Data standards for heart failure: the European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomized Trials (EuroHeart)

Standardized data definitions are essential for assessing the quality of care and patient outcomes in observational studies and randomized controlled trials. The European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomized Trials (EuroHeart) project of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) aims to create contemporary pan-European data standards for cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure (HF). We followed the EuroHeart methodology for cardiovascular data standard development. A Working Group including experts in HF registries, representatives from the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, and the EuroHeart was formed. Using Embase and Medline (2016-21), we conducted a systematic review of the literature on data standards, registries, and trials to identify variables pertinent to HF. A modified Delphi method was used to reach a consensus on the final set of variables. For each variable, the Working Group developed data definitions and agreed on whether it was mandatory (Level 1) or additional (Level 2). In total, 84 Level 1 and 79 Level 2 variables were selected for nine domains of HF care. These variables were reviewed by an international Reference Group with the Level 1 variables providing the dataset for registration of patients with HF on the EuroHeart IT platform. By means of a structured process and interaction with international stakeholders, harmonized data standards for HF have been developed. In the context of the EuroHeart, this will facilitate quality improvement, international observational research, registry-based randomized trials, and post-marketing surveillance of devices and pharmacotherapies across Europe.

Apparent Treatment-Resistant Hypertension Across the Spectrum of Heart Failure Phenotypes in the Swedish HF Registry

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is common in patients with heart failure (HF), but less is known about resistant hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (aTRH) in patients with HF in the SwedeHF (Swedish Heart Failure Registry), across the spectrum of HF phenotypes (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF], heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction [HFmrEF], and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]).

METHODS

aTRH was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg (≥135 mm Hg in diabetes) despite treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, or sacubitril-valsartan, as well as a calcium-channel blocker and a diuretic; non-treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH) was defined as systolic blood pressure above these thresholds but not on the 3-drug combination; and normal blood pressure was defined as under these thresholds. In each left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) category, patient factors associated with aTRH and non-TRH and outcomes (HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death composite, its components, and all-cause death) according to hypertension category were examined.

RESULTS

Among 46,597 patients, aTRH was present in 2,693 (10%), 1,514 (14%), and 1,450 (17%) patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, respectively. Older age, obesity, diabetes, and kidney disease were associated with a greater likelihood of aTRH and non-TRH (vs normal blood pressure). Associations were generally similar irrespective of LVEF category. Compared with normal blood pressure, aTRH was associated with a lower adjusted risk of the composite outcome in HFrEF and HFmrEF (HR: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.74-0.85] and HR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.77-0.96]) but not in HFpEF (HR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.84-1.04]).

CONCLUSIONS

aTRH was most common in HFpEF and least common in HFrEF. Associated patient characteristics were similar irrespective of LVEF category. aTRH (vs normal blood pressure) was associated with a lower risk of first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death in HFrEF and HFmrEF but not in HFpEF.

Cardiac remodelling - Part 1: From cells and tissues to circulating biomarkers. A review from the Study Group on Biomarkers of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

Cardiac remodelling refers to changes in left ventricular structure and function over time, with a progressive deterioration that may lead to heart failure (HF) development (adverse remodelling) or vice versa a recovery (reverse remodelling) in response to HF treatment. Adverse remodelling predicts a worse outcome, whilst reverse remodelling predicts a better prognosis. The geometry, systolic and diastolic function and electric activity of the left ventricle are affected, as well as the left atrium and on the long term even right heart chambers. At a cellular and molecular level, remodelling involves all components of cardiac tissue: cardiomyocytes, fibroblasts, endothelial cells and leucocytes. The molecular, cellular and histological signatures of remodelling may differ according to the cause and severity of cardiac damage, and clearly to the global trend toward worsening or recovery. These processes cannot be routinely evaluated through endomyocardial biopsies, but may be reflected by circulating levels of several biomarkers. Different classes of biomarkers (e.g. proteins, non-coding RNAs, metabolites and/or epigenetic modifications) and several biomarkers of each class might inform on some aspects on HF development, progression and long-term outcomes, but most have failed to enter clinical practice. This may be due to the biological complexity of remodelling, so that no single biomarker could provide great insight on remodelling when assessed alone. Another possible reason is a still incomplete understanding of the role of biomarkers in the pathophysiology of cardiac remodelling. Such role will be investigated in the first part of this review paper on biomarkers of cardiac remodelling.

Cardiac remodelling - Part 2: Clinical, imaging and laboratory findings. A review from the Study Group on Biomarkers of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

In patients with heart failure, the beneficial effects of drug and device therapies counteract to some extent ongoing cardiac damage. According to the net balance between these two factors, cardiac geometry and function may improve (reverse remodelling, RR) and even completely normalize (remission), or vice versa progressively deteriorate (adverse remodelling, AR). RR or remission predict a better prognosis, while AR has been associated with worsening clinical status and outcomes. The remodelling process ultimately involves all cardiac chambers, but has been traditionally evaluated in terms of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction. This is the second part of a review paper by the Study Group on Biomarkers of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology dedicated to ventricular remodelling. This document examines the proposed criteria to diagnose RR and AR, their prevalence and prognostic value, and the variables predicting remodelling in patients managed according to current guidelines. Much attention will be devoted to RR in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction because most studies on cardiac remodelling focused on this setting.

Right Heart Failure Following Left Ventricular Device Implantation: Natural History, Risk Factors, and Outcomes: An Analysis of the STS INTERMACS Database

BACKGROUND

Our current understanding of right heart failure (RHF) post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is lacking. Recently, a new Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support definition of RHF was introduced. Based on this definition, we investigated natural history, risk factors, and outcomes of post-LVAD RHF.

METHODS

Patients implanted with continuous flow LVAD between June 2, 2014, and June 30, 2016 and registered in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support/Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database were included. RHF incidence and predictors, and survival after RHF were assessed. The manifestations of RHF which were separately analyzed were elevated central venous pressure, peripheral edema, ascites, and use of inotropes.

RESULTS

Among 5537 LVAD recipients (mean 57±13 years, 49% destination therapy, support 18.9 months) prevalence of 1-month RHF was 24%. Of these, RHF persisted at 12 months in 5.3%. In contrast, de novo RHF, first identified at 3 months, occurred in 5.1% and persisted at 12 months in 17% of these, and at 6 months occurred in 4.8% and persisted at 12 months in 25%. Higher preimplant blood urea nitrogen (ORs,1.03-1.09 per 5 mg/dL increase; P<0.0001), previous tricuspid valve repair/replacement (ORs, 2.01-10.09; P<0.001), severely depressed right ventricular systolic function (ORs,1.17-2.20; P=0.004); and centrifugal versus axial LVAD (ORs,1.15-1.78; P=0.001) represented risk factors for RHC incidence at 3 months. Patients with persistent RHF at 3 months had the lowest 2-year survival (57%) while patients with de novo RHF or RHF which resolved by 3 months had more favorable survival outcomes (75% and 78% at 2 years, respectively; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RHF at 1 or 3 months post-LVAD was a common and frequently transient condition, which, if resolved, was associated with relatively favorable prognosis. Conversely, de novo, late RHF post-LVAD (>6 months) was more frequently a persistent disorder and associated with increased mortality. The 1-, 3-, and 6-month time points may be used for RHF assessment and risk stratification in LVAD recipients.

