Effects of controlled-release metoprolol on total mortality, hospitalizations, and well-being in patients with heart failure: the Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized Intervention Trial in congestive heart failure (MERIT-HF). MERIT-HF Study Group

Beta-blockers in hypertension: overview and meta-analysis of randomized outcome trials

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses from randomized outcome-based trials have challenged the role of beta-blockers for the treatment of hypertension. However, because they often include trials on diseases other than hypertension, the role of these drugs in the choice of the blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment strategies remains unclear.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials that compared beta-blockers vs. placebo/no-treatment/less-intense treatment (BP-lowering trials) or beta-blockers vs. other antihypertensive agents in patients with or without hypertension (comparison trials). Among BP-lowering trials and according to baseline comorbidity, we separately considered trials in hypertension, trials without chronic heart failure or acute myocardial infarction, and trials with either chronic heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. Seven fatal and nonfatal outcomes were calculated (random-effects model) for BP-lowering or comparison trials.

RESULTS

A total of 84 BP-lowering or comparison trials (165 850 patients) were eligible. In 67 BP-lowering trials (68 478 patients; mean follow-up 2.5 years; baseline SBP/DBP, 136/82 mmHg), beta blockers were associated with a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events [risk ratio 0.85 and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.78-0.92] and all-cause death (risk ratio 0.81 and 95% CI 0.75-0.86). Restriction of the analysis to five trials recruiting exclusively hypertensive patients (18 724 patients; mean follow-up 5.1 years; baseline SBP/DBP 163/94 mmHg), a -10.5/-7.0 mmHg BP decrease was accompanied by reduction of major cardiovascular events by 22% (95% CI, 6-34). In 24 comparison trials (103 764 patients, 3.92 years of mean follow-up), beta-blockers compared with other agents were less protective for stroke and all-cause death in all trials and in trials conducted exclusively in hypertensive patients (averaged risk ratio increase 20 and 6%, respectively, for both cases).

CONCLUSION

Compared with other antihypertensive agents, beta-blockers appear to be substantially less protective against stroke and overall mortality. However, they exhibit a substantial risk-reducing ability for all events when prescribed to lower BP in patients with modest or more clear BP elevations, and therefore can be used as additional agents in hypertensive patients.

Heart failure drug titration, discontinuation, mortality and heart failure hospitalization risk: a multinational observational study (US, UK and Sweden)

AIMS

Use and dosing of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure (HF) have been shown to be suboptimal. Among new users of GDMT in HF, we followed the real-life patterns of dose titration and discontinuation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

New users were identified in health care databases in Sweden, UK and US between 2016-2019. Inclusion criterion was a recent HF hospitalization (HHF) triggering the initiation of GDMT. Patients were grouped by GDMT, i.e. ACEi, ARB, beta-blocker, MRA and ARNI, and stratified by initial dose. Follow-up was 12 months, until death or study end. Outcomes were dose titration within each drug class, discontinuation and first HHF or death. Dose/discontinuation follow-up was assessed daily based on the coverage length of a filled prescription and reported on day 365. New users of ACEi (n = 8426), ARB (n = 2303), beta-blockers (n = 10 476), MRA (n = 17 421), and ARNI (n = 29 546) were identified. Over 12 months, target dose achievement was 15%, 10%, 12%, 30%, and discontinuation was 55%, 33%, 24% and 27% for ACEi, ARB, beta-blockers and ARNI, respectively. MRA was rarely titrated and discontinuation rates were high (40%). Event rates for HHF or death ranged from 40.0-86.9 per 100 patient-years across the treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite high risk of clinical events following HHF, new initiation of GDMT was followed by consistent patterns of low up-titration and early GDMT discontinuation in three countries with different health care and economies. Our data highlight the urgent need for moving away from long sequential approach when initiating HF treatment and for improving just-in-time decision support for patients and health care providers.

Beta-Arrestins in the Treatment of Heart Failure Related to Hypertension: A Comprehensive Review

Heart failure (HF) is a complicated clinical syndrome that is considered an increasingly frequent reason for hospitalization, characterized by a complex therapeutic regimen, reduced quality of life, and high morbidity. Long-standing hypertension ultimately paves the way for HF. Recently, there have been improvements in the treatment of hypertension and overall management not limited to only conventional medications, but several novel pathways and their pharmacological alteration are also conducive to the treatment of hypertension. Beta-arrestin (β-arrestin), a protein responsible for beta-adrenergic receptors’ (β-AR) functioning and trafficking, has recently been discovered as a potential regulator in hypertension. β-arrestin isoforms, namely β-arrestin1 and β-arrestin2, mainly regulate cardiac function. However, there have been some controversies regarding the function of the two β-arrestins in hypertension regarding HF. In the present review, we try to figure out the paradox between the roles of two isoforms of β-arrestin in the treatment of HF.

Beta-Arrestins in the Treatment of Heart Failure Related to Hypertension: A Comprehensive Review

Heart failure (HF) is a complicated clinical syndrome that is considered an increasingly frequent reason for hospitalization, characterized by a complex therapeutic regimen, reduced quality of life, and high morbidity. Long-standing hypertension ultimately paves the way for HF. Recently, there have been improvements in the treatment of hypertension and overall management not limited to only conventional medications, but several novel pathways and their pharmacological alteration are also conducive to the treatment of hypertension. Beta-arrestin (β-arrestin), a protein responsible for beta-adrenergic receptors' (β-AR) functioning and trafficking, has recently been discovered as a potential regulator in hypertension. β-arrestin isoforms, namely β-arrestin1 and β-arrestin2, mainly regulate cardiac function. However, there have been some controversies regarding the function of the two β-arrestins in hypertension regarding HF. In the present review, we try to figure out the paradox between the roles of two isoforms of β-arrestin in the treatment of HF.

Rapid evidence-based sequencing of foundational drugs for heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction

Foundational therapy for heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction consists of a combination of an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist and a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor. However, the conventional approach to the implementation is based on a historically-driven sequence that is not strongly evidence-based, typically requires ≥6 months, and frequently leads to major gaps in treatment. We propose a rapid sequencing strategy that is based on four principles. First, since drugs act rapidly to reduce morbidity and mortality, patients should be started on all four foundational treatments within 2-4 weeks. Second, since the efficacy of each foundational therapy is independent of treatment with the other drugs, priority can be determined by considerations of relative efficacy, safety and ease-of-use. Third, low starting doses of foundational drugs have substantial therapeutic benefits, and achievement of low doses of all four classes of drugs should take precedence over up-titration to target doses. Fourth, since drugs can influence the tolerability of other foundational agents, sequencing can be based on whether agents started earlier can enhance the safety of agents started simultaneously or later in the sequence. We propose an accelerated three-step approach, which consists of the simultaneous initiation of a beta-blocker and an SGLT2 inhibitor, followed 1-2 weeks later by the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, and 1-2 weeks later by a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. The latter two steps can be re-ordered or compressed depending on patient circumstances. Rapid sequencing is a novel evidence-based strategy that has the potential to dramatically improve the implementation of treatments that reduce the morbidity and mortality of patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction.

