Association of β-Blocker Use With Heart Failure Hospitalizations and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Among Patients With Heart Failure With a Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Secondary Analysis of the TOPCAT Trial

The sympathetic nervous system in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

The sympathetic nervous system (SNS) is a major mediator of cardiovascular physiology during exercise in healthy people. However, its role in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), where exercise intolerance is a cardinal symptom, has remained relatively unexplored. The present review summarizes and critically explores the currently limited data on SNS changes in HFpEF patients with a particular emphasis on caveats of the data and the implications for its subsequent interpretation. While direct measurements of SNS activity in HFpEF patients is scarce, modest increases in resting levels of muscle sympathetic nerve activity are apparent, although this may be due to the co-morbidities associated with the syndrome rather than HFpEF per se. In addition, despite some evidence for dysfunctional sympathetic signaling in the heart, there is no clear evidence for elevated cardiac sympathetic nerve activity. The lack of a compelling prognostic benefit with use of β-blockers in HFpEF patients also suggests a lack of sympathetic hyperactivity to the heart. Similarly, while renal and splanchnic denervation studies have been performed in HFpEF patients, there is no concrete evidence that the sympathetic nerves innervating these organs exhibit heightened activity. Taken together, the totality of data suggests limited evidence for elevated sympathetic nerve activity in HFpEF and that any SNS perturbations that do occur are not universal to all HFpEF patients. Finally, how the SNS responds during exertion in HFpEF patients remains unknown and requires urgent investigation.

Rationale and Design of OPT-RATE AF: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Increased Physiologic Pacing Rates in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP) after atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) has improved outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Emerging evidence suggests patients with HFpEF benefit from higher heart rates, yet the optimal pacing rate after AVN ablation remains unknown. Optimal Pacing Rate for cardiac resynchronization therapy after atrioventricular node ablation in persistent Atrial Fibrillation and heart failure (OPT-RATE AF) is a prospective, randomized crossover study of patients with HFpEF after AVN ablation for persistent AF (NCT06445439). Approximately 60 patients with AF and AVN ablation, CPP, and HF with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% will be enrolled. Participants will be randomly assigned 1:1 to a pacing lower rate limit of 60 beats/min for 3 months and then switched to a rate of 80 beats/min for 3 months and vice versa. The primary end point is the change in exercise capacity assessed using the 6-minute walk test. Notable secondary outcomes will include changes in the Kansas City Quality of Life Questionnaire (KCCQ-12), creatinine and natriuretic peptide, and clinical events. Patient mortality and HF hospitalizations will be recorded at each phase. Electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, pacemaker interrogation, and primary and secondary outcomes will be recorded at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Study enrollment is ongoing and estimated to be completed by 2026. OPT-RATE AF is a randomized clinical trial that will determine the effect of a higher pacing rate in patients with persistent AF and HFpEF after AVN ablation and/or CPP. Study findings will provide insight on the role of chronotropy in improving quality of life and other important cardiovascular outcomes.

Prognostic effect of obstructive sleep apnea in acute coronary syndrome patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS), heart failure (HF) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) often overlap and interact, the impact of OSA on ACS patients with HF remains unclear. The study sought to comprehensively evaluate the effects of the interaction between OSA and HF on long-term cardiovascular outcomes in ACS patients.

METHODS

Between June 2015 and January 2020, patients hospitalized for ACS were prospectively enrolled and underwent portable sleep monitoring after clinically stabilization. OSA was defined as an apnea hypopnea index ≥15 events/h. HF was defined using medical records. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), including death, myocardial infarction, stroke, ischemia-driven revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina.

RESULTS

Among all 1927 included patients, 214 (11.1 %) had HF, and 1014 (52.6 %) had OSA. For 2.9 years (1.5, 3.6 years) follow-up, OSA was independently associated with the risk of MACCE in HF patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.11; 95%CI, 1.16-3.84; P = 0.014), but not in those without HF (adjusted HR, 1.15; 95%CI, 0.92-1.45; P = 0.228). Further analysis showed OSA exerted more prognostic effect in HF patients with preserved eject fraction (adjusted HR, 2.45; 95 % CI, 1.11-5.41; P = 0.027) than those with reduced eject fraction (adjusted HR, 1.62; 95 % CI, 0.63-4.20; P = 0.319).

CONCLUSIONS

In the settings of ACS, OSA was independently associated with poor prognosis in patients with concomitant HF especially those with persevered ejection fraction. Screening and treatment for OSA are highly recommended in ACS patients with HF.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: www.clinicaltrails.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT03362385.

Routine beta-blocker therapy after acute coronary syndromes: The end of an era?

BACKGROUND

Beta-blocker therapy, a treatment burdened by side effects including fatigue, erectile dysfunction and depression, was shown to reduce mortality and cardiovascular events after acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in the pre-coronary reperfusion era. Potential mechanisms include protection from ventricular arrhythmias, increased ischaemia threshold and prevention of left ventricular (LV) adverse remodelling. With the advent of early mechanical reperfusion and contemporary pharmacologic secondary prevention, the benefit of beta-blockers after ACS in the absence of LV dysfunction has been challenged.

METHODS

The present narrative review discusses the contemporary evidence based on searching the PubMed database and references in identified articles.

RESULTS

Recently, the REDUCE-AMI trial-the first adequately powered randomized trial in the reperfusion era to test beta-blocker therapy after myocardial infarction with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)-showed no benefit on the composite of all-cause death or myocardial infarction over a median 3.5-year follow-up. While the benefit of beta-blockers in patients with reduced LVEF remains undisputed, their value in post-ACS patients with mildly reduced systolic function (LVEF 41%-49%) has not been studied in contemporary randomized trials; in this setting, observational studies have suggested a reduction in cardiovascular events with these agents. The adequate duration of beta-blocker therapy remains unknown, but observational data suggests that any mortality benefit may be lost beyond 1-12 months after ACS in patients with LVEF >40%.

CONCLUSION

We believe that there is sufficient evidence to abandon routine beta-blocker prescription in post-ACS patients with preserved LV systolic function.