Eligibility for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in a real-world heart failure population

BACKGROUND

We investigated eligibility for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in a real-world heart failure (HF) cohort based on selection criteria of DAPA-HF, DELIVER, and EMPEROR trials.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Selection criteria were applied to the Swedish HF registry out-patient population according to three scenarios: (i) a "trial scenario" applying all selection criteria; (ii) a "pragmatic scenario" applying the most clinically relevant criteria; (iii) a "label scenario" following the regulatory agencies labels. Of 49,317 patients, 55% had ejection fraction (EF)<40% and were assessed for eligibility based on DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced, 45% had EF≥40% and were assessed based on EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER. Eligibility using trial, pragmatic and label scenarios was: 35%, 61% and 80% for DAPA-HF; 31%, 55% and 81% for EMPEROR-Reduced; 30%, 61% and 74% for DELIVER; 32%, 59% and 75% for EMPEROR-Preserved. Main selection criteria limiting eligibility were HF duration and NT-proBNP. Eligible patients had more severe HF, more comorbidities, higher use of HF treatments and higher mortality/morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world HF setting, eligibility for SGLT2i was similar whether selection criteria from DAPA-HF or EMPEROR-Reduced were applied in HFrEF, or EMPEROR-Preserved or DELIVER in HFpEF. These data might help stakeholders assessing the consequences of future trial eligibility.

Improved survival of left ventricular assist device carriers in Europe according to implantation eras - results from the PCHF-VAD registry

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Temporal changes in patient selection and major technological developments in have occurred in the field of LVADs, yet analyses depicting this trend are lacking for Europe. We describe the advances of European LVAD programmes from the PCHF-VAD registry across device implantation eras.

METHODS

Of 583 patients from 13 European centres in the registry, 556 patients (mean age 53 ± 12 years, 82% male) were eligible for this analysis. Patients were divided to eras (E) by date of LVAD implantation: E1 from December 2006 to and including December 2012 (6 years), E2 from January 2013 to January 2020 (7 years).

RESULTS

Patients implanted more recently were older with more comorbidities, but less acutely ill. Receiving an LVAD in E2 was associated with improved 1-year survival in adjusted analysis (HR 0.58 [0.35-0.98] p = 0.043). LVAD implantation in E2 was associated with a significantly lower chance of heart transplantation (adjusted HR 0.40 [0.23-0.67], p = 0.001), and lower risk of LVAD-related infections (adjusted HR 0.64, [0.43-0.95], p = 0.027), both in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. The adjusted risk of haemocompatibility-related events decreased (HR 0.60 [0.39-0.91], p = 0.016), while the heart failure-related events increased in E2 (HR 1.67 [1.02-2.75], p = 0.043).

CONCLUSION

In an analysis depicting the evolving landscape of cf-LVAD carriers in Europe over 13 years, a trend towards better survival is seen in the recent years, despite older recipients with more comorbidities, potentially attributable to increasing expertise of LVAD centres, improved patient selection and pump technology. However, a smaller chance of undergoing heart transplantation was noted in the second era, underscoring the relevance of improved outcomes on LVAD support.

Predictors of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator use in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Impact of the predicted risk of sudden cardiac death and all-cause mortality

Aims

Use of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is limited. We aimed to investigate barriers to ICD use in HFrEF while considering the predicted risk of mortality and SCD.

Method and results

Patients from the SwedeHF registered in 2011–2018 and with an indication for primary prevention ICD were analysed. The Seattle Proportional Risk and Seattle Heart Failure Models were used to predict the proportional SCD and all‐cause mortality risk, respectively. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to identify independent predictors of ICD use/non‐use; Cox regression models to evaluate the interaction between predicted SCD/mortality risk and ICD use for mortality. Of 13 475 patients, only 15.5% had an ICD. Those with higher predicted proportional SCD risk (>45%) had an ∼80% higher likelihood to have an ICD. Other predictors of non‐use were follow‐up in primary versus specialty care, higher comorbidity burden and lower socioeconomic status. ICD use was associated with lower mortality only in patients with higher predicted SCD and lower mortality risk (34% and 37% relative risk reduction for 3‐year all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality, respectively). In this subgroup of patients, underuse of ICD was 81.8%.

Conclusion

In a contemporary registry, only 15.5% of patients with an indication for primary prevention ICD received the device. While a high predicted proportional SCD risk was appropriately linked to ICD use, the lack of specialized follow‐up, higher comorbidity burden, and lower socioeconomic status were major unjustified impediments to implementation. Our findings suggest areas for improving ICD use for primary prevention of SCD in clinical practice.

Association between dosing and combination use of medications and outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

AIMS

To assess the association between combination, dose and use of current guideline-recommended target doses (TD) of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi) and β-blockers, and outcomes in a large and unselected contemporary cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Overall, 17 809 outpatients registered in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) from May 2000 to December 2018, with ejection fraction <40% and duration of HF ≥90 days were selected. Primary outcome was a composite of time to cardiovascular death and first HF hospitalization. Compared with no use of RASi or ARNi, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.83 (0.76-0.91) with <50% of TD, 0.78 (0.71-0.86) with 50%-99%, and 0.73 (0.67-0.80) with ≥100% of TD. Compared with no use of β-blockers, the adjusted HR (95% CI) was 0.86 (0.76-0.91), 0.81 (0.74-0.89) and 0.74 (0.68-0.82) with <50%, 50%-99% and ≥100% of TD, respectively. Patients receiving both an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/ARNi and a β-blocker at 50%-99% of TD had a lower adjusted risk of the primary outcome compared with patients only receiving one drug, i.e. ACEi/ARB/ARNi or β-blocker, even if this was at ≥100% of TD.

CONCLUSION

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients using higher doses of RASi or ARNi and β-blockers had lower risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Use of two drug classes at 50%-99% of TD dose was associated with lower risk than one drug class at 100% of TD.