Optimizing sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A collaborative clinical practice statement

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a debilitating disease that is associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and societal costs. The past three decades have brought about significant advancements in the pharmacologic management of HFrEF, and a corresponding reduction in morbidity and mortality. However, the progress to improve clinical outcomes in real-world settings has stalled in recent years, largely due to underutilization of guideline directed medical therapies (GDMT). The discovery of significant cardio-renal protection from sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) has ushered in a new treatment paradigm for HFrEF management with SGLT2i therapy becoming an essential component of GDMT. Our Preventive Cardiology and Heart Failure services have established an innovative, multi-disciplinary, collaborative protocol to optimize management of cardiovascular risk factors and facilitation SGLT2i use in patients with HFrEF. The goal of this collaboration is to enhance utilization and safety of SGLT2i for HFrEF management by circumventing medication access issues, the major obstacle to therapy initiation. Within this protocol, our heart failure providers identify patients for the addition of SGLT2i to a background of heart failure GDMT. The patient is then referred to preventive cardiology where the team performs a comprehensive cardiovascular risk assessment, optimizes cardiovascular risk factors, and initiates SGLT2i with an emphasis on medication access, cost minimization, and mitigation of potential side effects. The heart failure team assumes responsibility for modification of heart failure-based therapies, and the preventive team manages diabetes, lipid, and metabolic-based therapies. The patient is followed by both cardiology services in a structured fashion, comparing outcome measures at regular intervals and utilizing our patient registry and bio-repository. This clinical practice statement provides a detailed evidentiary review on the cardiovascular and renal benefits of SGLT2i, outlines the rational for creation of a collaborative protocol, details a structured program that may serve as a template for enhanced heart failure management in other health systems, and addresses challenges encountered and recommendations for use.

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system improve survival and reduce morbidity in people with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); a review of the evidence is required to determine whether these treatments are beneficial for people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in people with HFpEF.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and one clinical trial register on 14 May 2020 to identify eligible studies, with no language or date restrictions. We checked references from trial reports and review articles for additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials with a parallel group design, enrolling adults with HFpEF, defined by LVEF greater than 40%.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 randomised controlled trials (231 reports), totalling 23,492 participants across all comparisons. The risk of bias was frequently unclear and only five studies had a low risk of bias in all domains. Beta-blockers (BBs) We included 10 studies (3087 participants) investigating BBs. Five studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 30 years to 81 years. A possible reduction in cardiovascular mortality was observed (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional benefit (NNTB) 25; 1046 participants; three studies), however, the certainty of evidence was low. There may be little to no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.00; 1105 participants; four studies; low-certainty evidence). The effects on heart failure hospitalisation, hyperkalaemia, and quality of life remain uncertain. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) We included 13 studies (4459 participants) investigating MRA. Eight studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 54.5 to 80 years. Pooled analysis indicated that MRA treatment probably reduces heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; NNTB = 41; 3714 participants; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, MRA treatment probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06; 4207 participants; five studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11; 4070 participants; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence). MRA treatment may have little or no effect on quality of life measures (mean difference (MD) 0.84, 95% CI -2.30 to 3.98; 511 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). MRA treatment was associated with a higher risk of hyperkalaemia (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.51; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 11; 4291 participants; six studies; high-certainty evidence). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) We included eight studies (2061 participants) investigating ACEIs. Three studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 70 to 82 years. Pooled analyses with moderate-certainty evidence suggest that ACEI treatment likely has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.42; 945 participants; two studies), all-cause mortality (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.45; 1187 participants; five studies) and heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.15; 1019 participants; three studies), and may result in little or no effect on the quality of life (MD -0.09, 95% CI -3.66 to 3.48; 154 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). The effects on hyperkalaemia remain uncertain. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) Eight studies (8755 participants) investigating ARBs were included. Five studies used a placebo comparator and in three the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 61 to 75 years. Pooled analyses with high certainty of evidence suggest that ARB treatment has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.02, 95% 0.90 to 1.14; 7254 participants; three studies), all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; 7964 participants; four studies), heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.02; 7254 participants; three studies), and quality of life (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.86 to 1.67; 3117 participants; three studies). ARB was associated with a higher risk of hyperkalaemia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.33; 7148 participants; two studies; high-certainty evidence). Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) Three studies (7702 participants) investigating ARNIs were included. Two studies used ARBs as the comparator and one used standardised medical therapy, based on participants' established treatments at enrolment. The mean age of participants ranged from 71 to 73 years. Results suggest that ARNIs may have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.15; 4796 participants; one study; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 7663 participants; three studies; high-certainty evidence), or quality of life (high-certainty evidence). However, ARNI treatment may result in a slight reduction in heart failure hospitalisation, compared to usual care (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 7362 participants; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence). ARNI treatment was associated with a reduced risk of hyperkalaemia compared with valsartan (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01; 5054 participants; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that MRA and ARNI treatment in HFpEF probably reduces heart failure hospitalisation but probably has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality and quality of life. BB treatment may reduce the risk of cardiovascular mortality, however, further trials are needed. The current evidence for BBs, ACEIs, and ARBs is limited and does not support their use in HFpEF in the absence of an alternative indication. Although MRAs and ARNIs are probably effective at reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalisation, the treatment effect sizes are modest. There is a need for improved approaches to patient stratification to identify the subgroup of patients who are most likely to benefit from MRAs and ARNIs, as well as for an improved understanding of disease biology, and for new therapeutic approaches.

Quality of life in men and women with heart failure: association with outcome, and comparison between the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and the EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire

Aims

We sought to analyse quality of life (QoL) measures derived from two questionnaires widely used in clinical trials, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the EuroQoL 5 dimensions (EQ‐5D), and to compare their prognostic value in men and women with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Methods and results

From the BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure (BIOSTAT‐CHF) we compared KCCQ and EQ‐5D at baseline and after 9 months in 1276 men and 373 women with new‐onset or worsening symptoms of HFrEF, who were sub‐optimally treated and in whom there was an anticipated up‐titration of guideline‐derived medical therapies. Women had significantly worse baseline QoL (median) as compared with men, both when assessed with KCCQ overall score (KCCQ‐OS, 44 vs. 53, P < 0.001) and EQ‐5D utility score (0.62 vs. 0.73, P < 0.001). QoL improved equally in women and men at follow‐up. All summary measures of QoL were independently associated with all‐cause mortality, with KCCQ‐OS showing the most remarkable association with mortality up to 1 year compared to the EQ‐5D scores (C‐statistic 0.650 for KCCQ‐OS vs. 0.633 and 0.599 for EQ‐5D utility score and EQ‐5D visual analogue scale, respectively). QoL was associated with all outcomes analysed, both in men and women (all P for interaction with sex >0.2).

Conclusion

Amongst patients with HFrEF, women reported significantly worse QoL than men. QoL was independently associated with subsequent outcome, similarly in men and women. The KCCQ in general, and the KCCQ‐OS in particular, showed the strongest independent association with outcome.

Resting heart rate and real-life treatment modalities in outpatients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction study: A multicenter, prospective, observational, and national registry

OBJECTIVE

Heart rate (HR) reduction is associated with improved outcomes in heart failure (HF). This multicenter, prospective, observational, and national registry aimed to evaluate resting HR and the impacts of HR-related medications in real-life clinical practice in patients with HF.

METHODS

The Resting HR and Real-Life Treatment Modalities in Outpatients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (REALITY HF) study enrolled 1054 patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of <40% from 16 centers. Clinical characteristics, HR, and medications were noted (enrollment phase). A total of 487 patients with sinus rhythm and HR of ≥70 bpm were included in a further 4-month follow-up (FU) program (V0). Changes in HR and medications were reevaluated at 1-month (V1) and 4-month (V2) FU visits. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) was used to assess the quality of life (QoL) of 320 patients in a 4-month FU program.