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction "twindemic"-Shared root causes and treatment targets

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are comorbid conditions that are increasingly prevalent and have a high socioeconomic burden. This article discusses their shared pathophysiology, focusing on the triad of hypertension, obesity, and aging. We highlight the misperception that pharmacological heart rate lowering is beneficial, which has resulted in an overprescription of β-blockers in HFpEF and AF. In contrast, heart rate modulation through accelerated pacing provides hemodynamic and structural advantages, which have yielded significant improvements in quality of life, physical activity, and AF burden in the personalized pacing for diastolic dysfunction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (myPACE) trial of patients with preclinical or overt HFpEF.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment

The aetiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is heterogenous and overlaps with that of several comorbidities like atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, valvular heart disease, iron deficiency, or sarcopenia. The diagnosis of HFpEF involves evaluating cardiac dysfunction through imaging techniques and assessing increased left ventricular filling pressure, which can be measured directly or estimated through various proxies including natriuretic peptides. To better narrow down the differential diagnosis of HFpEF, European and American heart failure guidelines advocate the use of different algorithms including comorbidities that require diagnosis and rigorous treatment during the evaluation process. Therapeutic recommendations differ between guidelines. Whilst sodium glucose transporter 2 inhibitors have a solid evidence base, the recommendations differ with regard to the use of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis. Unless indicated for specific comorbidities, the use of beta-blockers should be discouraged in HFpEF. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the current state of the art in HFpEF diagnosis, clinical evaluation, and treatment.

Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: New Assessment of an Old Problem

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF)-specifically, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)-often coexist, and each contributes to the propagation of the other. This relationship extends from the mechanistic and physiological to clinical syndromes, quality of life, and long-term cardiovascular outcomes. The risk factors for AF and HF overlap and create a critical opportunity to prevent adverse outcomes among patients at greatest risk for either condition. Increasing recognition of the linkages between AF and HF have led to widespread interest in designing diagnostic, predictive, and interventional strategies targeting all aspects of disease, from identifying genetic predisposition to addressing social determinants of health. Advances across this spectrum culminated in updated multisociety guidelines for management of AF, which includes specific consideration of comorbid AF and HF. This review expands on these guidelines by further highlighting relevant clinical trial findings and providing additional context for the evolving recommendations for management in this important and growing population.

Beta-blocker use and outcomes in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

In the absence of randomized trial evidence, we performed a large observational analysis of the association between beta-blocker (BB) use and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Among the 16 951 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13 400 (79.1%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Overall, 12 812 patients (75.6%) received a BB. The median bisoprolol-equivalent dose of BB was 5.0 (Q1-Q3: 2.5-5.0) mg with BB continuation rates of 93.1% at 2 years (in survivors). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.05), but the adjusted HR was lower in BB users than non-users (0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.88), and this association was maintained across LVEF (pinteraction = 0.88). In subgroup analyses, the adjusted risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, hypertension, or a baseline heart rate <70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (pintreraction = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In this observational analysis of non-randomized BB treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes in HFmrEF/HFpEF, even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables.

β-blockades and the risk of atrial fibrillation in patients with cardiovascular diseases

Background

β-blockers have been widely used in patients with extensive cardiovascular disease (CVD) and have provided benefits. However, they are more likely to cause symptomatic bradycardia, hypotension, or glucose metabolism disorders, which may lead to an increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AF), but evidence is lacking.

Aims

This study was to analyze the association between the use of β-blockers and the risk of developing AF.

Methods

This nationwide, prospective cohort study utilized data from the 2013-2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The patients were stratified into a β-blocker treatment group (n = 2585) and a non-β-blocker treatment group (n = 8525). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the relationship between β-blockades and the risk of AF. Propensity matching analysis was used to balance patient baseline characteristics and to control for confounders.

Results

A total of 11,110 subjects were included in this study (mean [SD] age, 59.89 [15.07] years; 5657 [49.7%] males). A total of 111/2585 subjects developed AF in the β-blocker treatment group, and 75/8525 developed AF in the non-β-blocker treatment group (incidence rate, 4.2% vs. 0.8%). Compared with the non-β-blocker group, the β-blocker group had an increased risk of incident AF (aOR, 2.339; 95% CI, 1.614-3.410). Some sensitivity analyses also revealed consistent findings of increased AF risk associated with β-blocker treatment.

Conclusion

The findings from this study suggest that β-blocker treatment is associated with an increased risk of incident AF and may help physicians select a modest medication for patients while also assessing the risk of AF.

Beta blockers are associated with lower all-cause mortality among HFpEF patients

BACKGROUND

The evidence regarding beta blocker (BB) benefit in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains inconclusive, leading to consideration of BB withdrawal in this population.

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the association of BB on all-cause mortality in HFpEF patients.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of 20,206 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 50% who were hospitalized with decompensated HF between January 2011 and March 2020. Survival is reported at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years. A secondary analysis comparing mortality for patients on BB with additional indications including hypertension (HTN), coronary artery disease (CAD), and atrial fibrillation (AF) was completed. Mortality was compared between patients on BB and additional therapies of spironolactone or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARBs).

RESULTS

BB showed lower all-cause mortality at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years (p < 0.0001). This association with lower all-cause mortality was validated by a supplementary propensity score-matched analysis. At 3 years, there was significant mortality reduction with addition of BB to either spironolactone (p = 0.0359) or ACEi/ARBs (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

In a large single-center retrospective registry, BB use was associated with lower mortality in HFpEF patients with a recent decompensated HF hospitalization. The mortality benefit persisted in those treated with spironolactone or ACEi/ARBs, and in those with AF. This provocative data further highlights the uncertainty of the benefit of BB use in this cohort and calls for re-consideration of BB withdrawal, especially in those tolerating it well, without conclusive, large, and randomized trials showing lack of benefit or harm.

β-blockers may be detrimental in frail patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of β-blocker in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains to be determined. We aimed to clarify the association between the use of β-blocker and prognosis according to the status of frailty.

METHODS

We compared prognosis between HFpEF patients with and without β-blockers stratified with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), using data from the PURSUIT-HFpEF registry (UMIN000021831).