Transient versus persistent improved ejection fraction in non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy

AIMS

The recent definition of heart failure with improved ejection fraction outlined the importance of the longitudinal assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, long-term progression and outcomes of this subgroup are poorly explored. We sought to assess the LVEF trajectories and their correlations with outcome in non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NICM) with improved ejection fraction (impEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive NICM patients with baseline LVEF ≤40% enrolled in the Trieste Heart Muscle Disease Registry with ≥1 LVEF assessment after baseline were included. ImpEF was defined as a baseline LVEF ≤40%, and second evaluation showing both a ≥10% point increase from baseline LVEF and LVEF >40%. Transient impEF was defined by the documentation of recurrent LVEF ≤40% during follow-up. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, heart transplantation and left ventricular assist device (D/HT/LVAD). Among 800 patients, 460 (57%) had impEF (median time to improvement 13 months). Transient impEF was observed in 189 patients (41% of the overall impEF group) and was associated with higher risk of D/HT/LVAD compared with persistent impEF at multivariable analysis (hazard ratio 2.54; 95% confidence interval 1.60-4.04). The association of declining LVEF with the risk of D/HT/LVAD was non-linear, with a steep increase up to 8% points reduction, then remaining stable.

CONCLUSIONS

In NICM, a 57% rate of impEF was observed. However, recurrent decline in LVEF was observed in ≈40% of impEF patients and it was associated with an increased risk of D/HT/LVAD.

Baseline characteristics of 547 new onset heart failure patients in the PREFERS heart failure study

Aim

Methods and results

Conclusions

Biomarker changes as surrogate endpoints in early-phase trials in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

No biomarker has achieved widespread acceptance as a surrogate endpoint for early-phase heart failure (HF) trials. We assessed whether changes over time in a panel of plasma biomarkers were associated with subsequent morbidity/mortality in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 1040 patients with HFrEF from the BIOSTAT-CHF cohort, we investigated the associations between changes in the plasma concentrations of 30 biomarkers, before (baseline) and after (9 months) attempted optimization of guideline-recommended therapy, on top of the BIOSTAT risk score and the subsequent risk of HF hospitalization/all-cause mortality using Cox regression models. C-statistics were calculated to assess discriminatory power of biomarker changes/month-nine assessment. Changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and WAP four-disulphide core domain protein HE4 (WAP-4C) were the only independent predictors of the outcome after adjusting for their baseline plasma concentration, 28 other biomarkers (both baseline and changes), and BIOSTAT risk score at baseline. When adjusting for month-nine rather than baseline biomarkers concentrations, only changes in NT-proBNP were independently associated with the outcome. The C-statistic of the model including the BIOSTAT risk score and NT-proBNP increased by 4% when changes were considered on top of baseline concentrations and by 1% when changes in NT-proBNP were considered on top of its month-nine concentrations and the BIOSTAT risk score.

CONCLUSIONS

Among 30 relevant biomarkers, a change over time was significantly and independently associated with HF hospitalization/all-cause death only for NT-proBNP. Changes over time were modestly more prognostic than baseline or end-values alone. Changes in biomarkers should be further explored as potential surrogate endpoints in early phase HF trials.

Patient profile and outcomes associated with follow-up in specialty vs. primary care in heart failure

AIMS

Factors influencing follow-up referral decisions and their prognostic implications are poorly investigated in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction (EF). We assessed (i) the proportion of, (ii) independent predictors of, and (iii) outcomes associated with follow-up in specialty vs. primary care across the EF spectrum.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed 75 518 patients from the large and nationwide Swedish HF registry between 2000-2018. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to identify the independent predictors of planned follow-up in specialty vs. primary care, and multivariable Cox models to assess the association between follow-up type and outcomes. In this nationwide registry, 48 115 (64%) patients were planned for follow-up in specialty and 27 403 (36%) in primary care. The median age was 76 [interquartile range (IQR) 67-83] years and 27 546 (36.5%) patients were female. Key independent predictors of planned follow-up in specialty care included optimized HF care, that is follow-up in a nurse-led HF clinic [odds ratio (OR) 4.60, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 4.41-4.79], use of HF devices (OR 3.99, 95% CI 3.62-4.40), beta-blockers (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.32-1.47), renin-angiotensin system/angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.15-1.27), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.26-1.37); and more severe HF, that is higher NT-proBNP (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20) and NYHA class (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.19). Factors associated with lower likelihood of follow-up in specialty care included older age (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.28-0.30), female sex (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.86-0.93), lower income (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.76-0.82) and educational level (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.73-0.81), higher EF [HFmrEF (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.62-0.68) and HFpEF (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.53-0.58) vs. HFrEF], and higher comorbidity burden, such as presence of kidney disease (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95), atrial fibrillation (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.89), and diabetes mellitus (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.96). A planned follow-up in specialty care was independently associated with lower risk of all-cause [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.76-0.80] and cardiovascular death (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) across the EF spectrum, but not of HF hospitalization (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.10).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large nationwide HF population, referral to specialty care was linked with male sex, younger age, lower EF, lower comorbidity burden, better socioeconomic environment and optimized HF care, and associated with better survival across the EF spectrum. Our findings highlight the need for greater and more equal access to HF specialty care and improved quality of primary care.

Left atrial reservoir strain improves diagnostic accuracy of the 2016 ASE/EACVI diastolic algorithm in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: insights from the KARUM haemodynamic database

Aims

This study aimed to investigate the incremental value offered by left atrial reservoir strain (LAS_r) to the 2016 American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (ASE/EACVI) diastolic algorithm to identify elevated left ventricular (LV) filling pressure in patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF).

Methods and results

Near-simultaneous echocardiography and right heart catheterization were performed in 210 patients with EF ≥50% in a large, dual-centre study. Elevated filling pressure was defined as invasive pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≥15 mmHg. LAS_r was evaluated using speckle-tracking echocardiography. Diagnostic performance of the ASE/EACVI diastolic algorithm was validated against invasive reference and compared with modified algorithms incorporating LAS_r. Modest correlation was observed between E/e′, E/A ratio, and LA volume index with PCWP (r = 0.46, 0.46, and 0.36, respectively; P < 0.001 for all). Mitral e′ and TR peak velocity showed no association. The ASE/EACVI algorithm (89% feasibility, 71% sensitivity, 68% specificity) demonstrated reasonable ability (AUC = 0.69) and 68% accuracy to identify elevated LV filling pressure. LAS_r displayed strong ability to identify elevated PCWP (AUC = 0.76). Substituting TR peak velocity for LAS_r in the algorithm (69% sensitivity, 84% specificity) resulted in 91% feasibility, 81% accuracy, and stronger agreement with invasive measurements. Employing LAS_r as per expert consensus (71% sensitivity, 70% specificity) and adding LAS_r to conventional parameters (67% sensitivity, 84% specificity) also demonstrated greater feasibility (98% and 90%, respectively) and overall accuracy (70% and 80%, respectively) to estimate elevated PCWP.