RESULTS

During enrollment, 794 patients (75.3%) were in sinus rhythm, in whom resting HR was 76.7±14 bpm, 69.1% had a resting HR of ≥70 bpm, 79.1% were receiving beta blocker (BB), and 6.1% were receiving ivabradine. Resting HR was lower in patients receiving BB (75.8±13 vs. 80.4±16 bpm; p=0.001); however, 65.8% of those still had a resting HR of ≥70 bpm. A significant association was found between elevated HR and worse New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, worse QoL, or lower LVEF. During the 4-month FU, adjustment of HR-lowering therapy was left to the physician's discretion. Resting HR significantly reduced from 83.6±12 (80) bpm at V0 to 78.6±13 (77) bpm at V1 (p=0.001) and further decreased to 73.0±11 (73) bpm at V2 (p=0.001). Patients achieving a resting HR of <70 bpm were 21.7% at V1 (p=0.001) and 39.9% at V2 (p=0.001). KCCQ significantly increased from 59.7±23 (62.7) at V0 to 73.1±18 (78.5) at V2 (p=0.001). In addition, patients with NYHA I increased from 22.2% at V0 to 29.2% at V1 and 39.4% at V2 (p=0.01).

CONCLUSION

In real-life clinical practice, elevated HR is highly prevalent in HF despite widely used BB therapy and is associated with worse clinical picture. Therapeutic interventions targeting HR significantly reduce HR, and HR lowering is associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Current and Future Drug and Device Therapies for Pediatric Heart Failure Patients: Potential Lessons from Adult Trials

This review discusses the potential drug and device therapies for pediatric heart failure (HF) due to reduced systolic function. It is important to realize that most drugs that are used in pediatric HF are extrapolated from adult cardiology practices or consensus guidelines based on expert opinion rather than on evidence from controlled clinical trials. It is difficult to conclude whether the drugs that are well established in adult HF trials are also beneficial for children because of tremendous heterogeneity in the mechanism of HF in children and variations in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs from birth to adolescence. The lessons learned from adult trials can guide pediatric cardiologists to design clinical trials of the newer drugs that are in the pipeline to study their efficacy and safety in children with HF. This paper's focus is that the reader should specifically think through the pathophysiological mechanism of HF and the mode of action of drugs for the selection of appropriate pharmacotherapy. We review the drug and device trials in adults with HF to highlight the knowledge gap that exists in the pediatric HF population.

CCS/CHFS Heart Failure Guidelines Update: Defining a New Pharmacologic Standard of Care for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

In this update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society heart failure (HF) guidelines, we provide comprehensive recommendations and practical tips for the pharmacologic management of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Since the 2017 comprehensive update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines for the management of HF, substantial new evidence has emerged that has informed the care of these patients. In particular, we focus on the role of novel pharmacologic therapies for HFrEF including angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, sodium glucose transport 2 inhibitors, and soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators in conjunction with other long established HFrEF therapies. Updated recommendations are also provided in the context of the clinical setting for which each of these agents might be prescribed; the potential value of each therapy is reviewed, where relevant, for chronic HF, new onset HF, and for HF hospitalization. We define a new standard of pharmacologic care for HFrEF that incorporates 4 key therapeutic drug classes as standard therapy for most patients: an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (as first-line therapy or after angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker titration); a β-blocker; a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist; and a sodium glucose transport 2 inhibitor. Additionally, many patients with HFrEF will have clinical characteristics for which we recommended other key therapies to improve HF outcomes, including sinus node inhibitors, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators, hydralazine/nitrates in combination, and/or digoxin. Finally, an approach to management that integrates prioritized pharmacologic with nonpharmacologic and invasive therapies after a diagnosis of HFrEF is highlighted.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction during the Vulnerable Phase: A Multicenter, Assessor-Blinded, Prospective, Observational, Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The 3-month period after hospitalization for acute cardiac failure is a vulnerable phase with the highest risk of mortality and rehospitalization. Safety and efficacy of early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan during the index hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is unclear. Therefore, we tested whether sacubitril/valsartan could result in a lower rate of a composite outcome of first hospitalization for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes compared to inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system alone.

METHODS

We enrolled patients hospitalized for ADHF and reduced ejection fraction at 4 sites; patients were divided into a sacubitril/valsartan group or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) group. All patients were followed up for 3 months after discharge. The primary endpoint was outcomes as a composite of death from cardiovascular causes and rehospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

In total, 251 patients who received sacubitril/valsartan and 251 patients who received ACEIs/ARBs had similar propensity scores and were included and compared. The primary endpoint was reached in 40 patients (15.9%) treated with sacubitril/valsartan and in 59 patients (23.5%) managed by ACEI/ARB (HR, 0.650; 95% CI: 0.435-0.971; p = 0.035). The NYHA class improved in 72.1% of patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group and in 59.8% of patients in the ACEI/ARB group (HR, 1.303; 95% CI: 1.097-1.548, p = 0.004). The key safety outcomes endpoints did not significantly differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients hospitalized with ADHF and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, we observed that sacubitril/valsartan therapy led to reduction in death from cardiovascular causes and rehospitalizations for heart failure when compared to ACEI/ARB therapy alone during the vulnerable phase. Our results support that sacubitril/valsartan may be administered early in the vulnerable phase after ADHF and improves NYHA class.

Comparison of the prognosis and outcome of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan according to age

The treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in patients suffering from chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction increases left ventricular ejection fraction and decreases the risk of sudden cardiac death. We conducted a retrospective analysis regarding the impact of age differences on the treatment outcome of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Patients were defined as adults if ≤65 years (n = 51) and older if >65 years of age (n = 76). The incidence of ventricular arrhythmias at 1-year follow-up was comparable in both groups (30.8 vs 26.5%; p = 0.71). The mortality rate in adult patients is significantly lower as compared with older patients (2 vs 14.5%; log-rank = 0.04). Older patients may suffer remarkably more side effects than adult patients (21.1 vs 11.8%; p = 0.03).

Sex Differences in Clinical Course and Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate differences in clinical and patient-reported outcomes between women and men hospitalized for acute HF.

BACKGROUND

Among patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF), it is unclear if symptom burden, response to therapy, and patient-reported quality of life (QOL) are different in women as compared with men.

METHODS

The ASCEND-HF (Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure) trial randomized 7,141 patients hospitalized for HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF) to receive nesiritide or placebo in addition to standard care. Clinical endpoints included 30-day mortality and rehospitalization and 180-day mortality. Patient-reported QOL was assessed at baseline, discharge, and 30 days using the EuroQOL 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) survey.

RESULTS

Among 7,141 total patients, 4,697 (65.8%) were men and 2,444 (34.2%) were women. Among patients with EF ≤40%, women were less likely to receive angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker and beta-blocker therapy, and less likely to have an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (all p < 0.03). Signs and symptoms of HF were similar between men and women (all p > 0.05), but women experienced less in-hospital weight loss and urine output (all p < 0.01). In unadjusted and adjusted analyses, men and women had similar risk of all mortality and rehospitalization endpoints (all p ≥ 0.41). Women reported lower EQ-5D utility and visual analogue scores at admission, discharge, and 30 days. Women continued to have significantly lower EQ-5D scores at all in-hospital and post-discharge time points after adjustment for clinical characteristics (all p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this acute HF population, women had similar risk of mortality and rehospitalization as compared with men, but experienced worse patient-reported QOL during and after hospitalization that persisted after adjustment for demographic and clinical factors. Current acute HF management may work similarly in either sex for purposes of preventing clinical events, but may be less equipped to improve patient-reported outcomes in women as compared with men.

Pharmacotherapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and health-related quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence on the effect of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) pharmacotherapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in June 2020. Randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating contemporary HFrEF pharmacotherapy and reporting HRQoL as an outcome were included. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was HRQoL at last available follow-up analysed using a random-effects model. We included 37 studies from 5770 identified articles. Risk of bias was low in 10 trials and high/unclear in 27 trials. High certainty evidence from meta-analyses demonstrated improved HRQoL over placebo with sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.23] and intravenous iron (SMD 0.52, 95% CI 0.04-1.00). Furthermore, high certainty evidence from ≥1 landmark trial further supported improved HRQoL with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) (SMD 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.17), ivabradine (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.23), hydralazine-nitrate (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.04-0.44) vs. placebo, and for angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) compared with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (SMD 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.17). Findings were inconclusive for ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, digoxin, and oral iron based on low-to-moderate certainty evidence.

CONCLUSION

ARBs, ARNIs, SGLT2 inhibitors, ivabradine, hydralazine-nitrate, and intravenous iron improved HRQoL in patients with HFrEF. These findings can be incorporated into discussions with patients to enable shared decision-making.

β-blocker use and risk of all-cause mortality in patients with coronary heart disease: effect modification by serum vitamin A

AIMS 

Blockade of β-adrenoceptors reduces sympathetic nervous system activity and improves survival in patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF); however, any improvement in longevity among patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) but without HFrEF remains uncertain. Vitamin A has been linked to the activation of tyrosine hydroxylase, the rate-limiting enzyme in the catecholamine synthesis pathway. We investigated if vitamin A status modified the association of β-blocker use with the risk of all-cause mortality.

METHODS AND RESULTS 

A total of 4118 patients undergoing elective coronary angiography for suspected stable angina pectoris, of whom the majority had normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were studied. Hazard ratios (HRs) of all-cause mortality comparing treatment vs. non-treatment of β-blockers according to the tertiles of serum vitamin A were explored in Cox proportional hazards regression models. During a median follow-up of 10.3 years, 897 patients (21.8%) died. The overall LVEF was 65% and 283 (6.9%) had anamnestic HF. After multivariable adjustments for traditional risk factors, medical history, and drug therapies of cardiovascular disease, β-blocker treatment was inversely associated with the risk of all-cause mortality [HR : 0.84; 95% CI (confidence interval), 0.72-0.97]. However, the inverse association was generally stronger among patients in the upper serum vitamin A tertile (HR :0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.86; Pinteraction = 0.012), which remained present after excluding patients with LVEF < 40%.

CONCLUSION 

In patients with suspected CHD, β-blocker treatment was associated with improved survival primarily among patients with high serum vitamin A levels.

Diabetes Management in Patients with Heart Failure

Diabetes and heart failure (HF) are common diseases, each affecting large segments of the world population. Moreover, prevalence rates for both are expected to rise dramatically over coming decades. The high prevalence rates of both diseases and wellrecognized association of diabetes as a risk factor for HF make it inevitable that both diseases co-exist in a large number of patients, complicating their management and increasing the risk of a poor outcome. Management of diabetes has been shown to impact clinical events in patients with HF and there is emerging evidence that agents used to treat diabetes can reduce HF events, even in non-diabetic patients. In this review we summarize the clinical course and treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and HF and review the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in patients with T2DM at risk for HF and those with established disease.

Beta-blocker therapy in patients with COPD: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis with multiple treatment comparison

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers are associated with reduced mortality in patients with cardiovascular disease but are often under prescribed in those with concomitant COPD, due to concerns regarding respiratory side-effects. We investigated the effects of beta-blockers on outcomes in patients with COPD and explored within-class differences between different agents.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Medline for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of beta-blocker exposure versus no exposure or placebo, in patients with COPD, with and without cardiovascular indications. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the association of beta-blocker therapy with acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), and a network meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the effects of individual beta-blockers on FEV1. Mortality, all-cause hospitalization, and quality of life outcomes were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

We included 23 observational studies and 14 RCTs. In pooled observational data, beta-blocker therapy was associated with an overall reduced risk of AECOPD versus no therapy (HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.70 to 0.85). Among individual beta-blockers, only propranolol was associated with a relative reduction in FEV1 versus placebo, among 199 patients evaluated in RCTs. Narrative syntheses on mortality, all-cause hospitalization and quality of life outcomes indicated a high degree of heterogeneity in study design and patient characteristics but suggested no detrimental effects of beta-blocker therapy on these outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The class effect of beta-blockers remains generally positive in patients with COPD. Reduced rates of AECOPD, mortality, and improved quality of life were identified in observational studies, while propranolol was the only agent associated with a deterioration of lung function in RCTs.

Early Detection of Fluid Retention in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: A Review of a Novel Multisensory Algorithm, HeartLogicTM

Heart failure (HF) hospitalisations due to decompensation are associated with shorter life expectancy and lower quality of life. These hospitalisations pose a significant burden on the patients, doctors and healthcare resources. Early detection of an upcoming episode of decompensation may facilitate timely optimisation of the ambulatory medical treatment and thereby prevent heart-failure-related hospitalisations. The HeartLogic^TM algorithm combines data from five sensors of cardiac implantable electronic devices into a cumulative index value. It has been developed for early detection of fluid retention in heart failure patients. This review aims to provide an overview of the current literature and experience with the HeartLogic^TM algorithm, illustrate how the index can be implemented in daily clinical practice and discuss ongoing studies and potential future developments of interest.

Association between antihypertensive treatment and adverse events: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between antihypertensive treatment and specific adverse events.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of adults receiving antihypertensives compared with placebo or no treatment, more antihypertensive drugs compared with fewer antihypertensive drugs, or higher blood pressure targets compared with lower targets. To avoid small early phase trials, studies were required to have at least 650 patient years of follow-up.

INFORMATION SOURCES

Searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, CENTRAL, and the Science Citation Index databases from inception until 14 April 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was falls during trial follow-up. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury, fractures, gout, hyperkalaemia, hypokalaemia, hypotension, and syncope. Additional outcomes related to death and major cardiovascular events were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and random effects meta-analysis was used to pool rate ratios, odds ratios, and hazard ratios across studies, allowing for between study heterogeneity (τ2).

RESULTS

Of 15 023 articles screened for inclusion, 58 randomised controlled trials were identified, including 280 638 participants followed up for a median of 3 (interquartile range 2-4) years. Most of the trials (n=40, 69%) had a low risk of bias. Among seven trials reporting data for falls, no evidence was found of an association with antihypertensive treatment (summary risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.24, τ2=0.009). Antihypertensives were associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.39, τ2=0.037, n=15), hyperkalaemia (1.89, 1.56 to 2.30, τ2=0.122, n=26), hypotension (1.97, 1.67 to 2.32, τ2=0.132, n=35), and syncope (1.28, 1.03 to 1.59, τ2=0.050, n=16). The heterogeneity between studies assessing acute kidney injury and hyperkalaemia events was reduced when focusing on drugs that affect the renin angiotensin-aldosterone system. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses focusing on adverse events leading to withdrawal from each trial. Antihypertensive treatment was associated with a reduced risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and stroke, but not of myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found no evidence to suggest that antihypertensive treatment is associated with falls but found evidence of an association with mild (hyperkalaemia, hypotension) and severe adverse events (acute kidney injury, syncope). These data could be used to inform shared decision making between doctors and patients about initiation and continuation of antihypertensive treatment, especially in patients at high risk of harm because of previous adverse events or poor renal function.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018116860.