RESULTS

Among 1159 patients enrolled in the analysis (median age, 81.4 years; male, 44.7%), 580 patients were CFS ≤ 3, while 579 were CFS ≥ 4. Use of β-blockers was associated with a worse composite endpoint of all-cause death and heart failure readmission in patients with CFS ≥ 4 (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.43, 95% CI 1.10-1.85, p = 0.007), but was not significantly associated with this endpoint in those with CFS ≤ 3 (adjusted HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71-1.26, p = 0.719) in multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. These results were confirmed in a propensity-matched analysis (HR in those with CFS ≥ 4: 1.42, 95% CI 1.05-1.90, p = 0.020; that in those with CFS ≤ 3: 0.83, 95% CI 0.60-1.14, p = 0.249), and in an analysis in which patients were divided into CFS ≤ 4 and CFS ≥ 5.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of β-blockers was significantly associated with worse prognosis specifically in patients with HFpEF and high CFS, but not in those with low CFS. Use of β-blockers in HFpEF patients with frailty may need careful attention.

Clinical Characteristics and Prognosis of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Across Diverse Ejection Fraction Ranges

Background

Recent studies have indicated that heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) within different left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ranges presents distinct morphological and pathophysiological characteristics, potentially leading to diverse prognoses.

Methods

We included chronic HF patients hospitalized in the Department of Cardiology at Hebei General Hospital from January 2018 to June 2021. Patients were categorized into four groups based on LVEF: HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, LVEF ≤ 40%), HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF, 41% ≤ LVEF ≤ 49%), low LVEF-HFpEF (50% ≤ LVEF ≤ 60%), and high LVEF-HFpEF (LVEF > 60%). Kaplan‒Meier curves were plotted to observe the occurrence rate of endpoint events (all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality) within a 2-year period. Cox proportional hazards regression models were employed to predict the risk factors for endpoint events. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using propensity score matching (PSM), and Fine-Gray tests were used to evaluate competitive risk.

Results

A total of 483 chronic HF patients were ultimately included. Kaplan‒Meier curves indicated a lower risk of endpoint events in the high LVEF-HFpEF group than in the low LVEF-HFpEF group. After PSM, there were still statistically significant differences in endpoint events between the two groups (all-cause mortality p = 0.048, cardiovascular mortality p = 0.027). Body mass index (BMI), coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, hyperlipidemia, hypoalbuminemia, and diuretic use were identified as independent risk factors for all-cause mortality in the low LVEF-HFpEF group (p < 0.05). Hyperlipidemia, the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and β -blocker use were independent risk factors for cardiovascular mortality (p < 0.05). In the high LVEF-HFpEF group, multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that age, smoking history, hypoalbuminemia, and the eGFR were independent risk factors for all-cause mortality, while age, heart rate, blood potassium level, and the eGFR were independent risk factors for cardiovascular mortality (p < 0.05). After controlling for competitive risk, cardiovascular mortality risk remained higher in the low LVEF-HFpEF group than in the high LVEF-HFpEF group (Fine-Gray p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Low LVEF-HFpEF and high LVEF-HFpEF represent two distinct phenotypes of HFpEF. Patients with high LVEF-HFpEF have lower risks of both all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality than those with low LVEF-HFpEF. The therapeutic reduction in blood volume may not be the best treatment option for patients with high LVEF-HFpEF.

The effect of sustained-release CARvedilol in patients with hypErtension and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial (CARE-preserved HF)

Background

Although beta-blockers improve clinical outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the benefit of beta-blockers in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a robust predictor of heart failure outcomes, and recent studies have shown that beta-blockers are associated with improved survival in those with low GLS (GLS <14%) but not in those with GLS ≥14% among patients with LVEF ≥40%. Therefore, the objective of this trial is to evaluate the effect of sustained-release carvedilol (carvedilol-SR) on the outcome [N-terminal pro-B-natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration] in patients with hypertension and HFpEF and will assess the differential effects of these drugs on the outcome, according to the GLS categories.

Methods

This prospective randomized double-blind multicenter trial (CARE-preserved HF) will include 100 patients with HFpEF from three tertiary hospitals in South Korea. Patients with HFpEF and hypertension aged ≥20 years who have evidence of functional and structural heart disease on echocardiography and elevated natriuretic peptide will be enrolled. Eligible participants will be randomized 1:1 to either the carvedilol-SR group (n = 50) or the placebo group (n = 50). Patients in the carvedilol-SR group will receive 8, 16, 32, or 64 mg carvedilol-SR once daily for 6 months, and the dose of carvedilol will be up-titrated at the discretion of the treating physicians. The primary efficacy outcome was the time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal pro-B-natriuretic peptide concentration from baseline to months 3 and 6. We will also evaluate the differential effects of carvedilol-SR on primary outcomes according to GLS, using a cut-off of 14% or the median value.

Discussion

This randomized controlled trial will investigate the efficacy and safety of carvedilol-SR in patients with HFpEF and hypertension.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrial.gov, identifier NCT05553314.

How to Manage Beta-Blockade in Older Heart Failure Patients: A Scoping Review

Beta blockers (BBs) play a crucial role in enhancing the quality of life and extending the survival of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Initiating the therapy at low doses and gradually titrating the dose upwards is recommended to ensure therapeutic efficacy while mitigating potential adverse effects. Vigilant monitoring for signs of drug intolerance is necessary, with dose adjustments as required. The management of older HF patients requires a case-centered approach, taking into account individual comorbidities, functional status, and frailty. Older adults, however, are often underrepresented in randomized clinical trials, leading to some uncertainty in management strategies as patients with HF in clinical practice are older than those enrolled in trials. The present article performs a scoping review of the past 25 years of published literature on BBs in older HF patients, focusing on age, outcomes, and tolerability. Twelve studies (eight randomized-controlled and four observational) encompassing 26,426 patients were reviewed. The results indicate that BBs represent a viable treatment for older HFrEF patients, offering benefits in symptom management, cardiac function, and overall outcomes. Their role in HF with preserved EF, however, remains uncertain. Further research is warranted to refine treatment strategies and address specific aspects in older adults, including proper dosing, therapeutic adherence, and tolerability.

