Hospital, Krakow, Poland Figure 1Figure 2

european heart journal

Clinical characteristics and medical therapy in randomized clinical trial eligible-and-enrolled vs. eligible-but-not enrolled patients with ischaemic heart failure