Aspirin and the treatment of heart failure in the elderly

Survival Benefit of Aspirin in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis

Background

There is no clear consensus on the use of aspirin (ASA) in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) due to its reported interaction with other cardio-prudent medications. The aim was to evaluate the effect of ASA on all-cause mortality and the frequency of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with CHF using meta-analysis, as well as to study the potential variables interacting with this effect.

Methods

Eligible studies were identified via a PubMed search, the “related article” feature and a manual search of references. Studies were included if they had a study population with CHF of any etiology, compared ASA to no ASA or placebo, and reported one or both of the following outcomes: 1) all-cause mortality and 2) the frequency of hospitalization for heart failure. Data were extracted and verified. We used the inverse variance method in a random-effects model to combine effect sizes.

Results

A total of 14 studies with a combined study population of 64,550 patients were included in the final analysis. All-cause mortality was found to be significantly lower in patients who were taking ASA (P = 0.003). When examining the use of ASA, no significant difference was found in the frequency of hospitalization for heart failure. ASA use was demonstrated to be more beneficial against mortality in studies with a larger percentage of patients on nitrates (P = 0.008) and oral anticoagulants (P = 0.04). A significantly lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure was observed in patients who used oral anticoagulants and ASA concurrently (P = 0.02).

Conclusions

ASA may have beneficial effects on mortality in patients with heart failure of all etiologies.

The prescription of antiplatelet medication in a very elderly population: An observational study in 15 141 ambulatory subjects

OBJECTIVE

Despite the frequent use of antiplatelet medication (AM) in the elderly patients, very few studies have investigated its prescription. We describe AM prescription through retrospective study in ambulatory elderly patients.

METHOD

All subjects aged over 80 years with a medical prescription delivered in March 2015 and affiliated to the Mutualité Sociale Agricole de Bourgogne. Subjects with prescriptions for AM were compared with those without.

RESULTS

A total of 15 141 ambulatory elderly patients (83-89 years, 61.3% of women) were included and 4412 (29.14%) had a prescription for AM. The latter were more frequently men than those without AM (43% vs 36.93%, P < .0001) and more frequently had chronic comorbidities (77.24% vs 64.65%, P < .0001). Compared with ambulatory subjects without AM, those with AM more frequently had coronary heart disease (35.15% vs 14.49%), severe hypertension (30% vs 25.65%), diabetes (27.42% vs 20.64%), peripheral arterial diseases (16.28% vs 5.96%) and disabling stroke (9% vs 5.56% (all P < .0001). In addition, they had more prescriptions of beta-blockers (45.24% vs 36.90%), angiotensin conversion enzyme inhibitor (31.35% vs 25.44%), calcium channel blockers (33.34% vs 27.90%), nitrate derivatives (10.6% vs 6.03%) or hypolipidemic agents (HA; 49.81% vs 29.72%) (all P < .0001) than those without AM.

CONCLUSION

In this study, which is very interested for its size and the advanced age of the subjects, long-course AM was prescribed in one third of ambulatory elderly patients. Coronary heart disease, severe hypertension and diabetes were more frequent in AM subjects. However, the low percentage of declared strokes was surprising. We provide additional data to doctors following subjects with AM.

Are the elderly different? Factors influencing mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate factors influencing mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients aged ≥ 75 years compared to younger patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 1,809 coronary heart disease (CHD) patients after PCI with stent implantation in our hospital were assessed. Kaplan-Meier analyses with log-rank test and Cox regression analyses were performed on three predefined models concerning primary endpoint of all-cause mortality. Model 1 was a univariate analysis of the influence of age dichotomized by age 75 years on the primary endpoint. Model 2 included age and classical cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs, e.g., body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, and hypertension). Model 3 consisted of age, classical CVRFs, and additional factors (e.g., medication; hemoglobin, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and creatinine levels, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)).

RESULTS

In the mean follow-up of 137 ± 61 weeks 375 patients died. Age ≥ 75 years was significantly related to mortality in all models. In model 3, previous stroke, PAD, diabetes, elevated levels of serum creatinine, and increased LDL-C were related to elevated mortality, higher hemoglobin levels, and LVEF > 50% were associated with decreased mortality in all patients and in patients < 75 years. In patients ≥ 75 years arterial hypertension was associated with poor outcome (hazard ratio (HR) 7.989, p = 0.040), previous antiplatelet therapy showed reduced mortality (HR 0.098, p = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

Although risk factors such as previous stroke, PAD, diabetes, renal insufficiency, and anemia were predictors for death in all patients and patients < 75 years, in the elderly only arterial hypertension increased, whereas treatment with platelet inhibitors decreased mortality.

