Optimal timing of echocardiography for heart failure inpatients in Japanese institutions: OPTIMAL Study

Abstract Aims Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure (HF) provided by the European Society of Cardiology state that echocardiography is recommended for the assessment of the myocardial structure and function of subjects with suspected HF including HF with reduced (HFrEF), mid‐range (HFmrEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) as class I of recommendation and level C of evidence. However, the impact of timing of echocardiography on survival for hospitalized HF patients or the prevalence of echocardiography during their stay has not yet been fully investigated. Therefore, we designed and conducted a prospective multicentre study, Optimal Timing of Echocardiography for Heart Failure Inpatients in Japanese Institutions (OPTIMAL) study, to investigate and evaluate the prevalence of echocardiography during the in‐hospital stay of HF patients, and the impact of timing of echocardiography on their survival. Methods and results OPTIMAL was based on a nationwide, prospective, multicentre registry at 10 institutions in Japan endorsed by the Japanese Society of Echocardiography. A total of 601 patients hospitalized with HF were enrolled between August 2016 and July 2018 at the participating centres. Their mean age was 73.9 ± 13.0 years, left ventricular ejection fraction was 37.0% (26.0–50.0), and 256 patients (42.6%) were female. Admission echocardiography (admission echo) was categorized as either standard or point‐of‐care echocardiography performed within 3 days of admission, as was pre‐discharge echocardiography (pre‐discharge echo) within 3 days of discharge. The primary endpoint was defined as cardiovascular death over a median follow‐up period of 18.9 months (9.3–26.5 months). Admission echo was performed for 476 patients (79.2%) and pre‐discharge echo for 216 patients (35.9%). The primary endpoint of cardiovascular death occurred in 65 patients (10.8%). Kaplan–Meier curve findings indicated that survival of patients with pre‐discharge echo was significantly better than that of patients without it (log‐rank P  < 0.001), and the same findings were obtained for patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF. However, survival of patients with and without admission echo was similar (log‐rank P  = 0.33). Conclusions This OPTIMAL study prospectively showed the importance of pre‐discharge echo for hospitalized HF patients. Careful attention is needed regarding the haemodynamic status of HF patients by administering pre‐discharge echo to avoid HF re‐hospitalization after discharge, and pre‐discharge echo may provide additional information for deciding the appropriate discharge time. Our findings may thus offer a new insight into the management of hospitalized HF patients.