Association of Beta-Blocker Use With Exercise Capacity in Participants With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Post Hoc Analysis of the RELAX Trial

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) often receive β-blocker (BB) therapy for management of co-morbidities. However, the association of BB therapy with exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in HFpEF is not well-studied. In this post hoc analysis of the Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibition to Improve Clinical Status and Exercise Capacity in HFpEF (RELAX) trial, which included patients with chronic stable HFpEF with peak exercise capacity assessment at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks of follow-up, we evaluated the association of BB use with the measures of exercise capacity (peak exercise oxygen uptake), anaerobic threshold, and HRQL (Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire). Separate linear mixed-effect models were constructed for each outcome with adjustment for treatment arm, demographics, medical history, left ventricular ejection fraction, and duration of heart failure. Of the 216 study participants (median age 69 years, 48.2% women), 76% reported BB use at baseline. Participants with (vs without) BB therapy were older (70 vs 63.5 years, p = 0.001) and had a higher prevalence of ischemic heart disease (44% vs 23%, p = 0.01). In the adjusted linear mixed model, BB use over time was not associated with peak exercise oxygen uptake (β 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2 (-0.31 to 0.7), p = 0.5) and 6-minute walk distance (β 95% CI 14.69 [-14.25 to 43.63], p = 0.3). However, BB use was associated with a higher anaerobic threshold (β 95% CI 0.32 (0.02 to 0.62), p = 0.036) and better HRQL (lower quality of life as assessed by Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire score) (β 95% CI -6.68 [-10.96 to -2.4], p = 0.002). Future trials are needed to better evaluate the effects of BB on exercise capacity in patients with chronic stable HFpEF.

β-Blocker Withdrawal and Functional Capacity Improvement in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Importance

Increasing the patient's heart rate (HR) has emerged as a therapeutic option in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the evidence is conflicting, and the profile of patients who benefit most from this strategy remains unclear.

Objective

To assess the association of β-blocker treatment withdrawal with changes in the percentage of predicted peak oxygen consumption (VO2) across indexed left ventricular diastolic (iLVEDV) and indexed left ventricular systolic volumes (iLVESV), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This post hoc analysis was conducted using data from the investigator-blinded multicenter, randomized, and crossover clinical trial, PRESERVE-HR, that took place from October 1, 2018, through December 31, 2020, to investigate the short-term effects (2 weeks) of β-blocker withdrawal on peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2). Patients with stable HFpEF (New York Heart Association functional class II to III) receiving treatment with β-blocker and chronotropic incompetence were included.

Intervention

Participants in the PRESERVE-HR trial were randomized to withdraw vs continue with β-blocker treatment. After 2 weeks, they were crossed over to receive the opposite intervention. This crossover randomized clinical trial examined the short-term effect of β-blocker withdrawal on peak VO2.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was to evaluate the association between β-blocker withdrawal and short-term changes in percentage of peak VO2 across iLVEDV, iLVESV, and LVEF in patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence treated with β-blocker.

Results

A total of 52 patients (mean age, 73 [SD, 13] years; 60% female) were randomized. The mean resting HR, peak HR, peak VO2, and percentage of peak VO2 were 65 (SD, 9) beats per minute (bpm), 97 (SD, 15) bpm, 12.4 (SD, 2.9) mL/kg per minute, and 72.4% (SD, 17.7%), respectively. The medians (minimum-maximum) of iLVEDV, iLVESV, and LVEF were 44 mL/m2 (IQR, 19-82), 15 mL/m2 (IQR, 7-32), and 64% (IQR, 52%-78%), respectively. After stopping β-blocker treatment, the median increase in peak HR was plus 30 bpm (95% CI, 25-35; P < .001). β-Blocker cessation was differentially associated with change of percentage of peak VO2 across the continuum of iLVESV (P for interaction = .02), indicating a greater benefit in those with lower iLVESV.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, results showed that in patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence receiving treatment with β-blocker, lower iLVESV may identify those with a greater short-term improvement in maximal functional capacity after stopping β-blocker treatment. Further studies are warranted for further investigation.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03871803).

Beta Blockers in Contemporary Cardiology: Is It Better to Cast Them Out?

Beta blockers are one of the commonest prescription drugs in medicine and they have been thought to revolutionize the treatment of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the last century. In addition to HFrEF, they are prescribed for a variety of diseases in cardiology from hypertension to HF, angina, and stable coronary artery disease (CAD). The increased prescription of beta blockers in conditions like HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and stable CAD may be doing more harm than good as per the data we have so far. The available data shows that beta blockers are associated with increased stroke risk and atrial fibrillation (AF) in hypertension and in patients with HFpEF, they have been associated with decreased exercise capacity. In patients with stable CAD and patients with myocardial infarction with normal systolic functions, beta blockers don't offer any mortality benefit. In this article, we critically review the common indications and the uses of beta blockers in patients with HFpEF, CAD, hypertension and AF and we propose that beta blockers are over-prescribed under the shadow of their beneficial effects in patients with HFrEF.

Contemporary Use and Implications of Beta-Blockers in Patients With HFmrEF or HFpEF: The DELIVER Trial

BACKGROUND

Although beta-blockers are not recommended for the treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) according to the latest European Society of Cardiology and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America guidelines, these therapies remain commonly used for comorbidity management. There has been concern that beta-blockers may adversely influence clinical outcomes by limiting chronotropic response in HFpEF.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to examine the contemporary use and implications of beta-blockers in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or HFpEF.

METHODS

In the DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial, a total of 6,263 patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40% were randomized to dapagliflozin or placebo across 20 countries. In this prespecified analysis, efficacy and safety outcomes were examined according to beta-blocker use at randomization. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or worsening HF.

RESULTS

Overall, beta-blockers were used in 5,177 patients (83%), with wide variation by geographic region. Beta-blocker use was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome in covariate-adjusted models (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.60-0.83). Dapagliflozin consistently reduced the risk of the primary outcome in patients taking beta-blockers (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72-0.94) and in patients not taking beta-blockers (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.61-1.03; Pinteraction = 0.85), with similar findings for key secondary endpoints. Adverse events were balanced between patients randomized to dapagliflozin and placebo, regardless of background beta-blocker use.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF who were enrolled in DELIVER, 4 out of 5 participants were treated with a beta-blocker. Beta-blocker use was not associated with a higher risk of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. Dapagliflozin consistently and safely reduced clinical events, irrespective of background beta-blocker use. (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure [DELIVER]; NCT03619213).