Conclusions

LAS_r improves feasibility and overall accuracy of the ASE/EACVI algorithm to discern elevated filling pressures in patients with preserved EF.

A comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure with preserved versus mildly reduced versus reduced ejection fraction - insights from the ESC-HFA EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

AIMS

To perform a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure (AHF) with preserved (HFpEF), versus mildly reduced (HFmrEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Of 5951 participants in the ESC HF Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF (acute coronary syndromes excluded), 29% had HFpEF, 18% HFmrEF, and 53% HFrEF. Hospitalization reasons were most commonly atrial fibrillation (more in HFmrEF and HFpEF), followed by ischaemia (HFmrEF), infection (HFmrEF and HFpEF), worsening renal function (HFrEF), and uncontrolled hypertension (HFmrEF and HFpEF). Hospitalization characteristics included lower blood pressure, more oedema and higher natriuretic peptides with lower ejection fraction, similar pulmonary congestion, more mitral regurgitation in HFrEF and HFmrEF and more tricuspid regurgitation in HFrEF. In-hospital mortality was 3.4% in HFrEF, 2.1% in HFmrEF and 2.2% in HFpEF. Intravenous diuretic (∼80%) and nitrate (∼15%) use was similar but inotrope use greater in HFrEF (16%, vs. HFmrEF 7.4% vs. HFpEF 5.3%). Weight loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate improvement were greater in HFrEF, whereas reduction in natriuretic peptides was similar. Over 1 year post-discharge, events per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) in HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF were: all-cause death 22 (20-24) versus 17 (14-20) versus 17 (15-20); cardiovascular (CV) death 12 (10-13) versus 8.6 (6.6-11) versus 8.4 (6.9-10); non-CV death 2.4 (1.8-3.1) versus 3.3 (2.1-4.8) versus 4.5 (3.5-5.9); all-cause hospitalization 48 (45-51) versus 35 (31-40) versus 42 (39-46); HF hospitalization 29 (27-32) versus 19 (16-22) versus 17 (15-20); and non-CV hospitalization 7.7 (6.6-8.9) versus 9.6 (7.5-12) versus 15 (13-17).

CONCLUSION

In AHF, HFrEF is more severe and has greater in-hospital mortality. Post-discharge, HFrEF has greater CV risk, HFpEF greater non-CV risk, and HFmrEF lower overall risk.

Heart failure with mid-range or mildly reduced ejection fraction

Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) remains the major parameter for diagnosis, phenotyping, prognosis and treatment decisions in heart failure. The 2016 ESC heart failure guidelines introduced a third EF category for an EF of 40-49%, defined as heart failure with mid-range EF (HFmrEF). This category has been largely unexplored compared with heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF; defined as EF <40% in this Review) and heart failure with preserved EF (HFpEF; defined as EF ≥50%). The prevalence of HFmrEF within the overall population of patients with HF is 10-25%. HFmrEF seems to be an intermediate clinical entity between HFrEF and HFpEF in some respects, but more similar to HFrEF in others, in particular with regard to the high prevalence of ischaemic heart disease in these patients. HFmrEF is milder than HFrEF, and the risk of cardiovascular events is lower in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF than in those with HFrEF. By contrast, the risk of non-cardiovascular adverse events is similar or greater in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF than in those with HFrEF. Evidence from post hoc and subgroup analyses of randomized clinical trials and a trial of an SGLT1-SGLT2 inhibitor suggests that drugs that are effective in patients with HFrEF might also be effective in patients with HFmrEF. Although the EF is a continuous measure with considerable variability, in this comprehensive Review we suggest that HFmrEF is a useful categorization of patients with HF and shares the most important clinical features with HFrEF, which supports the renaming of HFmrEF to HF with mildly reduced EF.

European Society of Cardiology quality indicators for the care and outcomes of adults with heart failure. Developed by the Working Group for Heart Failure Quality Indicators in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

AIMS

To develop a suite of quality indicators (QIs) for the evaluation of the quality of care for adults with heart failure (HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We followed the ESC methodology for QI development, which involved (i) the identification of the key domains of care for the management of HF by constructing a conceptual framework of HF care, (ii) the development of candidate QIs by conducting a systematic review of the literature, (iii) the selection of the final set of QIs using a modified Delphi method, and (iv) the evaluation of the feasibility of the developed QIs. The Working Group comprised experts in HF management including Task Force members of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Clinical Practice Guidelines for HF, members of the Heart Failure Association (HFA), Quality Indicator Committee and a patient representative. In total, 12 main and 4 secondary QIs were selected across five domains of care for the management of HF: (1) structural framework, (2) patient assessment, (3) initial treatment, (4) therapy optimization, and (5) assessment of patient health-related quality of life.

CONCLUSION

We present the ESC HFA QIs for HF, describe their development process and provide the scientific rationale for their selection. The indicators may be used to quantify and improve adherence to guideline-recommended clinical practice and thus improve patient outcomes.

297 Echocardiographic biventricular coupling index to predict pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension

Aims

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) affects millions of people worldwide. Right heart catheterization (RHC) is the gold standard to correctly classify the subtype of PH. Biventricular coupling index (BCI) is a new echocardiographic index defined as the ratio between non-invasive right ventricular stroke work index (RVSWI) and E/E′ ratio. Due to his comprehensive functional characterization of the right heart physiology, we hypothesized it might correctly identify pre-capillary PH.

Methods and results

BCI was derived in a cohort of 334 patients from the University Hospital of Trieste (Italy) and Karolinska University Hospital (Sweden) who underwent transthoracic echocardiography and RHC for all indications (&lt;6 h between the exams). The accuracy of BCI to identify pre-capillary PH was high in the derivation cohort (AUC: 0.82, P &lt; 0.001, CI: 0.78–0.88). Subsequently BCI was tested in a large validation cohort of 1349 patients with available transthoracic echocardiography and RHC from the Fondazione Toscana G. Monasterio of Pisa (Italy). Among patients with PH, BCI showed a high accuracy to correctly identify pre-capillary PH (AUC = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.89–0.93, P &lt; 0.001), with an optimal cut-off of 1.9 providing a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 89%, PPV 77%, and a NPV 92%. BCI outperformed previous indexes, such as the D’Alto score (Z coefficient 3.56, difference between areas 0.05 95% CI: 0.02–0.07, P &lt; 0.001) and the echocardiographic Pulmonary to Left Atrial Ratio (ePLAR) index (Z coefficient 2.88, difference between areas 0.02 95% CI: 0.01–0.04, P &lt; 0.004).

Conclusions

BCI is a new non-invasive index based on standard echocardiographic parameters that allows, with high accuracy, the identification of patients with pre-capillary PH, outperforming previously proposed indexes. Routine use of BCI index could be implemented in the screening work-up of pre-capillary PH.