Usefulness of universal beta-blocker therapy in patients after ST-elevation myocardial infarction

The use of beta-blockers (BB) in the context of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was a universal practice in the pre-reperfusion era. Since then, evidence of their use for secondary prevention after STEMI is scarce. Our aim is to determine treatment results associated with BB therapy after a STEMI at 1-year follow-up in a contemporary nationwide cohort.A prospective analysis involving 49 national centers, including patients admitted with STEMI, enrolled between October 2010 and September 2019 was conducted. The primary outcome was defined as the composite of all-cause mortality or hospital re-admission for a cardiovascular (CV) cause in the first year after STEMI. The patients were distributed into 2 groups, depending on whether they received therapy with BB at hospital discharge or not (BB and NB group, respectively).A total of 3145 patients were included in the analysis, of which 2526 (80.3%) in the BB group. A total of 12.2% of patients reached the primary outcome. Regarding the univariate Cox regression analysis, the BB group presented lower mortality or re-admission for CV cause at 1-year follow-up [hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, confidence interval (CI) 95% 0.55-0.87, P = .001]. However, after adjustment for significant covariates, this association was lost (HR 0.73, CI 95% 0.51-1.04, P = .081). In patients with preserved (HR 0.73, CI 95% 0.51-1.04, P = .081) and mid-range (HR 1.01, CI 95% 0.64-1.61, P = .959) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the primary outcome was similar between the 2 groups, while in patients with reduced LVEF, the BB group presented a better prognosis, with fewer patients reaching the primary outcome (HR 0.431, CI 95% 0.262-0.703, P = .001).BB universal therapy after STEMI has not proved useful, but it seems to be beneficial in patients with reduced LVEF.

A Novel Approach to Medical Management of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

The advent of newly available medical therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has resulted in many potential therapeutic combinations, increasing treatment complexity. Publication of expert consensus guidelines and initiatives aimed to improve implementation of treatment has emphasized sequential stepwise initiation and titration of medical therapy, which is labour intensive. Data taken from heart failure registries show suboptimal use of medications, prolonged titration times, and consequently little change in dose intensity, all of which indicate therapeutic inertia. Recently published evidence indicates that 4 medication classes-renin-angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors, β-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors-which we refer to as Foundational Therapy, confer rapid and robust reduction in both morbidity and mortality in most patients with HFrEF and that they work in additive fashion. Additional morbidity and mortality may be observed following addition of several personalized therapies in specific subgroups of patients. In this review, we discuss mechanisms of action of these therapies and propose a framework for their implementation, based on several principles. These include the critical importance of rapid initiation of all 4 Foundational Therapies followed by their titration to target doses, emphasis on multiple simultaneous drug changes with each patient encounter, attention to patient-specific factors in choice of medication class, leveraging inpatient care, use of the entire health care team, and alternative (ie, virtual visits) modes of care. We have incorporated these principles into a Cluster Scheme designed to facilitate timely and optimal medical treatment for patients with HFrEF.

Care bundle to reduce readmission in patients with heart failure: a modified Delphi consensus panel in Argentina

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to develop consensus among Argentine cardiologists on a care bundle to reduce readmissions of patients with heart failure (HF).

SETTING

Hospitals and cardiology clinics in Argentina that provide in-hospital care for patients with HF.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-four cardiology experts participated in the two online rounds and 18 (75%) of them participated in the third-round meeting.

METHODS

This study used a mixed-method design; it was conducted between August 2019 and January 2020. The development of a care bundle (a set of evidence-based interventions applied to improve clinical outcomes) involved three phases: (1) a literature review to define the list of interventions to be evaluated; (2) a modified Delphi panel to select interventions for the bundle and (3) definition of the HF care bundle. Also, the process included three rounds of scoring.

RESULTS

Twenty-six interventions were evaluated. The interventions in the final bundle covered four categories: medication, continuum of care, lifestyle habits, predischarge tests. These were: medication: beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors or ACE-inhibitors, furosemide and antimineralocorticoids; continuum of care: follow-up appointment, daily weight monitoring; lifestyle habits: smoking cessation counselling and low-sodium diet; predischarge tests: renal function, ionogram, blood pressure control, echocardiogram and determination of decompensating cause.

CONCLUSION

Following a systematic mixed-method approach, we have developed a care bundle of interventions that could decrease readmission of patients with HF. The application of this bundle could contribute to scale evidence-based interventions.

Contemporary Management of Heart Failure in Patients With Diabetes

Both heart failure and diabetes are increasing in prevalence in Western communities. The interrelationship between these two conditions is well known, with conventional heart failure therapies including several newer drug classes providing benefit to subjects with diabetes. Furthermore, several of the more recently introduced medications for type 2 diabetes have resulted in significant cardiovascular morbidity and mortality benefits with a marked improvement in heart failure symptoms and hospital presentations as well as deaths. This review outlines current therapies used to treat patients with or at risk for heart failure and their particular role in subjects with diabetes. Newer therapies, including certain glucose-lowering medications and their benefits in treating heart failure patients with and without diabetes, are also discussed. Finally, heart failure is also observed in long-duration, aging patients with type 1 diabetes, but this clinical issue has not been as extensively explored as in patients with type 2 diabetes and warrants further clinical investigation.

Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Utilization and Its Outcomes in Korea: Data from Korean Acute Heart Failure Registry

BACKGROUND

There are sparse data on the utilization rate of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and its beneficial effects in Korean patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

Among 5,625 acute heart failure (AHF) patients from 10 tertiary university hospitals across Korea, 485 patients with reassessed LVEF ≤ 35% at least 3 months after the index admission were enrolled in this study. The ICD implantation during the follow-up was evaluated. Mortality was compared between patients with ICDs and age-, sex-, and follow-up duration matched control patients.

RESULTS

Among 485 patients potentially indicated for an ICD for primary prevention, only 56 patients (11.5%) underwent ICD implantation during the follow-up. Patients with ICD showed a significantly lower all-cause mortality compared with their matched control population: adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) = 0.39 (0.16-0.92), P = 0.032. The mortality rate was still lower in the ICD group after excluding patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (adjusted HR [95% CI] = 0.09 [0.01-0.63], P = 0.015). According to the subgroup analysis for ischemic heart failure, there was a significantly lower all-cause mortality in the ICD group than in the no-ICD group (HR [95% CI] = 0.20 [0.06-0.72], P = 0.013), with a borderline statistical significance (interaction P = 0.069).

CONCLUSION

Follow-up data of this large, multicenter registry suggests a significant under-utilization of ICD in Korean heart failure patients with reduced LVEF. Survival analysis implies that previously proven survival benefit of ICD in clinical trials could be extrapolated to Korean patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01389843.

Anticoagulation in Patients with Heart Failure and Sinus Rhythm

The risk of thromboembolic events is significantly increased among patients with heart failure, even in those without atrial fibrillation. However, it is still unclear whether patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm can benefit from prophylactic anticoagulant therapy.This was a retrospective review of the pathophysiological mechanisms, epidemiological studies, and clinical trials on anticoagulation in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm.Some subgroup analyses of clinical trials found that prophylactic anticoagulant therapy could reduce the incidence of stroke in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm, and the risk of bleeding was significantly increased. Regarding the incidence of primary endpoint outcomes, all results from clinical trials were negative.Prophylactic anticoagulation did not improve the clinical outcome in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm.