Pharmacological Treatments in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Medical treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection (HFpEF) and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has weaker evidence compared with reduced ejection fraction, despite recent trials with an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is).

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to estimate the aggregate therapeutic benefit of drugs for HFmrEF and HFpEF.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science for randomized trials including patients with heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40%, treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (analyzed together as renin-angiotensin system inhibitors [RASi]), beta-blockers (BBs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), digoxin, ARNI, and SGLT2i. An additive component network meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and first hospitalization for heart failure (HHF); secondary outcomes were CV death, total HHF, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The authors identified 13 studies with a total of 29,875 patients and a mean LVEF of 56.3% ± 8.7%. ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i separately, but not RASi, BB, or digoxin, reduced the primary composite outcome compared with placebo. The combination of ARNI, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was the most effective (HR: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31-0.70]); this was largely explained by the triple combination of ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i (HR: 0.56 [95% CI 0.43-0.71]). Results were similar for CV death (HR: 0.63 [95% CI 0.43-0.91] for ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i) or total HHF (HR: 0.49 [95% CI 0.33-0.71] for ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i) alone. In a subgroup analysis, only SGLT2i had a consistent benefit among all LVEF subgroups, whereas the triple combination had the greatest benefit in HFmrEF, robust benefit in patients with LVEF 50% to 59%, and a statistically marginal benefit in patients with LVEF ≥60%.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HF and LVEF>40%, the quadruple combination of ARNI, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i provides the largest reduction in the risk of CV death and HHF; driven by the robust effect of the triple combination of ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i. The benefit was more pronounced in HFmrEF patients.

Implications of Atrial Fibrillation for Guideline-Directed Therapy in Patients With Heart Failure: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are common cardiovascular conditions that frequently coexist. Among patients with HF, more than one-half also have AF. Both are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Moreover, the prevalence of each is increasing globally, and this trend is expected to continue owing to an aging population and increased life expectancy. Diagnosis of AF in a patient with HF is associated with greater symptom burden, more frequent hospitalizations, and a worse prognosis. Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HF can affect the incidence of AF. Once present, AF can influence the efficacy of some components of GDMT for HF. In this review, we discuss the effect of GDMT for HF across the spectrum of ejection fraction on prevention of AF as well as the benefit of GDMT in patients with vs without AF.

Device therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Device therapy is a nonpharmacological approach that presents a crucial advancement for managing patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This review investigated the impact of device-based interventions and emphasized their potential for optimizing treatment for this complex patient demographic. Cardiac resynchronization therapy, augmented by atrioventricular node ablation with His-bundle pacing or left bundle-branch pacing, is effective for enhancing cardiac function and establishing atrioventricular synchrony. Cardiac contractility modulation and vagus nerve stimulation represent novel strategies for increasing myocardial contractility and adjusting the autonomic balance. Left ventricular expanders have demonstrated short-term benefits in HFpEF patients but require more investigation for long-term effectiveness and safety, especially in patients with AF. Research gaps regarding complications arising from left ventricular expander implantation need to be addressed. Device-based therapies for heart valve diseases, such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement and transcatheter edge-to-edge repair, show promise for patients with AF and HFpEF, particularly those with mitral or tricuspid regurgitation. Clinical evaluations show that these device therapies lessen AF occurrence, improve exercise tolerance, and boost left ventricular diastolic function. However, additional studies are required to perfect patient selection criteria and ascertain the long-term effectiveness and safety of these interventions. Our review underscores the significant potential of device therapy for improving the outcomes and quality of life for patients with AF and HFpEF.

Advance in the pharmacological and comorbidities management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: evidence from clinical trials

The prevalence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for approximately 50% of the total heart failure population, and with the aging of the population and the increasing prevalence of hypertension, obesity, and type 2 diabetes (T2DM), the incidence of HFpEF continues to rise and has become the most common subtype of heart failure. Compared with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, HFpEF has a more complex pathophysiology and is more often associated with hypertension, T2DM, obesity, atrial fibrillation, renal insufficiency, pulmonary hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and other comorbidities. HFpEF has generally been considered a syndrome with high phenotypic heterogeneity, and no effective treatments have been shown to reduce mortality to date. Diuretics and comorbidity management are traditional treatments for HFpEF; however, they are mostly empirical due to a lack of clinical evidence in the setting of HFpEF. With the EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER results, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors become the first evidence-based therapies to reduce rehospitalization for heart failure. Subgroup analyses of the PARAGON-HF, TOPCAT, and CHARM-Preserved trials suggest that angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, spironolactone, and angiotensin II receptor blockers may be beneficial in patients at the lower end of the ejection fraction spectrum. Other potential pharmacotherapies represented by non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists finerenone and antifibrotic agent pirfenidone also hold promise for the treatment of HFpEF. This article intends to review the clinical evidence on current pharmacotherapies of HFpEF, as well as the comorbidities management of atrial fibrillation, hypertension, T2DM, obesity, pulmonary hypertension, renal insufficiency, obstructive sleep apnea, and iron deficiency, to optimize the clinical management of HFpEF.

Anti-bradycardia pacing-impact on patients with HFpEF: a systematic review

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has become an emerging concern. The protective effect of bradycardia in patients with reduced ejection fraction using beta-blockers or ivabradine does not improve symptoms in HFpEF. This review aims to assess current data regarding the impact of anti-bradycardia pacing in patients with HFpEF. A search was conducted on PubMed, ScienceDirect, Springer, and Wiley Online Library, selecting studies from 2013 to 2023. Relevant and eligible prospective studies and randomized controlled trials were included. Functional status, quality of life, and echocardiographic parameters were assessed. Six studies conformed to the selection criteria. Four were prospective studies with a total of 90 patients analyzed. Two were randomized controlled trials with a total of 129 patients assessed. The 6-min walk test (6MWT) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) score improved in all prospective studies. My-PACE trial showed improvements in MLHFQ score (p < 0.001), significant relative lowering in NT-proBNP levels (p = 0.02), and an increased mean daily activity in the personalized accelerated pacing group compared to usual care. RAPID-HF trial proved that pacemaker implantation to enhance exercise heart rate (HR) did not improve exercise capacity and was associated with increased adverse events. HFpEF requires a more individualized approach and quality of life management. This review demonstrates that higher resting HR by atrial pacing may improve symptoms and even outcomes in HFpEF, while a higher adaptive rate during exertion has not been proven beneficial.