Do we need a definition of acute heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) might soon become the most prevalent type of acute heart failure. Still, despite more than 30 years of research on HFpEF, not only do we lack specific treatment, but also a generally accepted definition of HFpEF. Since 2016, several definitions and algorithms have been proposed for diagnosing both diastolic dysfunction and overt HFpEF. However, all of them focus exclusively on chronic (and not acute) HFpEF. Recent studies showed that acute HFpEF may be overdiagnosed in patients presenting with acute dyspnoea. The aim of our article was to address two questions: (1) why there is a need for specific diagnostic criteria for acute HFpEF, and (2) what such definition of acute HFpEF should encompass.KEY MESSAGES:Several scores and algorithms have been proposed for diagnosing chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), however, so far, there is no definition of acute HFpEF.Acute HFpEF seems to be overdiagnosed in patients presenting with acute dyspnoea.Definition of acute HFpEF should comprise both (1) features of chronic HFpEF and (2) markers of increased left ventricular filling pressures and/or of pulmonary congestion.

'Time is prognosis' in heart failure: time-to-treatment initiation as a modifiable risk factor

In heart failure (HF), acute decompensation can occur quickly and unexpectedly because of worsening of chronic HF or to new-onset HF diagnosed for the first time ('de novo'). Patients presenting with acute HF (AHF) have a poor prognosis comparable with those with acute myocardial infarction, and any delay of treatment initiation is associated with worse outcomes. Recent HF guidelines and recommendations have highlighted the importance of a timely diagnosis and immediate treatment for patients presenting with AHF to decrease disease progression and improve prognosis. However, based on the available data, there is still uncertainty regarding the optimal 'time-to-treatment' effect in AHF. Furthermore, the immediate post-worsening HF period plays an important role in clinical outcomes in HF patients after hospitalization and is known as the 'vulnerable phase' characterized by high risk of readmission and early death. Early and intensive treatment for HF patients in the 'vulnerable phase' might be associated with lower rates of early readmission and mortality. Additionally, in the chronic stable HF outpatient, treatments are often delayed or not initiated when symptoms are stable, ignoring the risk for adverse outcomes such as sudden death. Consequently, there is a dire need to better identify HF patients during hospitalization and after discharge and treating them adequately to improve their prognosis. HF is an urgent clinical scenario along all its stages and disease conditions. Therefore, time plays a significant role throughout the entire patient's journey. Therapy should be optimized as soon as possible, because this is beneficial regardless of severity or duration of HF. Time lavished before treatment initiation is recognized as important modifiable risk factor in HF.

Digoxin use in contemporary heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: an analysis from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

AIMS

Digoxin is included in some heart failure (HF) guidelines but controversy persists about the true role for and impact of treatment with this drug, particularly in the absence of atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study was to assess the association between clinical characteristics and digoxin use and between digoxin use and mortality/morbidity in a large, contemporary cohort of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) stratified by history of AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with HFrEF (EF < 40%) enrolled in the Swedish HF registry between 2005 and 2018 were analysed. The independent association between digoxin use and patient characteristics was assessed by logistic regression, and between digoxin use and outcomes [composite of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization (HFH), all-cause mortality, and HFH] by Cox regressions in a 1:1 propensity score matched population. Digoxin use was analysed at baseline and as a time-dependent variable. Of 42 456 patients with HFrEF, 16% received digoxin, 29% in the AF group and 2.8% in the non-AF group. The main independent predictors of use were advanced HF, higher heart rate, history of AF, preserved renal function, and concomitant use of beta blockers. Digoxin use was associated with lower risk of all-cause death/HFH [hazard ratio (HR): 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-0.99] in AF, but with higher risk in non-AF (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.09-1.43). Consistent results were observed when digoxin use was analysed as a time-dependent variable.

CONCLUSION

The great majority of digoxin users had a history of AF. Digoxin use was associated with lower mortality/morbidity in patients with AF, but with higher mortality/morbidity in patients without AF.

Eligibility of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction for sacubitril/valsartan according to the PARAGON-HF trial

Aims

In the heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) PARAGON‐HF trial, sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan improved mortality/morbidity in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below median (57%). We assessed eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan based on four scenarios.

Methods and results

Eligibility was assessed in the Karolinska‐Rennes study (acute HFpEF, LVEF ≥ 45%, and N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide ≥300 pg/mL subsequently assessed as outpatients including echocardiography) in (i) a trial scenario (all trial criteria); (ii) a pragmatic scenario (selected trial criteria); (iii) LVEF below lower limit of normal range (<54% in women and <52% in men); and (iv) LVEF below mean of normal range (<64% in women and <62% in men). Among 425 patients [age 78 (72–83) years, 57% women, 28% LVEF ≤ 57% (median in PARAGON‐HF), the trial scenario, identified 34% as eligible. Left atrial enlargement and/or left ventricular hypertrophy were present in 99%. Inclusion criteria not met were diuretic treatment and New York Heart Association class. Important exclusion criteria were estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m², haemoglobin <10 g/day, and cancer. In the pragmatic scenario, 63% were eligible. In LVEF below lower limit of normal range, 5.4% were eligible, and in LVEF below mean of normal range, 41% were eligible. In patients with LVEF ≤ 57%, eligibility was 42%, 69%, 21%, and 91% according to the trial scenario, pragmatic scenario, LVEF below lower limit of normal range, and LVEF below mean of normal range, respectively.

Conclusions

In real‐world HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 45%) with N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide and cardiac structure/function assessed, eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan was according to PARAGON‐HF complete criteria 34%, pragmatic criteria 63%, LVEF below lower limit of normal range 5.4%, and LVEF below mean of normal range 41%. Cardiac structural impairment was almost ubiquitous. Ineligibility was more due to exclusion criteria than failing to meet inclusion criteria.

Patiromer for the management of hyperkalaemia in patients receiving renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors for heart failure: design and rationale of the DIAMOND trial

AIMS

In patients with current or a history of hyperkalaemia, treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) is often compromised. Patiromer, a novel potassium (K⁺ ) binder, may improve serum K⁺ levels and adherence to RAASi.

METHODS

The DIAMOND trial will enroll ∼820 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; ejection fraction ≤40%). Patients meeting the screening criteria will enter a single-blinded run-in phase where they will be started or continued on a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) titrated to 50 mg/day and other RAASi therapy to ≥50% target dose, and patiromer. Patiromer will be titrated up to a maximum three packs/day (8.4 g/pack) to achieve optimal doses of RAASi without hyperkalaemia. The run-in phase will last up to 12 weeks, following which patients will undergo double-blind randomization in a 1:1 ratio to receive either continued patiromer or placebo (patiromer withdrawal). The primary endpoint is the mean difference in serum K⁺ from randomization between patiromer and placebo arms. Secondary endpoints will include hyperkalaemia events with K⁺ value >5.5 mEq/L, durable enablement of MRA at target dose, investigator-reported adverse events of hyperkalaemia, hyperkalaemia-related clinical endpoints and an overall RAASi use score (using a 0-8-point scale) comprising all-cause death, occurrence of cardiovascular hospitalization or usage of comprehensive heart failure medication.