Aspirin Use and Outcomes in a Community-Based Cohort of 7352 Patients Discharged After First Hospitalization for Heart Failure

Background— The safety of aspirin in heart failure (HF) has been called into question, particularly in those patients (1) without coronary disease, (2) with renal dysfunction, or (3) treated with low-dose angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and high-dose aspirin.

Methods and Results— We examined prescription patterns and outcomes (all-cause mortality and/or HF readmission) in patients discharged from 103 Canadian hospitals between April 1999 and March 2001 after a first hospitalization for HF. Of 7352 patients with HF (mean age, 75 years; 44% without coronary disease and 29% with renal dysfunction), 2785 (38%) died or required HF readmission within the first year. Compared with nonusers, aspirin users were no more likely to die or require HF readmission (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [0.91 to 1.16]), even in patients without coronary disease (HR, 0.98 [0.78 to 1.22]) or patients with renal dysfunction (HR, 1.13 [0.94 to 1.36]). On the other hand, users of ACE inhibitors were less likely to die or require HF readmission (HR, 0.87 [0.79 to 0.96]), even if they were using aspirin (HR, 0.86 [0.77 to 0.95]). There were no dose-dependent interactions between aspirin and ACE inhibitors.

Conclusions— In this observational study, aspirin use was not associated with an increase in mortality rates or HF readmission rates, and aspirin did not attenuate the benefits of ACE inhibitors, even in patients without coronary disease, patients with renal dysfunction, or patients treated with high-dose aspirin and low-dose ACE inhibitors.

Aspirin Use in Older Patients With Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine patterns of aspirin use and the relationship between aspirin prescription and outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and heart failure (HF).

BACKGROUND

Because of the potential for exacerbating hypertension or renal insufficiency and possible interactions with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, the use of aspirin for secondary prevention of coronary events is controversial in patients with HF.

METHODS

We studied a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries > or =65 years old after hospitalization for HF with CAD and without aspirin contraindications between April 1998 and June 2001. We assessed factors associated with aspirin prescription and the relationship between aspirin and outcomes in regression models accounting for differences in patient, physician, and hospital characteristics and for clustering of patients by hospital.

RESULTS

Of the 24,012 patients, 54% received aspirin. Treated patients had lower unadjusted rates of death (31% vs. 39% for those not receiving aspirin, p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, aspirin remained associated with a lower risk of death (risk ratio [RR] 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90 to 0.99). This association was similar regardless of hypertension, renal insufficiency, or treatment with ACE inhibitors (p for all interactions > 0.2). Aspirin also was associated with lower risks of death or all-cause readmission (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99) and of death or readmission for HF (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.96 to 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost one-half of patients with CAD hospitalized for HF in the U.S. are not treated with aspirin. This study found no evidence of harm from aspirin in this population and suggests a treatment benefit. Withholding aspirin based upon theoretical concerns about adverse effects appears to be unjustified.

Does Aspirin Attenuate the Beneficial Effect of ACE Inhibitors in Elderly People with Heart Failure?

BACKGROUND

Several studies have raised concerns over a possible reduction in the beneficial effects of ACE inhibitors on mortality in people also taking aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid).

OBJECTIVE

We performed this study to determine whether there is a reduction in the beneficial effects of ACE inhibitors on mortality in elderly people with heart failure also taking aspirin.

PARTICIPANTS

822 patients discharged from hospital wards with a diagnosis of heart failure participated in the GIFA (Italian Group of Pharmacoepidemiology in the Elderly) study.

MEASUREMENTS

We analysed the characteristics of the participants according to the type of therapy prescribed (no ACE inhibitor/no aspirin, ACE inhibitor/no aspirin, no ACE inhibitor/aspirin and ACE inhibitor/aspirin). We calculated the hazard ratios (HRs) for dying associated with each of these treatments, and calculated the synergy index to identify any negative interaction between ACE inhibitor and aspirin.

