Impact of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists on the risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction: an individual patient-level meta-analysis of three randomized-controlled trials

Effects of Sacubitril-Valsartan Versus Valsartan in Women Compared With Men With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From PARAGON-HF

BACKGROUND

Unlike heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, there is no approved treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the predominant phenotype in women. Therefore, there is a greater heart failure therapeutic deficit in women compared with men.

METHODS

In a prespecified subgroup analysis, we examined outcomes according to sex in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), which compared sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We also report secondary efficacy and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 2479 women (51.7%) and 2317 men (48.3%) were randomized. Women were older and had more obesity, less coronary disease, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels than men. For the primary outcome, the rate ratio for sacubitril-valsartan versus valsartan was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59-0.90) in women and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.84-1.25) in men (P interaction = 0.017). The benefit from sacubitril-valsartan was attributable to reduction in heart failure hospitalization. The improvement in New York Heart Association class and renal function with sacubitril-valsartan was similar in women and men, whereas the improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score was less in women than in men. The difference in adverse events between sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan was similar in women and men.

CONCLUSIONS

As compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan seemed to reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization more in women than in men. Whereas the possible sex-related modification of the effect of treatment has several potential explanations, the present study does not provide a definite mechanistic basis for this finding.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

The endothelial mineralocorticoid receptor: Contributions to sex differences in cardiovascular disease

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death for both men and women. The observation that premenopausal women are protected from cardiovascular disease relative to age-matched men, and that this protection is lost with menopause, has led to extensive study of the role of sex steroid hormones in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease. However, the molecular basis for sex differences in cardiovascular disease is still not fully understood, limiting the ability to tailor therapies to male and female patients. Therefore, there is a growing need to investigate molecular pathways outside of traditional sex hormone signaling to fully understand sex differences in cardiovascular disease. Emerging evidence points to the mineralocorticoid receptor (MR), a steroid hormone receptor activated by the adrenal hormone aldosterone, as one such mediator of cardiovascular disease risk, potentially serving as a sex-dependent link between cardiovascular risk factors and disease. Enhanced activation of the MR by aldosterone is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Emerging evidence implicates the MR specifically within the endothelial cells lining the blood vessels in mediating some of the sex differences observed in cardiovascular pathology. This review summarizes the available clinical and preclinical literature concerning the role of the MR in the pathophysiology of endothelial dysfunction, hypertension, atherosclerosis, and heart failure, with a special emphasis on sex differences in the role of endothelial-specific MR in these pathologies. The available data regarding the molecular mechanisms by which endothelial-specific MR may contribute to sex differences in cardiovascular disease is also summarized. A paradigm emerges from synthesis of the literature in which endothelial-specific MR regulates vascular function in a sex-dependent manner in response to cardiovascular risk factors to contribute to disease. Limitations in this field include the relative paucity of women in clinical trials and, until recently, the nearly exclusive use of male animals in preclinical investigations. Enhanced understanding of the sex-specific roles of endothelial MR could lead to novel mechanistic insights underlying sex differences in cardiovascular disease incidence and outcomes and could identify additional therapeutic targets to effectively treat cardiovascular disease in men and women.

Eplerenone in patients with myocardial infarction and "mid-range" ejection fraction: An analysis from the EPHESUS trial

Background

Trials using mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in myocardial infraction (MI) without heart failure (HF) or systolic impairment have been underpowered to assess morbidity‐mortality benefit. In EPHESUS 6632 patients were included, of whom 11% had an ejection fraction (EF) of 40% and HF or diabetes. We aim to assess the potential benefit of MRAs in MI with EF of 40%.

Methods

Cox models with interaction term for EF. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons.

Hypothesis

Patients with an EF of 40% benefit similarly from MRA therapy to those with an EF <40%.

Results

In EPHESUS, 753 patients had an EF = 40% and 5864 an EF < 40%. Patients with an EF = 40% were younger (63 vs 64 years), had lower heart rate (73 vs 75 bpm), less atrial fibrillation (10% vs 14%), previous MI (21% vs 28%), HF hospitalization (5% vs 8%), and had more often reperfusion therapy and/or revascularization (55% vs 44%). The mean EF was 40.0 ± 0.3% in those with EF = 40% vs 32.2 ± 5.9% in those with EF < 40%. The primary outcome occurred in 13.3% (10 events per 100 py) of the patients with EF = 40% vs 22.9% (19 events per 100 py) in those with EF < 40%; adjusted HR for EF = 40% vs <40% = 0.65 (0.53‐0.81). Eplerenone reduced the event‐rate homogenously regardless of EF (interaction_p EF = 40% vs EF < 40% = 0.21). Similar findings were observed for cardiovascular and all‐cause death.