Revascularization for Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Coronary Artery Disease

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is one of the main causes of heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The efficacy of revascularization therapy in patients with HFpEF and CAD, however, remains unclear. Patients who underwent coronary angiography from January 2017 to December 2019 were included in this retrospective study if they further satisfied the diagnosis of HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% plus plasma N-terminal pro-BNP ≥125 pg/ml) and CAD (patients had a history of confirmed myocardial infarction or ≥50% stenosis in at least 1 epicardial coronary vessel). Clinical data, way of revascularization, and outcome events (unplanned repeated revascularization, HF readmission, cardiovascular death, readmission of cerebral hemorrhage/stroke or gastrointestinal bleeding, and all-cause death) were recorded and analyzed. A total of 1,111 patients were enrolled for the present analysis. Based on whether the revascularization was complete or not, the patients were divided into the complete revascularization group (n = 780) and the incomplete/no revascularization group (n = 331). All patients were followed up with a median of 355 days. The overall rates of unplanned repeated revascularization, HF readmission, and cardiovascular death were 6.6%, 5.0%, and 0.4%, respectively. Compared with incompletely/not revascularized patients, completely revascularized patients had a lower rate of unplanned repeated revascularization (10.9% vs 4.7%, p <0.001) and cardiovascular death (0.9% vs 0.1%, p = 0.048). However, HF readmission, readmission of cerebral hemorrhage/stroke or gastrointestinal bleeding, and noncardiac death were comparable between the 2 groups. The regression analysis showed that hyperlipidemia, previous myocardial infarction, in-stent restenosis, and way of revascularization were associated with the composite events of unplanned repeated revascularization, HF readmission, and cardiovascular death during the follow-up. Complete revascularization may reduce unplanned repeated revascularization and cardiovascular death for patients with HFpEF and CAD.

Anemia and Iron Deficiency Predict All-Cause Mortality in Patients with Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: 6-Year Follow-Up Study

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of anemia and iron deficiency in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and its impact on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 212 patients with HFpEF and identified anemia as a serum hemoglobin level of less than 13 g/dL in men and less than 12 g/dL in women. Additionally, ID was defined as a serum ferritin concentration < 100 ng/mL or 100-299 ng/mL with transferrin saturation < 20%. Patients were followed up for an average of 66.2 ± 12.1 months, with the endpoint being all-cause mortality among patients with HFpEF, both with and without anemia and iron deficiency. Furthermore, we explored other predictors of all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The average age of the entire group was 70.6 ± 10.5 years, with females comprising 55% of the patients. Anemia was present in 81 (38.2%) patients, while 108 (50.9%) had iron deficiency. At the end of the follow-up period, 60 (28.3%) of the patients had passed away. Patients with anemia displayed more heart failure (HF) symptoms, diastolic dysfunction, higher NT-pro-BNP levels, and worse baseline functional capacity than those without. Similarly, patients with iron deficiency showed more pronounced HF symptoms and worse functional capacity than those without. The results from the multivariable analyses revealed that anemia (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.401, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.303-6.209, log-rank p = 0.001), advanced age, iron deficiency (HR: 3.502, 95% CI: 2.204-6.701, log-rank p = 0.015), decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, chronic kidney disease, and paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea were all independently associated with all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

It is essential to consider anemia and iron deficiency as common comorbidities in managing and prognosis HFpEF, as they significantly increase mortality risk.

Effects of Continuous Accelerated Pacing on Cardiac Structure and Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From the myPACE Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction ≥50% is prevalent with few evidence-based therapies. In a trial of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with specialized pacemakers, treatment with accelerated personalized pacing averaging 75 bpm (myPACE) markedly improved quality of life, NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide), physical activity, and atrial fibrillation burden compared with the standard lower rate setting of 60 bpm (usual care).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this exploratory study, provider-initiated echocardiographic studies obtained before and after the trial were assessed for changes in left ventricular (LV) structure and function among participants who continued their pacing assignment. The analytic approach aimed to detect differences in standard and advanced echocardiographic parameters within and between study arms. Of the 100 participants, 16 myPACE and 20 usual care arm had a qualifying set of echocardiograms performed a mean (SD) 3 (2.0) years apart. Despite similar baseline echocardiogram measures, sustained exposure to moderately accelerated pacing resulted in reduced septal wall thickness (in cm: myPACE 1.1 [0.2] versus usual care 1.2 [0.2], P=0.008) and lower LV mass to systolic volume ratio (in g/mL: myPACE 4.8 [1.9] versus usual care 6.8 [3.1], P=0.038) accompanied by a minor reduction in LV ejection fraction (in %: myPACE 55 [5] versus usual care 60 [5], P=0.015). These changes were paralleled by improvements in heart failure-related quality of life (myPACE Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire improved by 16.1 [13.9] points, whereas usual care worsened by 6.9 [11.6] points, P<0.001). Markers of diastolic function and LV performance were not affected.

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure to continuous accelerated pacing in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is associated with a reduced LV wall thickness and a small amount of LV dilation with small reduction in ejection fraction.

Rationale and design of the PACE HFpEF trial: Physiologic accelerated pacing as a holistic treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Background

In heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), it has been assumed that pharmacologic heart rate suppression should provide clinical benefits through an increase in diastolic filling time. Contrary to this assumption, heart rate lowering in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and hypertension or coronary artery disease results in adverse outcomes and suggests that the opposite may be beneficial. Namely, shortening the diastolic filling time with a higher heart rate might normalize the elevated filling pressures that are the sine qua non of HFpEF. Initial clinical studies that assessed the effects of accelerated heart rates in pacemaker patients with preclinical and overt HFpEF provide support for this latter hypothesis, having shown improvements in quality of life, natriuretic peptide and activity levels, and atrial fibrillation burden.

Objective

The study sought to determine the effects of continued resting heart rate elevation with and without superimposed nocturnal pacing in HFpEF patients without standard pacing indication.