RESULTS

The mean age of study participants was 79 +/- 7.3 (SD) years. Of the 629 (76.5%) patients discharged on ACE inhibitor and/or aspirin therapy, 31.0% were taking both drugs. Compared with no therapy with ACE inhibitor or aspirin, the HR for death was 0.65 (95% CI 0.31, 1.36) for aspirin users, 0.45 (95% CI 0.27, 0.74) for ACE inhibitor users and 0.37 (95% CI 0.19, 0.70) for ACE inhibitor/aspirin users. The synergy index was 0.98 (95% CI 0.34, 2.80), suggesting no interaction between the drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data do not support the existence of a negative interaction between ACE inhibitors and aspirin in elderly patients with heart failure.

Aspirin in cardiovascular disorders. What is the optimum dose?

Clinical trials of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) for cardiovascular disorders have employed doses defined for other pharmacological effects of the drug (such as analgesic effects). Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with different dose-response relationships may contribute to the clinical effect of aspirin in cardiovascular disease. The optimal aspirin dose remains uncertain. Although the difference between 325 mg/day and 81 mg/day of aspirin sounds trivial, finding an optimal aspirin dose has enormous potential to reduce ischemic events. Large aspirin doses have not been associated with proportionally greater benefit. For patients with ischemic heart disease, overall consensus defines a range between 75 and 160 mg/day for the secondary prevention of myocardial infarction, stroke, and vascular death. Any benefit of aspirin must be measured against its adverse effects, principally gastrointestinal hemorrhage. The potential for adverse bleeding events may be lower with a 81mg dose, while maintaining clinical benefit. Although current aggregate data is reassuring about aspirin administration, it is increasingly clear that existing aspirin studies are insufficient to conclusively determine an optimal aspirin dose. Platelets can be activated by pathways that are not blocked by aspirin, and the dose of aspirin needed to fully suppress platelet aggregation may be higher in some patients as a result. Higher doses of aspirin than are currently used (75-325 mg/day) may be required in these patients to achieve desired antithrombotic effects. Better understanding of aspirin-resistant populations will facilitate identification of patients who require higher aspirin doses or alternative forms of antiplatelet therapy.

Aspirin does not adversely affect survival in patients with stable congestive heart failure treated with Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Experimental studies and retrospective analyses of mortality trials with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) have suggested that aspirin may reduce the beneficial effect of these drugs. The aim of this study was to assess a possible detrimental effect of aspirin on survival in stable patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction who had congestive heart failure and had been treated with ACE-Is.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a retrospective analysis in 755 consecutive stable patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. A Cox regression model was used to select independent predictors of survival and to test for a possible interaction between aspirin and ACE-Is with an adjustment to differences in clinical characteristics in subgroups of patients. Of the 755 patients, 328 (43.4%) had proven ischemic cardiomyopathy, 693 patients (91.8%) were receiving ACE-Is, and 317 patients were receiving aspirin (mean [+/- SD] dose, 183 +/- 65 mg/d; 74% of the patients receiving < or = 200 mg/d). During a median follow-up period of 1,996 days, there were 273 cardiac-related deaths, 14 urgent transplantations, 71 nonurgent transplantations, and 46 noncardiac-related deaths, and 3 patients were lost to follow-up. The cardiovascular mortality rates were 11.5% and 19.0%, respectively, at 1 and 2 years. There were no interactions among aspirin, ACE-Is, and survival in the overall population (p = 0.21), or in subgroups of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (p = 0.41) or with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (p = 0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population of stable patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, our retrospective analysis did not demonstrate any interaction between the use of aspirin and survival in patients receiving ACE-Is.

Heart Failure in the Elderly

Incidence and prevalence of heart failure are particularly common with advancing age, with notoriously grim prognoses. The absolute number of heart failure patients will undoubtedly surge as the population of older adults continues to escalate. This review emphasizes the importance of factors inherent in aging itself and the resulting predisposition to disease. Physiologic changes associated with cardiovascular aging fundamentally increase susceptibility to heart failure and to complexity of heart failure management. Likewise, typical age-associated diet and lifestyle changes compound risks of heart failure through mechanisms connected to the substrate of disease. In this review, the authors first summarize the demographics of heart failure and the intrinsic aspects of aging and lifestyle that predispose to heart failure. They then expand on related intricacies of diagnosis and therapy. Orientation to heart failure, particularly as a disease of aging, can help critically refine management of acute and chronic disease, as well as foster preventive strategies to reduce incidence of this common malady.