Elevated plasma endocan and BOC in heart failure patients decrease after heart transplantation in association with improved hemodynamics

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) is rising with ageing population and constitutes a major health problem globally. A common complication of HF is pulmonary hypertension (PH) which negatively impacts survival. A pathophysiological association between HF and PH with tumorigenic processes has been suggested. We aimed to identify the plasma levels of, and the association between tumour-related proteins and hemodynamic improvements in patients with HF and PH due to left heart disease (LHD) before and 1-year after heart transplantation (HT).

METHODS

Forty-eight tumour-related proteins were measured with proximity extension assay in plasma from 20 controls and 26 HF patients before and 1-year after HT. Patients' hemodynamics were measured with right heart catheterization.

RESULTS

Out of 48 proteins, specifically, plasma levels of endocan and brother of CDO (BOC) were elevated in end-stage HF patients compared to controls (p < 0.001), but decreased after HT (p < 0.01), towards controls' levels. The decrease of endocan levels after HT correlated with improved mean pulmonary arterial pressure (rs = 0.80, p < 0.0001), pulmonary arterial wedge pressure (rs = 0.63, p = 0.0012), and pulmonary vascular resistance (rs = 0.70, p < 0.001). The decrease and normalization of BOC after HT correlated with decreased mean right atrial pressure (rs = 0.61 p = 0.0015) and NT-proBNP (rs = 0.57, p = 0.0022), as well as increased cardiac index (rs = - 0.51, p = 0.0086) and left-ventricular stroke work index (rs = - 0.57, p = 0.0039).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that (i) plasma endocan in HF may reflect the state of pulmonary vascular congestion and PH-LHD, whereas (ii) plasma BOC may reflect the cardiac function and the hemodynamic overload in HF. The exact role of these proteins and their clinical applicability as biomarkers in HF and PH-LHD ought to be investigated in larger cohorts.

β-Blocker Use and Risk of Mortality in Heart Failure Patients Initiating Maintenance Dialysis

RATIONAL & OBJECTIVE

Beta-blockers are recommended for patients with heart failure (HF) but their benefit in the dialysis population is uncertain. Beta-blockers are heterogeneous, including with respect to their removal by hemodialysis. We sought to evaluate whether β-blocker use and their dialyzability characteristics were associated with early mortality among patients with chronic kidney disease with HF who transitioned to dialysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Adults patients with chronic kidney disease (aged≥18 years) and HF who initiated either hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis during January 1, 2007, to June 30, 2016, within an integrated health system were included.

EXPOSURES

Patients were considered treated with β-blockers if they had a quantity of drug dispensed covering the dialysis transition date.

OUTCOMES

All-cause mortality within 6 months and 1 year or hospitalization within 6 months after transition to maintenance dialysis.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Inverse probability of treatment weights using propensity scores was used to balance covariates between treatment groups. Cox proportional hazard analysis and logistic regression were used to investigate the association between β-blocker use and study outcomes.

RESULTS

3,503 patients were included in the study. There were 2,115 (60.4%) patients using β-blockers at transition. Compared with nonusers, the HR for all-cause mortality within 6 months was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.65-0.94) among users of any β-blocker and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53-0.88) among users of metoprolol at transition. There were no observed differences in all-cause or cardiovascular-related hospitalization.

LIMITATIONS

The observational nature of our study could not fully account for residual confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blockers were associated with a lower rate of mortality among incident hemodialysis patients with HF. Similar associations were not observed for hospitalizations within the first 6 months following transition to dialysis.

New drugs: big changes in conservative heart failure therapy?

During the last 20 years, the prognosis for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction has steadily improved due to advances in drug treatment and the consistent implementation of guideline-recommended evidence-based drug therapy. Nevertheless, the morbidity and mortality rates of patients with HF can still be improved. The prevalence of HF is high and continues to increase steadily. Thus, timely and efficient drug treatment plays a central role in improving the quality of life and prognosis for patients with HF. Current therapeutic concepts combine inhibition of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system with blockage of the sympathetic system. New therapeutic approaches such as selective heart rate reduction, attenuation of the degradation of natriuretic peptides by neutral endopeptidase inhibition and treatment of comorbidities (e.g. iron deficiency, diabetes mellitus, hyperkalaemia) have led to a further improvement in the survival, time-out-of hospital and quality of life of affected patients. The goal of this article was to give an overview of the current standard drug therapy for HF and the value of new therapeutic approaches implemented in recent years.

Impact of β-blocker therapy on right ventricular function in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction. A prospective evaluation

BACKGROUND

Beta-blocker (β-blocker) therapy has been shown to improve mortality and reduce hospitalizations in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Although the physiological action mechanisms of β-blockers are well described, their effects on right ventricular (RV) function have not been prospectively studied.

OBJECTIVE

This prospective study aimed to (a) evaluate whether β-blocker therapy impacts RV remodeling based on echo parameters and (b) determine the predictive echo factors of β-blocker therapy response.

METHODS

From September 2017 to September 2018, HF patients were prospectively enrolled using CIBIS criteria: Class II, III, or IV HF; left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤40%; hospitalized for HF within the previous 12 months. Echo evaluation was performed before initiating β-blocker therapy and 3 months after optimal dose adjustment. Based on previous studies, patients with (absolute) LVEF ≥ 5% improvement were considered significant β-blocker therapy responders.

RESULTS

Overall, 40 patients (pts) completed the study, characterized as follows by age: 70 ± 10 years; gender: 10 women; cardiomyopathy etiology: idiopathic in 24 and ischemic in 16; NYHA Class: II in 22 and III in 10; LVEF: 32 ± 5%; and NTProBNP: 2665 ± 2400 pg/mL. The final population comprised 32 pts (79%), with eight (21%) excluded: two because of β-blocker therapy intolerance, one lost to follow-up, and five withdrew from the study. Under β-blocker therapy, several echo parameters significantly improved: LVEF from 31.7 ± 9 to 40.5 ± 9 (P < .0001); LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) from 154 ± 54 to 143 ± 45 mL (P = .06); LV end-systolic volume (ESV) from 107 ± 49 to 88 ± 37 mL (P = .0006); LV ES from 46 ± 11 to 64 ± 13 mL (P = .008); LV end-diastolic diameter (EDD) from 57 ± 9 to 54 ± 6 mm (P = .04); LV end-systolic diameter (ESD) from 48 ± 10 to 44 ± 7 mm (P = .007); and right ventricular systolic pressure (RV SP) from 39 ± 10 to 32 ± 8 mm Hg (P = .0001). Significant modifications were observed in terms of RV echo parameters: right ventricular (RV) size decreased from 30 ± 4 to 27 ± 5 mm (P = .03), while RV systolic function significantly improved based on tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (16.5 ± 4 vs. 19 ± 4 mm; 0.0006); DTI-derived tricuspid lateral annular systolic velocity wave (S') (10 ± 2 vs. 11.3 ± 3 cm/s; P = .03); and RIMP (Tei index) (0.5 ± 0.1 vs 0.46 ± 0.1; P = .04). RV 2D fractional area change (%) did not significantly differ despite a clear improvement tendency (35 ± 6 vs. 37 ± 4%; P = .1). No significant modifications were observed concerning LV diastolic parameters. Overall, β-blocker echo responders (n = 23/32; 72%) exhibited the same left and right echo parameters. No echo variables predicted the β-blocker response.