Methods

The physiologic accelerated pacing as treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (PACE HFpEF) trial is an investigator-initiated, prospective, patient-blinded multiple crossover pilot study that assesses the impact of accelerated pacing on quality of life, physical activity, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and echocardiographic measures of cardiac structure and function.

Results

Twenty patients were enrolled and underwent dual-chamber pacemaker implantation under U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption with both atrial and ventricular physiologic lead placement targeting the Bachmann bundle and the His bundle.

Conclusion

This manuscript describes the rationale and design of the PACE HFpEF trial, which tests the safety and feasibility of continuous accelerated physiological pacing as a treatment strategy in HFpEF.

Revisiting Beta-Blocker Therapy in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogenous disorder and tends to be predominant in elderly, female, and obese patients. HFpEF has been classified using various cut-offs of left ventricular ejection fraction in the published studies with a current cut-off of ≥50%. The evidence of beta-blocker therapy in HFpEF patients showed conflicting findings with variably reported efficacy. This review aims to examine the published studies on the use of beta blockers for the treatment of patients with HFpEF.

Personalized accelerated physiologic pacing

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is increasingly prevalent with a high socioeconomic burden. Pharmacological heart rate lowering was recommended to improve ventricular filling in HFpEF. This article discusses the misperceptions that have resulted in an overprescription of beta-blockers, which in all likelihood have untoward effects on patients with HFpEF, even if they have atrial fibrillation or coronary artery disease as a comorbidity. Directly contradicting the lower heart rate paradigm, faster heart rates provide haemodynamic and structural benefits, amongst which lower cardiac filling pressures and improved ventricular capacitance may be most important. Safe delivery of this therapeutic approach is feasible with atrial and ventricular conduction system pacing that aims to emulate or enhance cardiac excitation to maximize the haemodynamic benefits of accelerated pacing. This conceptual framework was first tested in the myPACE randomized controlled trial of patients with pre-existing pacemakers and preclinical or overt HFpEF. This article provides the background and path towards this treatment approach.

Mortality, Outcomes, Costs, and Use of Medicines Following a First Heart Failure Hospitalization: EVOLUTION HF

BACKGROUND

There are few contemporary data on outcomes, costs, and treatment following a hospitalization for heart failure (hHF) in epidemiologically representative cohorts.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to describe rehospitalizations, hospitalization costs, use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) (renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors), and mortality after hHF.

METHODS

EVOLUTION HF (Utilization of Dapagliflozin and Other Guideline Directed Medical Therapies in Heart Failure Patients: A Multinational Observational Study Based on Secondary Data) is an observational, longitudinal cohort study using data from electronic health records or claims data sources in Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Adults with a first hHF discharge between 2018 and 2022 were included. The 1-year event rates per 100 patient-years (ERs) for death and rehospitalizations (with a primary diagnosis of heart failure (HF), chronic kidney disease [CKD], myocardial infarction, stroke, or peripheral artery disease) were calculated. Hospital health care costs were cumulatively summarized. Cumulative GDMT use was assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

Of 263,525 patients, 28% died within the first year post-hHF (ER: 28.4 [95% CI: 27.0-29.9]). Rehospitalizations were mainly driven by HF (ER: 13.6 [95% CI: 9.8-17.4]) and CKD (ER: 4.5 [95% CI: 3.6-5.3]), whereas the ERs for myocardial infarction, stroke, and peripheral artery disease were lower. Health care costs were predominantly driven by HF and CKD. Between 2020 and 2022, use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists changed little, whereas uptake of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors increased 2- to 7-fold.

CONCLUSIONS

Incident post-hHF rehospitalization risks and costs were high, and GDMT use changed little in the year following discharge, highlighting the need to consider earlier and greater implementation of GDMT to manage risks and reduce costs.

Comparative effects of nebivolol and carvedilol on left ventricular diastolic function in older patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

Background

Although many studies have compared carvedilol and nebivolol in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), such comparative studies for the elderly have not been reported yet. Nebivolol is known to be effective for improving diastolic function of elderly patients with HF. Thus, this study aimed to determine whether nebivolol could improve LV diastolic function to a greater extent than carvedilol in older patients aged over 70 years.

Methods

This trial was a prospective, randomized, open-label, single-center, active-controlled study that enrolled 62 patients with class II or III HF over 70 years of age with an LVEF ≥40%. Patients were randomized into a carvedilol group or a nebivolol group. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed at baseline and 12 months by the same investigator who was blinded to clinical data. The primary endpoint was E/e' measured by echocardiographic evaluation 12 months after treatment.

Results

The median duration of follow-up was 24 months. Baseline clinical characteristics and echocardiographic parameters, such as LV diastolic function indices, did not differ significantly between carvedilol and nebivolol groups. Twelve-month follow-up echocardiography data showed no significant difference in E/e' or other LV diastolic function indices between the two groups. There were no significant changes in echocardiographic parameters over 12 months in either group.

Conclusions

There was no difference between carvedilol and nebivolol for improving diastolic function of elderly HF patients with LVEF ≥40%. This study showed no superiority of nebivolol over carvedilol in elderly patients with HF.

Beta-Blocker Use and Heart Failure Outcomes in Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Although studies consistently show that beta-blockers reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF), data are inconsistent in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and suggest potential negative effects in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to examine the association of beta-blockers with heart failure (HF) hospitalization and death in patients with HF and EF ≥40% METHODS: Beta-blocker use was assessed at first encounter in outpatients ≥65 years of age with HFmrEF and HFpEF in the U.S. PINNACLE Registry (2013-2017). The associations of beta-blockers with HF hospitalization, death, and the composite of HF hospitalization/death were assessed using propensity-score adjusted multivariable Cox regression models, including interactions of EF × beta-blocker use.

RESULTS

Among 435,897 patients with HF and EF ≥40% (HFmrEF, n = 75,674; HFpEF = 360,223), 289,377 (66.4%) were using a beta-blocker at first encounter; more commonly in patients with HFmrEF vs HFpEF (77.7% vs 64.0%; P < 0.001). There were significant interactions between EF × beta-blocker use for HF hospitalization, death, and composite of HF hospitalization/death (P < 0.001 for all), with higher risk with beta-blocker use as EF increased. Beta-blockers were associated with decreased risk of HF hospitalization and death in patients with HFmrEF but a lack of survival benefit and a higher risk of HF hospitalization in patients with HFpEF, particularly when EF was >60%.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large, real-world, propensity score-adjusted cohort of older outpatients with HF and EF ≥40%, beta-blocker use was associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization as EF increased, with potential benefit in patients with HFmrEF and potential risk in patients with higher EF (particularly >60%). Further studies are needed to understand the appropriateness of beta-blocker use in patients with HFpEF in the absence of compelling indications.