Demographics, Treatment Regimens and the Use of Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers in Heart Failure: Findings from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial

Heart failure is the only major cardiovascular disease with an incidence and prevalence that continue to increase in the developed world. Early identification and correct treatment of the condition are of paramount importance. In recent years, there has been growing interest in identifying the differences between patients in terms of their risk of heart failure and response to treatment. Differences between men and women, different age groups, patients with varying aetiologies or co-morbidities and differences between ethnic groups are only some of the factors that have been identified. This review surveys the available data on differences in responses to treatment, and discusses the use of angiotensin-receptor blockers in heart failure in light of the recent Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT).

Conclusion: Heart failure is a complex syndrome, a fact that is reflected in the wide spectrum of patient characteristics and breadth of treatments available to physicians. Recommendations will keep evolving as we learn more about the changing aetiology and manifestations of the disease, and as new data become available on old and emerging treatments. The recent addition of ARBs (or at least valsartan) to the list of drugs of benefit in HF is a welcome development. Perhaps the most important message from Val-HeFT is that valsartan significantly reduced the risk of a first morbid event, irrespective of most underlying physiological and demographic parameters. This implies that valsartan will be beneficial in most patients, whether they are old or young, male or female and whatever the aetiology of their HF. As polypharmacy will continue to be the therapy of choice in HF and as no wonder-drug seems to be on the horizon to make the concept obsolete, further blocking the RAS by adding a well-tolerated agent would seem a very welcome expansion of our current treatment options.

A quantitative illustration of the public health potential of aspirin

Aspirin is showing potential in reducing the risk of several diseases of public health importance. These include cardiovascular disease, cancer and Alzheimer's disease. In this paper, a fictional scenario is considered in which 50 year old individuals are encouraged to take aspirin. Using crude assumptions and simple calculations, a Kaplan-Meier survival curve of aspirin users is presented. The main finding of this exercise is the possibility that the long-term use of low dose aspirin may double the chances of individuals living a healthy life into their 90's. Further research is needed.

Management of heart failure in the elderly

Chronic heart failure is an epidemic disorder in the elderly population. The frequent coexistence of comorbid illnesses and psychosocial issues in older persons often makes diagnosis and management difficult. Physicians must be aware of the current diagnostic modalities and proven therapies as they apply to elderly patients in order to achieve optimal outcomes. This article reviews new approaches to the diagnosis of heart failure, and discusses the latest evidence for both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment for this condition. Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of heart failure and end-of-life care are also briefly discussed.

Patterns of pharmacotherapy in patients hospitalised for congestive heart failure

BACKGROUND

In the 1990s, a number of cardiovascular drugs were evaluated in randomised clinical trials. Treatment guidelines for heart failure were modified to include these evidence-based treatments.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of new medical treatments for heart failure between 1990 and 1998.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A retrospective cohort study of 2764 patients with a first hospital admission for heart failure between 1990 and 1998. The percentage of patients treated with different cardiovascular drugs after hospitalisation was calculated and compared over time. Use of loop diuretics remained steady approximately 80%, digoxin decreased from 57.6 to 42.7%, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors showed a slight increase from 49.8 to 54.8%, beta-blockers almost tripled from 11.3 to 28.7%, low dose prophylactic acetylsalicylic acid quadrupled from 9.9 to 39.9%. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates showed highest continuation rates of drug treatment for antithrombotics and diuretics, intermediate for digoxin and ACE inhibitors and low for beta-blockers. More than a quarter of the users discontinued beta-blockers in the first year after hospitalisation.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed an increase in the prescribing of several important drug classes, reflecting changes in treatment guidelines during the study period. However, our findings show that not all patients were receiving optimal treatment. More research into the reasons for this is warranted.

Changes over time in the use of aspirin in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (1975 to 1997): a population-based perspective

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine 2 decade-long trends in the use of aspirin and associated outcomes in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND

Aspirin has been shown to be beneficial in the secondary prevention of AMI. However, little is known about changes over time in the use of aspirin in patients hospitalized with AMI and associated outcomes, particularly from a more generalizable population-based perspective.

METHODS

We examined trends in aspirin use and hospital and long-term outcomes in 9336 metropolitan Worcester, Mass, residents hospitalized with validated AMI in all area hospitals between 1975 and 1997.