Conclusion

Eplerenone reduces hospitalizations and mortality in patients with MI and EF = 40% similarly to patients with EF < 40%. These findings suggest that MI patients with EF in the “mid‐range zone” may also benefit from MRA therapy which might help clinicians in their treatment decisions.

Editor's Choice- Impact of identifying precipitating factors on 30-day mortality in acute heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence and prognostic value of the most common triggering factors in acute heart failure.

METHODS

Patients with acute heart failure from 41 Spanish emergency departments were recruited consecutively in three time periods between 2011 and 2016. Precipitating factors were classified as: (a) unrecognized; (b) infection; (c) atrial fibrillation; (d) anaemia; (e) hypertension; (f) acute coronary syndrome; (g) non-adherence; and (h) two or more precipitant factors. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were used to assess the association between 30-day mortality and each precipitant factor. The risk of dying was further evaluated by week intervals over the 30-day follow-up to assess the period of higher vulnerability for each precipitant factor.

RESULTS

Approximately 69% of our 9999 patients presented with a triggering factor and 1002 died within the first 30 days (10.0%). The most prevalent factors were infection and atrial fibrillation. After adjusting for 11 known predictors, acute coronary syndrome was associated with higher 30-day mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-3.42), whereas atrial fibrillation (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.56-0.94) and hypertension (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.21-0.55) were significantly associated with better outcomes when compared to patients without precipitant. Patients with infection, anaemia and non-compliance were not at higher risk of dying within 30 days. These findings were consistent across gender and age groups. The 30-day mortality time pattern varied between and within precipitant factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Precipitant factors in acute heart failure patients are prevalent and have a prognostic value regardless of the patient's gender and age. They can be managed with specific treatments and can sometimes be prevented.

Risk prediction tools in cardiovascular disease prevention: A report from the ESC Prevention of CVD Programme led by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC) in collaboration with the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACCA) and the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professions (ACNAP)

Risk assessment and risk prediction have become essential in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Even though risk prediction tools are recommended in the European guidelines, they are not adequately implemented in clinical practice. Risk prediction tools are meant to estimate prognosis in an unbiased and reliable way and to provide objective information on outcome probabilities. They support informed treatment decisions about the initiation or adjustment of preventive medication. Risk prediction tools facilitate risk communication to the patient and their family, and this may increase commitment and motivation to improve their health. Over the years many risk algorithms have been developed to predict 10-year cardiovascular mortality or lifetime risk in different populations, such as in healthy individuals, patients with established cardiovascular disease and patients with diabetes mellitus. Each risk algorithm has its own limitations, so different algorithms should be used in different patient populations. Risk algorithms are made available for use in clinical practice by means of - usually interactive and online available - tools. To help the clinician to choose the right tool for the right patient, a summary of available tools is provided. When choosing a tool, physicians should consider medical history, geographical region, clinical guidelines and additional risk measures among other things. Currently, the U-prevent.com website is the only risk prediction tool providing prediction algorithms for all patient categories, and its implementation in clinical practice is suggested/advised by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Risk prediction tools in cardiovascular disease prevention: A report from the ESC Prevention of CVD Programme led by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC) in collaboration with the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACCA) and the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professions (ACNAP)

Risk assessment have become essential in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Even though risk prediction tools are recommended in the European guidelines, they are not adequately implemented in clinical practice. Risk prediction tools are meant to estimate prognosis in an unbiased and reliable way and to provide objective information on outcome probabilities. They support informed treatment decisions about the initiation or adjustment of preventive medication. Risk prediction tools facilitate risk communication to the patient and their family, and this may increase commitment and motivation to improve their health. Over the years many risk algorithms have been developed to predict 10-year cardiovascular mortality or lifetime risk in different populations, such as in healthy individuals, patients with established cardiovascular disease and patients with diabetes mellitus. Each risk algorithm has its own limitations, so different algorithms should be used in different patient populations. Risk algorithms are made available for use in clinical practice by means of - usually interactive and online available - tools. To help the clinician to choose the right tool for the right patient, a summary of available tools is provided. When choosing a tool, physicians should consider medical history, geographical region, clinical guidelines and additional risk measures among other things. Currently, the U-prevent.com website is the only risk prediction tool providing prediction algorithms for all patient categories, and its implementation in clinical practice is suggested/advised by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Risk prediction tools in cardiovascular disease prevention: A report from the ESC Prevention of CVD Programme led by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC) in collaboration with the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACCA) and the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professions (ACNAP)