CONCLUSIONS

In HFrEF pts, β-blocker therapy significantly improves LV and RV systolic remodeling. Accordingly, β-blocker therapy could be applied as soon as possible in HFrEF patients with right ventricular dysfunction so as to limit RV remodeling.

Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Worldwide, the burden of heart failure has increased to an estimated 23 million people, and approximately 50% of cases are HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

OBSERVATIONS

Heart failure is a clinical syndrome characterized by dyspnea or exertional limitation due to impairment of ventricular filling or ejection of blood or both. HFrEF occurs when the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is 40% or less and is accompanied by progressive left ventricular dilatation and adverse cardiac remodeling. Assessment for heart failure begins with obtaining a medical history and physical examination. Also central to diagnosis are elevated natriuretic peptides above age- and context-specific thresholds and identification of left ventricular systolic dysfunction with LVEF of 40% or less as measured by echocardiography. Treatment strategies include the use of diuretics to relieve symptoms and application of an expanding armamentarium of disease-modifying drug and device therapies. Unless there are specific contraindications, patients with HFrEF should be treated with a β-blocker and one of an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, or angiotensin receptor blocker as foundational therapy, with addition of a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist in patients with persistent symptoms. Ivabradine and hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate also have a role in the care of certain patients with HFrEF. More recently, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have further improved disease outcomes, significantly reducing cardiovascular and all-cause mortality irrespective of diabetes status, and vericiguat, a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, reduces heart failure hospitalization in high-risk patients with HFrEF. Device therapies may be beneficial in specific subpopulations, such as cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with interventricular dyssynchrony, transcatheter mitral valve repair in patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation, and implantable cardiac defibrillators in patients with more severe left ventricular dysfunction particularly of ischemic etiology.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

HFrEF is a major public health concern with substantial morbidity and mortality. The management of HFrEF has seen significant scientific breakthrough in recent decades, and the ability to alter the natural history of the disease has never been better. Recent developments include SGLT2 inhibitors, vericiguat, and transcatheter mitral valve repair, all of which incrementally improve prognosis beyond foundational neurohormonal therapies. Disease morbidity and mortality remain high, with a 5-year survival rate of 25% after hospitalization for HFrEF.

Management of low blood pressure in ambulatory heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients

Low blood pressure is common in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). While spontaneous hypotension predicts risk in HFrEF, there is only limited evidence regarding the relationship between hypotension observed during heart failure (HF) drug titration and outcome. Nevertheless, hypotension (especially orthostatic hypotension) is an important factor limiting the titration of HFrEF treatments in routine practice. In patients with signs of shock and/or severe congestion, hospitalization is advised. However, in the very frequent cases of non-severe and asymptomatic hypotension observed while taking drugs with a class I indication in HFrEF, European and US guidelines recommend maintaining the same drug dosage. In instances of symptomatic or severe persistent hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg), it is recommended to first decrease blood pressure reducing drugs not indicated in HFrEF as well as the loop diuretic dose in the absence of associated signs of congestion. Unless the management of hypotension appears urgent, a HF specialist should then be sought rather than stopping or decreasing drugs with a class I indication in HFrEF. If symptoms or severe hypotension persist, no recommendations exist. Our HF group reviewed available evidence and proposes certain steps to follow in such situations in order to improve the pharmacological management of these patients.

Treatment Recommendations for Adults with Various Stages of Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is a progressive disease state resulting from disorders of the pericardium, myocardium, endocardium, heart valves or from certain metabolic diseases. Heart failure is the preferred term over congestive heart failure, since not every patient presents with fluid overload. Patients with heart failure will often have symptoms of left ventricular (LV) myocardium dysfunction. HF patients can have a wide range of LV functions leading to various ejection fraction (EF).

Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Comprehensive Review and Update of Diagnosis, Pathophysiology, Treatment, and Perioperative Implications

Almost three-quarters of all heart failure patients who are older than 65 have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The proportion and hospitalization rate of patients with HFpEF are increasing steadily relative to patients in whom heart failure occurs as result of reduced ejection fraction. The predominance of the HFpEF phenotype most likely is explained by the prevalence of medical conditions associated with an aging population. A multitude of age-related, medical, and lifestyle risk factors for HFpEF have been identified as potential causes for the sustained low-grade proinflammatory state that accelerates disease progression. Profound left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic stiffening, elevated LV filling pressures, reduced arterial compliance, left atrial hypertension, pulmonary venous congestion, and microvascular dysfunction characterize HFpEF, but pulmonary arterial hypertension, right ventricular dilation and dysfunction, and atrial fibrillation also frequently occur. These cardiovascular features make patients with HFpEF exquisitely sensitive to the development of hypotension in response to acute declines in LV preload or afterload that may occur during or after surgery. With the exception of symptom mitigation, lifestyle modifications, and rigorous control of comorbid conditions, few long-term treatment options exist for these unfortunate individuals. Patients with HFpEF present for surgery on a regular basis, and anesthesiologists need to be familiar with this heterogeneous and complex clinical syndrome to provide successful care. In this article, the authors review the diagnosis, pathophysiology, and treatment of HFpEF and also discuss its perioperative implications.

Current evidence of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Heart failure (HF) is one of the most common reasons for hospital admission in western countries. The measurement of the left ventricular ejection fraction is essential for the classification of HF and deciding on HF treatment. The treatment of HF has been improved in both diagnostic and therapeutic fields over the past two decades. The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor decreased the cardiovascular mortality in patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) improves the imbalance between the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone and natriuretic peptide systems. We present the clinical efficacy, real-world experience, safety and tolerability, the relevance of etiology of cardiomyopathy, and gender differences and regulatory affairs of LCZ696 in the treatment of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Response to beta-blockers and natriuretic peptide level in acute heart failure: analysis of data from the Korean acute heart failure registry

BACKGROUND

To investigate the effect of beta-blockers according to NP levels and HF phenotypes because natriuretic peptide (NP) level can be used to risk-stratify HF patients regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

Of 5,625 patients in the Korean acute heart failure registry, we included patients with LVEF and NP levels. HF phenotypes were defined as HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (EF ≤ 40%), HF with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) (40% < EF < 50%), and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) (EF ≥ 50%). Patients were further stratified by NP tertiles. Primary outcome was 5-year all-cause mortality according to beta-blocker use at discharge.

RESULTS

Both B-type NP (BNP) (r = -0.279, P < 0.001) and N-terminal pro-BNP (r = -0.186, P < 0.001) levels correlated inversely with LVEF. During a median follow-up duration of 961 days, 1560 (35.3%) patients died. In HFrEF, patients taking beta-blockers showed better survival regardless of NP levels. Regarding HFmrEF, there was no mortality difference between those taking and not taking beta-blockers. In HFpEF, beta-blocker use demonstrated lower mortality in those in the 3rd NP tertile (log-rank P = 0.041) but not in those in the 1st and 2nd NP tertiles (log-rank P > 0.05). After adjusting covariates, the use of beta-blockers was associated with a 38%-reduced mortality (hazard ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.39-0.98; P = 0.040) in HFpEF patients in the 3rd NP tertile but not in those in 1st and 2nd tertiles.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirm that the use of beta-blockers is beneficial in patients with HFrEF. Furthermore, we extend the benefits of beta-blockers to patients with HFpEF and high NP levels.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT01389843 URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01389843.