RESULTS

Between 1975 and 1986, the hospital use of aspirin remained stable at approximately 20%. Use of aspirin increased markedly after this time from 49% in 1988 to 91% in 1997. Younger age, male sex, and a history of hypertension or stroke were associated with an increased likelihood of receiving aspirin. Patients with diabetes were less likely to receive aspirin than were patients without diabetes. Patients who received aspirin during hospitalization were more likely to receive beta-blockers and coronary interventions. Patients treated with aspirin were significantly less likely to have heart failure or cardiogenic shock develop or to die during hospitalization as compared with patients not treated with aspirin. Patients treated with aspirin had significantly higher survival rates over a 10-year follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

The results of this community-wide study show that aspirin use in patients hospitalized with AMI has dramatically increased over time. Despite the beneficial effects associated with the use of aspirin, this therapy remains underused in several high-risk groups.

Interaction between aspirin and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: should they be used together in older adults with heart failure?

PURPOSE

To determine whether the prostacyclin-inhibiting properties of aspirin counteracts the bradykinin-induced prostacyclin-stimulating effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, thereby attenuating the beneficial effects of ACE inhibitors in heart failure patients.

BACKGROUND

Most heart failure patients are older adults. Heart failure is the number one hospital discharge diagnosis of older Americans. The renin-angiotensin system plays a major role in the pathophysiology of heart failure, and ACE inhibitors play a pivotal role in the management of heart failure. Large-scale double-blind randomized trials have demonstrated the survival benefits of using ACE inhibitors in patients with heart failure associated with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. In addition to inhibiting the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II, ACE inhibitors also decrease the breakdown of bradykinin. Bradykinin, a potent vasodilator, acts by stimulating formation of vasodilatory prostaglandins such as prostacyclin, whereas aspirin or acetyl salicylic acid inhibits the enzyme cyclooxygenase, which in turn decreases the production of the prostaglandins. Coronary artery disease and hypertension are the two major underlying causes of heart failure. Most heart failure patients are also on aspirin. There is evidence that aspirin at a daily dose of 80 to 100 mg prevents the synthesis of thromboxane A2 by platelets while relatively sparing the synthesis of prostacyclin in the vascular endothelium. Aspirin at a daily dose of 325 mg has significant inhibitory effects on the vasodilatory prostacyclin synthesis. Studies have demonstrated that, in heart failure patients, low-dose aspirin has no adverse effect on hemodynamic, neurohumoral, or renal functions. Whether the prostacyclin-inhibiting effects of aspirin attenuate some of the beneficial effects of ACE inhibitors mediated by prostacyclin stimulation in heart failure patients is currently unknown.

METHODS

Data from large clinical trials investigating the interaction between aspirin and ACE inhibitors were analyzed to determine the effect of aspirin on the vasodilatory actions of ACE inhibitors in heart failure patients, and the results were analyzed on the basis of theoretical and laboratory findings. The studies included are the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) (N=6,797), the Cooperative New Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study II (CONSENSUS II) (N=6,090), the Captopril and Thrombolysis Study (CATS) (N=296), and another study involving 317 subjects. The data from these clinical trials investigating the interaction between aspirin and ACE inhibitors included 13,470 subjects. Most of the subjects received aspirin. In the SOLVD study, subjects received aspirin or dipyridamole. Subjects were followed up for an average of about 6 years.

RESULTS

In the SOLVD study, subjects were followed up for 41.1 months in the treatment trial and 37.4 months in the prevention trial. Patients who received aspirin or dipyridamole at baseline did not receive the survival benefits of enalapril, whereas patients who received enalapril did not receive the survival benefits of aspirin. In a rather small study of 317 subjects with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%) who were followed up for a relatively longer period of time (5.7 years), the favorable long-term prognosis of patients receiving aspirin was independent of receipt of an ACE inhibitor. A retrospective subgroup analysis of data from the CONSENSUS II study demonstrated that the 6-month mortality rate of patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) who received enalapril and aspirin was higher than the combined mortality rates of patients receiving enalapril or aspirin alone. This strong interaction between aspirin and the ACE inhibitor enalapril suggests that the survival benefit of enalapril was significantly lower in patients also taking aspirin than in those taking enalapril alone. This interaction was not associated with other nonfatal major events. In the CATS study, use of low-dose aspirin (80 or 100 mg) did not attenuate beneficial effects of captopril (immediate and 1-year follow up) after acute MI.

CONCLUSION

There is a theoretical possibility that the negative interaction between ACE inhibitors and aspirin may reduce the beneficial effects of ACE inhibitors in patients with heart failure, but the information obtained from the existing databases is limited by the retrospective nature of the analyses and does not establish the association definitively. Double-blind randomized controlled trials should be conducted to determine whether such a negative interaction indeed exists.