CONCLUSION

The DIAMOND trial is designed to determine if patiromer can favourably impact K⁺ control in patients with HFrEF with hyperkalaemia or a history of hyperkalaemia leading to RAASi therapy compromise, and in turn improve RAASi use.

Non-cardiology vs. cardiology care of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction is associated with lower use of guideline-based care and higher mortality: Observations from The Swedish Heart Failure Registry

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure (HF) are often cared for by non-cardiologists. The implications are unknown.

METHODS

In a nationwide HF cohort with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), we compared demographics, clinical characteristics, guideline-based therapy use and outcomes in non-cardiology vs. cardiology in-patient and out-patient care.

RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2016, 36,076 patients with HFrEF were enrolled in the Swedish HF registry (19,337 [54%] in-patients overall), with 44% of in-patients and 45% of out-patients managed in non-cardiology settings. Predictors of treatment in non-cardiology were age > 75 years (adjusted odds ratio for non-cardiology 1.20; 95% confidence interval 1.14-1.27), lower education level (0.71; 0.66-0.76 for university vs. compulsory), valve disease (1.24; 1.18-1.31) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) >120 mmHg (1.05; 1.00-1.10). Non-cardiology care was significantly associated with lower use of beta-blockers (0.80; 0.74-0.86) and devices (intracardiac defibrillator [ICD] and/or cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT]: 0.63; 0.56-0.71), and less frequent specialist follow-up (0.61; 0.57-0.65). Over 1-year follow-up the risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.09; 1.03-1.15) was higher but the risk of first HF (re-) hospitalization was lower (0.93; 0.89-0.97) in non-cardiology vs. cardiology care.

CONCLUSIONS

In HFrEF, non-cardiology care was independently associated with older ageand lower education. After covariate adjustment, non-cardiology care was associated with lower use of beta-blockers and devices, higher mortality, and lower risk of HF hospitalization. Access to cardiology care may not be equitable and this may have implications for use of guideline-based care and outcomes.

COVID-19 vaccination in patients with heart failure: a position paper of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

Patients with heart failure (HF) who contract SARS‐CoV‐2 infection are at a higher risk of cardiovascular and non‐cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Regardless of therapeutic attempts in COVID‐19, vaccination remains the most promising global approach at present for controlling this disease. There are several concerns and misconceptions regarding the clinical indications, optimal mode of delivery, safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines for patients with HF. This document provides guidance to all healthcare professionals regarding the implementation of a COVID‐19 vaccination scheme in patients with HF. COVID‐19 vaccination is indicated in all patients with HF, including those who are immunocompromised (e.g. after heart transplantation receiving immunosuppressive therapy) and with frailty syndrome. It is preferable to vaccinate against COVID‐19 patients with HF in an optimal clinical state, which would include clinical stability, adequate hydration and nutrition, optimized treatment of HF and other comorbidities (including iron deficiency), but corrective measures should not be allowed to delay vaccination. Patients with HF who have been vaccinated against COVID‐19 need to continue precautionary measures, including the use of facemasks, hand hygiene and social distancing. Knowledge on strategies preventing SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (including the COVID‐19 vaccination) should be included in the comprehensive educational programmes delivered to patients with HF.

Generalisability of Randomised Controlled Trials in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background

Heart failure (HF) trials have stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria, but limited data exist regarding generalizability of trials. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes between patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in trials and observational registries.

Methods and Results

Individual patient data for 16 922 patients from five randomized clinical trials and 46 914 patients from two HF registries were included. The registry patients were categorized into trial-eligible and non-eligible groups using the most commonly used inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 26 104 (56%) registry patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Unadjusted all-cause mortality rates at 1 year were lowest in the trial population (7%), followed by trial-eligible patients (12%) and trial-non-eligible registry patients (26%). After adjustment for age and sex, all-cause mortality rates were similar between trial participants and trial-eligible registry patients [standardized mortality ratio (SMR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92–1.03] but cardiovascular mortality was higher in trial participants (SMR 1.19; 1.12–1.27). After full case-mix adjustment, the SMR for cardiovascular mortality remained higher in the trials at 1.28 (1.20–1.37) compared to RCT-eligible registry patients.

Conclusion

In contemporary HF registries, over half of HFrEF patients would have been eligible for trial enrolment. Crude clinical event rates were lower in the trials, but, after adjustment for case-mix, trial participants had similar rates of survival as registries. Despite this, they had about 30% higher cardiovascular mortality rates. Age and sex were the main drivers of differences in clinical outcomes between HF trials and observational HF registries.

Heart failure in COVID-19: the multicentre, multinational PCHF-COVICAV registry

Aims

We assessed the outcome of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patients with heart failure (HF) compared with patients with other cardiovascular disease and/or risk factors (arterial hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidaemia). We further wanted to determine the incidence of HF events and its consequences in these patient populations.

Methods and results

International retrospective Postgraduate Course in Heart Failure registry for patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 and CArdioVascular disease and/or risk factors (arterial hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidaemia) was performed in 28 centres from 15 countries (PCHF‐COVICAV). The primary endpoint was in‐hospital mortality. Of 1974 patients hospitalized with COVID‐19, 1282 had cardiovascular disease and/or risk factors (median age: 72 [interquartile range: 62–81] years, 58% male), with HF being present in 256 [20%] patients. Overall in‐hospital mortality was 25% (n = 323/1282 deaths). In‐hospital mortality was higher in patients with a history of HF (36%, n = 92) compared with non‐HF patients (23%, n = 231, odds ratio [OR] 1.93 [95% confidence interval: 1.44–2.59], P < 0.001). After adjusting, HF remained associated with in‐hospital mortality (OR 1.45 [95% confidence interval: 1.01–2.06], P = 0.041). Importantly, 186 of 1282 [15%] patients had an acute HF event during hospitalization (76 [40%] with de novo HF), which was associated with higher in‐hospital mortality (89 [48%] vs. 220 [23%]) than in patients without HF event (OR 3.10 [2.24–4.29], P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Hospitalized COVID‐19 patients with HF are at increased risk for in‐hospital death. In‐hospital worsening of HF or acute HF de novo are common and associated with a further increase in in‐hospital mortality.