Risk assessment and risk prediction have become essential in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Even though risk prediction tools are recommended in the European guidelines, they are not adequately implemented in clinical practice. Risk prediction tools are meant to estimate prognosis in an unbiased and reliable way and to provide objective information on outcome probabilities. They support informed treatment decisions about the initiation or adjustment of preventive medication. Risk prediction tools facilitate risk communication to the patient and their family, and this may increase commitment and motivation to improve their health. Over the years many risk algorithms have been developed to predict 10-year cardiovascular mortality or lifetime risk in different populations, such as in healthy individuals, patients with established cardiovascular disease and patients with diabetes mellitus. Each risk algorithm has its own limitations, so different algorithms should be used in different patient populations. Risk algorithms are made available for use in clinical practice by means of – usually interactive and online available – tools. To help the clinician to choose the right tool for the right patient, a summary of available tools is provided. When choosing a tool, physicians should consider medical history, geographical region, clinical guidelines and additional risk measures among other things. Currently, the U-prevent.com website is the only risk prediction tool providing prediction algorithms for all patient categories, and its implementation in clinical practice is suggested/advised by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Editor's Choice- Pathophysiology and therapy of myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion syndrome

There is a need to find interventions able to reduce the extent of injury in reperfused ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) beyond timely reperfusion. In this review, we summarise the clinical impact of STEMI from epidemiological, clinical and biological perspectives. We also revise the pathophysiology underlying the ischaemia/reperfusion syndrome occurring in reperfused STEMI, including the several players involved in this syndrome, such as cardiomyocytes, microcirculation and circulating cells. Interventions aimed to reduce the resultant infarct size, known as cardioprotective therapies, are extensively discussed, putting the focus on both mechanical interventions (i.e. ischaemic conditioning) and promising pharmacological therapies, such as early intravenous metoprolol, exenatide and other glucose modulators, N-acetylcysteine as well as on some other classic therapies which have failed to be translated to the clinical arena. Novel targets for evolving therapeutic interventions to ameliorate ischaemia/reperfusion injury are also discussed. Finally, we highlight the necessity to improve the study design of future randomised clinical trials in the field, as well as to select patients better who can most likely benefit from cardioprotective interventions.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces ventricular arrhythmias in parallel with left ventricular reverse remodeling in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the occurrence of sudden cardiac death in the PARADIGM-HF trial. However, limited information is available about the mechanism.

METHODS

Heart failure (HF)-patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan for a class-I indication equipped with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with remote tele-monitoring were retrospectively analyzed. Device-registered arrhythmic-events were determined [ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF), appropriate therapy, non-sustained VT (NsVT; > 4beats and < 30 s), hourly premature ventricular contraction (PVC)-burden], following sacubitril/valsartan initiation (incident-analysis) and over an equal time period before initiation (antecedent-analysis). Reverse remodeling to sacubitril/valsartan was defined as an improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥ 5% between baseline and follow-up.

RESULTS

A-total of 151 HF-patients with reduced LVEF (29 ± 9%) were included. Patients were switched from ACE-I or ARB to equal doses of sacubitril/valsartan (expressed as %-target-dose; before = 58 ± 30% vs. after = 56 ± 27%). The mean follow-up of both the incident and antecedent analysis was 364 days. Following the initiation, VT/VF-burden dropped (individual patients with VT/VF pre_n = 19 vs. post_n = 10, total-episodes of VT/VF pre_n = 51 vs. post_n = 14, both p < 0.001), resulting in reduced occurrence of appropriate therapy (pre_n = 16 vs. post_n = 6; p < 0.001). NsVT-burden per patient also dropped (mean episodes pre_n = 7.7 ± 11.8 vs. post_n = 3.7 ± 5.4; p < 0.001). There was no impact on atrial-fibrillation burden. PVC-burden dropped significantly which was associated with an improvement in BiV-pacing in patients with < 90% BiV-pacing at baseline. A higher degree of reverse remodeling was associated with a lower burden of NsVT and PVCs (both p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan is associated with a lower degree of VT/VF, resulting in less ICD-interventions. This beneficial effect on ventricular arrhythmias might be related to cardiac reverse remodeling.