Ventricular arrhythmias and ARNI: is it time to reappraise their management in the light of new evidence?

The remarkable scientific progress in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has more than halved the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in this setting. However, SCD remains one of the major causes of death in this patient population. Beyond the acknowledged role of beta blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), a new class of drugs, the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), proved to reduce the overall cardiovascular mortality and, more specifically, the risk of SCD in HFrEF patients. The mechanism by which ARNI may reduce the mortality connected with harmful ventricular arrhythmias is not utterly clear. A variety of direct and indirect mechanisms have been suggested, but a favorable left ventricular reverse remodeling seems to play a key role in this setting. Furthermore, the well-known protective effect of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been debated in HFrEF patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) arguing against the role of primary prevention ICD in this setting, particularly when ARNI therapy is considered. The purpose of this review was to provide insights into the SCD mechanisms involved in HFrEF patients together with the current role of electrical therapies and new drug agents in this setting. Graphical abstract.

Predictors of patient-reported outcomes at discharge in patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

It is well-established that heart failure has a negative impact on quality of life. However, little is known about patient-related predictors of health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, symptoms and illness perception among patients with heart failure.

AIM

To study the association between patient-related predictors and patient-reported outcome measures at discharge from hospital in a cohort of patients with heart failure.

METHODS

We used data from 1506 patients with heart failure, participating in the national DenHeart Survey of patient-reported outcome measures in patients with heart disease. The potential patient-related predictors included demographic, administrative, clinical and socioeconomic factors. The patient-reported outcome measures included six questionnaires: the Short Form-12, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the EuroQol five-dimensional, five-level questionnaire, the HeartQoL, the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Data were linked to national patient registry data and medical records. We performed multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

In adjusted linear regression analyses we found that a length of hospital stay of >2 days was associated with worse scores across questionnaires, except for the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. Higher comorbidity level was associated with worse scores across all questionnaires, whereas low social support was associated with worse scores across questionnaires, except for the physical domain of the Short Form-12 and the HeartQoL global score.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified length of hospital stay > 2 days, a higher comorbidity level and low social support to be associated with worse scores across questionnaires at discharge from a cardiac-related hospitalisation in patients with heart failure.

Elevated plasma tyrosine kinases VEGF-D and HER4 in heart failure patients decrease after heart transplantation in association with improved haemodynamics

Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) are implicated in cardiovascular growth and remodelling. We aimed to identify the plasma levels of RTKs and related proteins and their association with haemodynamic alterations in heart failure (HF) and related pulmonary hypertension (PH) following heart transplantation (HT). Using proximity extension assay, 28 RTKs and related proteins were analysed in plasma from 20 healthy controls and 26 HF patients before and 1-year after HT. In end-stage HF, out of 28 RTKs, plasma vascular endothelial growth factor-D (VEGF-D) and human epidermal growth factor-4 (HER4) were elevated compared to controls (p < 0.001), but decreased (p < 0.0001) and normalised after HT. Following HT, plasma changes (Δ) of VEGF-D correlated with Δmean pulmonary artery pressure (rs = 0.65, p = 0.00049), Δpulmonary artery wedge pressure (rs = 0.72, p < 0.0001), Δpulmonary arterial compliance (PAC) (rs = - 0.52, p = 0.0083) and Δpulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) (rs = 0.58, p = 0.0032). ΔHER4 correlated with Δmean right atrial pressure (rs = 0.51, p = 0.012), ΔNT-proBNP (rs = 0.48, p = 0.016) and Δcardiac index (rs = - 0.56, p = 0.0044). In HF patients following HT, normalisation of VEGF-D reflected reversal of passive pulmonary congestion and restored PAC and PVR; whereas the normalisation of HER4 reflected decreased volume overload and improved cardiac function. The precise function of these proteins, their potential clinical use and pathophysiological relation in HF and related PH remain to be elucidated.

Carvedilol and metoprolol are both able to preserve myocardial function in type 2 diabetes

PURPOSE

Increasing cohorts of patients present with diabetic cardiomyopathy, and with no targeted options, treatment often rely on generic pharmaceuticals such as β-blockers. β-blocker efficacy is heterogenous, with second generation β-blocker metoprolol selectively inhibiting β₁ -AR, while third generation β-blocker carvedilol has α₁ -AR inhibition, antioxidant, and anti-apoptotic actions alongside nonselective β-AR inhibition. These additional properties have led to the hypothesis that carvedilol may improve cardiac contractility in the diabetic heart to a greater extent than metoprolol. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of metoprolol and carvedilol on myocardial function in animal models and cardiac tissue from patients with type 2 diabetes and preserved ejection fraction.

METHODS

Echocardiographic examination of cardiac function and assessment of myocardial function in isolated trabeculae was carried out in patients with and without diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) who were prescribed metoprolol or carvedilol. Equivalent measures were undertaken in Zucker Diabetic Fatty (ZDF) rats following 4 weeks treatment with metoprolol or carvedilol.

RESULTS

Patients receiving carvedilol compared to metoprolol had no difference in cardiac function, and no difference was apparent in myocardial function between β-blockers. Both β-blockers similarly improved myocardial function in diabetic ZDF rats treated for 4 weeks, without significantly affecting in vivo cardiac function.

CONCLUSIONS

Metoprolol and carvedilol were found to have no effect on cardiac function in type 2 diabetes with preserved ejection fraction, and were similarly effective in preventing myocardial dysfunction in ZDF rats.

Association Between Norepinephrine Levels and Abnormal Iron Status in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: Is Iron Deficiency More Than a Comorbidity?

Background

Mechanisms underlying iron homeostasis dysregulation in patients with chronic heart failure remain unsettled. In cardiomyocyte models, norepinephrine may lead to intracellular iron depletion, but the potential association between catecholamines (sympathetic activation markers) and iron metabolism biomarkers in chronic heart failure is unknown.

Methods and Results

In this cross‐sectional analysis, we studied the association between plasma norepinephrine levels and serum iron status biomarkers indicating iron storage (ferritin), iron transport (transferrin saturation), and iron demand (soluble transferrin receptor) in a prospective cohort of 742 chronic heart failure patients (mean age, 72±11 years; 56% male). Impaired iron status was defined as ferritin <100 μg/L or transferrin saturation <20%. Impaired iron status was observed in 69% of patients. In multivariate models, greater norepinephrine levels were associated with impaired iron transport (transferrin saturation <20%, odds ratio=2.28; 95% CI [1.19–4.35]; P=0.013), but not with impaired iron storage (ferritin <100 μg/L, odds ratio=1.25; 95% CI [0.73–2.16]; P=0.415). Norepinephrine was a significant predictor of increased iron demand (soluble transferrin receptor, standardized β‐coefficient=0.12; P=0.006) and low transferrin saturation (standardized β‐coefficient=−0.12; P=0.003). However, norepinephrine levels were not associated with iron or ferritin levels (P>0.05). Adjusted norepinephrine marginal means were significantly higher in patients with impaired iron status compared with those with normal iron status (528 pg/mL [505–551] versus 482 pg/mL [448–518], respectively; P=0.038).

Conclusions

In chronic heart failure patients, increased sympathetic activation estimated with norepinephrine levels is associated with impaired iron status and, particularly, dysregulation of biomarkers suggesting impaired iron transport and increased iron demand. Whether the relationship between norepinephrine and iron metabolism is bidirectional and entails causality need to be elucidated in future research.

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I2 = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I2 = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I2 = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.