Accuracy and diagnostic performance of doppler echocardiography to estimate mean pulmonary artery pressure in heart failure

BACKGROUND

Multiple echocardiographic algorithms have been proposed to estimate mean pulmonary artery pressure (PAP_M ) and assess pulmonary hypertension (PH) likelihood. We assessed the accuracy of four echocardiographic approaches to estimate PAP_M in heart failure (HF) patients undergoing near-simultaneous right heart catheterization (RHC), and compared diagnostic performance to identify PH with recommendation-advised tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity (TRV_max ).

METHODS

We employed four validated echocardiographic algorithms incorporating tricuspid regurgitation peak or mean gradient, pulmonary regurgitation peak gradient, and right ventricular outflow tract acceleration time to estimate PAP_M . Echocardiographic estimates of right atrial pressure were incorporated in all algorithms but one. Association and agreement with invasive PAP_M were assessed. Diagnostic performance of all algorithms to identify PH was evaluated and compared with the recommended TRV_max cut-off.

RESULTS

In 112 HF patients, all echocardiographic algorithms demonstrated reasonable association (r = .41-.65; p < 0.001) and good agreement with invasive PAP_M , with relatively lower mean bias and higher precision observed in algorithms that incorporated tricuspid regurgitation peak or mean gradient. All methods demonstrated strong ability to identify PH (AUC = .70-.80; p < 0.001) but did not outperform TRV_max (AUC = .84; p < 0.001). Echocardiographic estimates of right atrial pressure were falsely elevated in 30% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Echocardiographic estimates demonstrate reasonable association with invasive PAP_M and strong ability to identify PH in HF. However, none of the algorithms outperformed recommendation-advised TRV_max . The incremental value of echocardiographic estimates of right atrial pressure may need to be re-evaluated.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillator in patients with heart failure

Aims

Randomized data on the efficacy/safety of cardiac resynchronization therapy with vs. without defibrillator (CRT-D,-P) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are scarce. We aimed to evaluate survival associated with use of CRT-D vs. CRT-P in a contemporary cohort with HFrEF.

Methods and results

Patients from Swedish HF Registry treated with CRT-D/CRT-P and fulfilling criteria for primary prevention defibrillator use were included. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of CRT-D non-use. All-cause mortality was compared in CRT-D vs. CRT-P by Cox regression in a 1 : 1 propensity-score-matched cohort. Of 1988 patients with CRT, 1108 (56%) had CRT-D and 880 (44%) CRT-P. Older age, higher ejection fraction (EF), female sex, and the lack of referral to HF nurse-led outpatient clinic were major determinants of CRT-D non-use. After matching, 645 CRT-D patients were compared with 645 with CRT-P. The CRT-D use was associated with lower 1- and 3-year all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR):0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI):0.58–0.98; HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68–0.99, respectively]. Results were consistent in all pre-specified subgroups except for CRT-D use being associated with lower 3-year mortality in patients with an EF < 30% but not in those with an EF ≥ 30% (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.59–0.89 and HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.83–1.85, respectively; P-interaction = 0.02).

Conclusion

In a contemporary HFrEF cohort, CRT-D was associated with lower mortality compared with CRT-P. The CRT-D use was less likely in older patients, females, and in patients not referred to HF nurse-led outpatient clinic. Our findings support the use of CRT-D vs. CRT-P in HFrEF, in particular with severely reduced EF.

Phenotyping heart failure patients for iron deficiency and use of intravenous iron therapy: data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

AIMS

Iron deficiency (ID) is associated with poor prognosis regardless of anaemia. Intravenous iron improves quality of life and outcomes in patients with ID and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In the Swedish HF registry, we assessed (i) frequency and predictors of ID testing; (ii) prevalence and outcomes of ID with/without anaemia; (iii) use of ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) and its predictors in patients with ID.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We used multivariable logistic regressions to assess patient characteristics independently associated with ID testing/FCM use, and Cox regressions to assess risk of outcomes associated with ID. Of 21 496 patients with HF and any ejection fraction enrolled in 2017-2018, ID testing was performed in 27%. Of these, 49% had ID and more specifically 36% had ID-/anaemia-, 15% ID-/anaemia+, 29% ID+/anaemia-, and 20% ID+/anaemia+ (48%, 39%, 13%, 30% and 18% in HFrEF, respectively). Risk of recurrent all-cause hospitalizations was higher in patients with ID regardless of anaemia. Of 1959 patients with ID, 19% received FCM (24% in HFrEF). Important independent predictors of ID testing and FCM use were anaemia, higher New York Heart Association class, having HFrEF, and referral to HF specialty care.

CONCLUSION

In this nationwide HF registry, ID testing occurred in only about a quarter of the patients. Among tested patients, ID was present in one half, but only one in five patients received FCM indicating low adherence to current guidelines on screening and treatment.

Sacubitril-valsartan as a treatment for apparent resistant hypertension in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

Aims

Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) frequently have difficult-to-control hypertension. We examined the effect of neprilysin inhibition on ‘apparent resistant hypertension’ in patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial, which compared the effect of sacubitril–valsartan with valsartan.

Methods and results

In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized according to systolic blood pressure at the end of the valsartan run-in (n = 4795). ‘Apparent resistant hypertension’ was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite treatment with valsartan, a calcium channel blocker, and a diuretic. ‘Apparent mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA)-resistant’ hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite the above treatments and an MRA. The primary outcome in the PARAGON-HF trial was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We examined clinical endpoints and the safety of sacubitril–valsartan according to the hypertension category. We also examined reductions in blood pressure from the end of valsartan run-in to Weeks 4 and 16 after randomization. Overall, 731 patients (15.2%) had apparent resistant hypertension and 135 (2.8%) had apparent MRA-resistant hypertension. The rate of the primary outcome was higher in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [17.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.6–19.1 per 100 person-years] compared to those with a controlled systolic blood pressure (13.4; 12.7–14.3 per 100 person-years), with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.28 (95% CI 1.05–1.57). The reduction in systolic blood pressure at Weeks 4 and 16, respectively, was greater with sacubitril–valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [−4.8 (−7.0 to −2.5) and 3.9 (−6.6 to −1.3) mmHg] and apparent MRA-resistant hypertension [−8.8 (−14.0 to −3.5) and −6.3 (−12.5 to −0.1) mmHg]. The proportion of patients with apparent resistant hypertension achieving a controlled systolic blood pressure by Week 16 was 47.9% in the sacubitril–valsartan group and 34.3% in the valsartan group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% CI 1.30–2.43]. In patients with apparent MRA-resistant hypertension, the respective proportions were 43.6% vs. 28.4% (adjusted OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.18–5.89).

Conclusion

Sacubitril–valsartan may be useful in treating apparent resistant hypertension in patients with HFpEF, even in those who continue to have an elevated blood pressure despite treatment with at least four antihypertensive drug classes, including an MRA.

Clinical trial registration

PARAGON-HF: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711.

CARDIOVASCULAR EFFECTS OF NON-INSULIN GLUCOSE-LOWERING AGENTS: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF TRIAL EVIDENCE AND POTENTIAL CARDIOPROTECTIVE MECHANISMS

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is highly prevalent and associated with a 2-fold increased mortality, mostly explained by cardiovascular diseases. Trial evidence on older glucose-lowering agents such as metformin and sulfonylureas is limited in terms of cardiovascular efficacy. Since 2008, after rosiglitazone was observed to increase the risk of myocardial infarction and heart failure (HF), cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOT) have been required by regulators for licensing new glucose-lowering agents. In the following CVOTs, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i) have been shown to be safe but not to improve morbidity/mortality, except for saxagliptin which increased the risk of HF. Several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-Ra) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. SGLT2i have shown a class effect for the reduction in risk of HF events in patients with T2DM, leading to trials testing their efficacy/safety in HF regardless of T2DM. In the DAPA-HF and the EMPEROR-Reduced trials dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, respectively, improved cardiovascular mortality/morbidity in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with and without T2DM. Therefore, these drugs are now key part of HFrEF pharmacotherapy. In the SOLOIST-WHF, sotagliflozin reduced cardiovascular mortality/morbidity in patients with T2DM and a recent acute episode of HF regardless of EF. The DELIVER and the EMPEROR-Preserved are testing dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, respectively, in patients with HF with mildly reduced and preserved EF. A strong renal protective role of SGLT2i has also emerged in trials enrolling patients with and without T2DM.

Predictors of long-term outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a follow-up from the KaRen study

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has poor long-term prognosis. We assessed rates and predictors of outcome 10 years after an acute episode of HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Karolinska-Rennes (KaRen) study enrolled HFpEF patients with acute HF, ejection fraction ≥ 45%, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide > 300 ng/L in 2007-11. Clinical data were collected at enrolment and after 4-8 weeks including detailed echocardiography. Follow-up data were collected 10 years after study initiation, starting from 6 months after enrolment until 2018 assessed by telephone. Independent predictors of primary (all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization) and secondary (all-cause mortality) outcomes were assessed by multivariable Cox regression. Of 539 patients, long-term follow-up data were available for 397 patients [52% female; median (interquartile range) age 79 (73, 84) years]. Over a follow-up of 5.44 (2.06-7.89) years, 1, 3, 5, and 10 year mortality rates were 15%, 31%, 47%, and 74%, respectively, with an incidence rate of 130/1000 patient-years. The primary outcome was met in 84% of the population, with an incidence rate of 227/1000 patient-years. The independent predictors of the primary outcome were tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity (m/s) [hazard ratio 1.87 (1.34-2.62)], diabetes mellitus [1.75 (1.11-2.74)], and cancer [1.75 (1.01-3.03)] while female sex was associated with reduced risk [0.64 (0.41-0.98)].

CONCLUSIONS

In HFpEF, 1, 3, 5, and 10 year mortality was 15%, 31%, 47%, and 74% and mortality or first HF hospitalization was 35%, 54%, 67%, and 84%, respectively. Independent predictors of mortality or HF hospitalization were tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity, diabetes mellitus, cancer, and male sex. In clinical management of HFpEF, attention should be paid to both cardiac and non-cardiac conditions.

Optimized implementation of cardiac resynchronization therapy: a call for action for referral and optimization of care

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the most effective therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and leads to improved quality of life, reductions in heart failure hospitalization rates and all-cause mortality. Nevertheless, up to two-thirds of eligible patients are not referred for CRT. Furthermore, post-implantation follow-up is often fragmented and suboptimal, hampering the potential maximal treatment effect. This joint position statement from three European Society of Cardiology Associations, Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), focuses on optimized implementation of CRT. We offer theoretical and practical strategies to achieve more comprehensive CRT referral and post-procedural care by focusing on four actionable domains: (i) overcoming CRT under-utilization, (ii) better understanding of pre-implant characteristics, (iii) abandoning the term 'non-response' and replacing this by the concept of disease modification, and (iv) implementing a dedicated post-implant CRT care pathway.

Cardiac, renal, and metabolic effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors: a position paper from the European Society of Cardiology ad-hoc task force on sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors

In 2015, the first large-scale placebo-controlled trial designed to assess cardiovascular safety of glucose-lowering with sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibition in type 2 diabetes mellitus raised hypotheses that the class could favourably modify not only risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but also hospitalization for heart failure, and the development or worsening of nephropathy. By the start of 2021, results from 10 large SGLT2 inhibitor placebo-controlled clinical outcome trials randomizing ∼71 000 individuals have confirmed that SGLT2 inhibitors can provide clinical benefits for each of these types of outcome in a range of different populations. The cardiovascular and renal benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors appear to be larger than their comparatively modest effect on glycaemic control or glycosuria alone would predict, with three trials recently reporting that clinical benefits extend to individuals without diabetes mellitus who are at risk due to established heart failure, or albuminuric chronic kidney disease. This European Society of Cardiology position paper summarizes reported results from these 10 large clinical outcome trials considering separately each of the different types of cardiorenal benefit, summarizes key molecular and pathophysiological mechanisms, and provides a synopsis of metabolic effects and safety. We also describe ongoing placebo-controlled trials among individuals with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and among individuals with chronic kidney disease.

Empagliflozin in Heart Failure With Predicted Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction: Data From the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial

BACKGROUND

In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, ejection fraction (EF) data were not collected. In the subpopulation with heart failure (HF), we applied a new predictive model for EF to determine the effects of empagliflozin in HF with predicted reduced (HFrEF) vs preserved (HFpEF) EF vs no HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We applied a validated EF predictive model based on patient baseline characteristics and treatments to categorize patients with HF as being likely to have HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF)/HFrEF (EF <50%) or HFpEF (EF ≥50%). Cox regression was used to assess the effect of empagliflozin vs placebo on cardiovascular death/HF hospitalization (HHF), cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and HHF in patients with predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no HF. Of 7001 EMPA-REG OUTCOME patients with data available for this analysis, 6314 (90%) had no history of HF. Of the 687 with history of HF, 479 (69.7%) were predicted to have HFmrEF/HFrEF and 208 (30.3%) to have HFpEF. Empagliflozin's treatment effect was consistent in predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no-HF for each outcome (HR [95% CI] for the primary outcome 0.60 [0.31-1.17], 0.79 [0.51-1.23], and 0.63 [0.50-0.78], respectively; P interaction = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

In EMPA-REG OUTCOME, one-third of the patients with HF had predicted HFpEF. The benefits of empagliflozin on HF and mortality outcomes were consistent in nonHF, predicted HFpEF and HFmrEF/HFrEF.