Medications for specific phenotypes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction classified by a machine learning-based clustering model

OBJECTIVE

Our previously established machine learning-based clustering model classified heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) into four distinct phenotypes. Given the heterogeneous pathophysiology of HFpEF, specific medications may have favourable effects in specific phenotypes of HFpEF. We aimed to assess effectiveness of medications on clinical outcomes of the four phenotypes using a real-world HFpEF registry dataset.

METHODS

This study is a posthoc analysis of the PURSUIT-HFpEF registry, a prospective, multicentre, observational study. We evaluated the clinical effectiveness of the following four types of postdischarge medication in the four different phenotypes: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB), beta blockers, mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists (MRA) and statins. The primary endpoint of this study was a composite of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalisation.

RESULTS

Of 1231 patients, 1100 (83 (IQR 77, 87) years, 604 females) were eligible for analysis. Median follow-up duration was 734 (398, 1108) days. The primary endpoint occurred in 528 patients (48.0%). Cox proportional hazard models with inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting showed the following significant effectiveness of medication on the primary endpoint: MRA for phenotype 2 (weighted HR (wHR) 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.75, p=0.005); ACEi or ARB for phenotype 3 (wHR 0.66 0.48 to 0.92, p=0.014) and statin therapy for phenotype 3 (wHR 0.43 (0.21 to 0.88), p=0.020). No other medications had significant treatment effects in the four phenotypes.

CONCLUSIONS

Machine learning-based clustering may have the potential to identify populations in which specific medications may be effective. This study suggests the effectiveness of MRA, ACEi or ARB and statin for specific phenotypes of HFpEF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000021831.

Heart Failure with Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: A Complex Conundrum Simply Not Limited to Diastolic Dysfunction

Over the last two decades, the changing paradigm of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has transformed our understanding not only of the pathophysiology of this clinical entity but also the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches aimed at treating this complex patient population. No longer HFpEF should be seen as simply left ventricular diastolic dysfunction but as a group of that in addition of having small and thick left ventricles with abnormal diastolic filling patterns as their main pathophysiologic abnormality; they also have whole host of different abnormalities. In fact, this heterogeneous clinical entity embodies numerous mechanisms and is linked to multiorgan dysfunction, with hypertension and obesity playing a major role. Although we have gained an enormous amount of understanding not only on the causes but also the downstream effects of HFpEF, there is still much to be learned before we can fully comprehend this complex clinical entity. It is the main intention of this review to synthesize the most recent attributes, mechanism, diagnostic tools, and most useful therapeutic alternatives to be considered when evaluating patients either complaining of dyspnea on exertion as well as exercise intolerance or those recently admitted with HF symptoms but with normal LVEF in the absence of any other valvular abnormalities.

Association of Nondihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers Versus β-Adrenergic Receptor Blockers With Risk of Heart Failure Hospitalization

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are interrelated and often coexisting conditions in older adults. Although equally recommended, nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (non-DHP CCBs), such as diltiazem and verapamil, are less often used than β blockers. Because recent studies suggested that β-blocker use in both HFpEF and AF may increase the risk for HF, we tested whether non-DHP CCBs were associated with lower HF hospitalization risk than β blockers. We examined fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who were aged ≥66 years, had HFpEF or AF, and newly initiated a β blocker (n = 83,458) or non-DHP CCB (n = 18,924) from 2014 to 2018. The outcomes of HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality were analyzed using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression in the full cohort and, separately, in the subset without a recent hospital or skilled nursing discharge. Follow-up was analyzed using 2 frameworks: intention-to-treat and censored-at-drug-switch-or-discontinuation. There was a modestly protective association of non-DHP CCBs for the risk of HF hospitalization. Before drug switch or discontinuation, the use of diltiazem or verapamil was associated with decreased risk of HF hospitalization in the full cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 to 1.00, p = 0.05) and in the subgroup (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.89, p = 0.003). However, the association with all-cause mortality tended to favor β blockers, including in the intention-to-treat analysis (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.25, p <0.001). In conclusion, compared with β blockers, the initiation of diltiazem or verapamil in patients with HFpEF or AF may be associated with fewer HF hospitalization events but also with more all-cause deaths.

Pathophysiological Rationale and Clinical Evidence for Neurohormonal Modulation in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome resulting from the interaction between cardiac diseases, comorbidities and ageing. HFpEF is characterised by the activation of neurohormonal axes, namely of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and the sympathetic nervous system, although to a lesser extent compared with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This provides a rationale for neurohormonal modulation as a therapeutic approach for HFpEF. Nonetheless, randomised clinical trials have failed to demonstrate a prognostic benefit from neurohormonal modulation therapies in HFpEF, with the sole exception of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction in the lower range of normality, for whom the American guidelines suggest that such therapies may be considered. In this review, the pathophysiological rationale for neurohormonal modulation in HFpEF is summarised and the clinical evidence on pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches backing current recommendations discussed.

Lower heart rates and beta-blockers are associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation

Background

Lower heart rates (HRs) prolong diastole, which increases filling pressures and wall stress. As a result, lower HRs may be associated with higher brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels and incident atrial fibrillation (AF). Beta-blockers may increase the risk for AF due to suppression of resting HRs.

Objective

Examine the relationships of HR, BNP, beta-blockers and new-onset AF in the REVEAL-AF and SPRINT cohort of subjects at risk for developing AF.

Methods

In REVEAL-AF, 383 subjects without a history of AF and a mean CHA₂DS₂VASC score of 4.4 ± 1.3 received an insertable cardiac monitor and were followed up to 30 months. In SPRINT, 7595 patients without prior history of AF and a mean CHA₂DS₂VASC score of 2.3 ± 1.2 were followed up to 60 months.

Results

The median daytime HR in the REVEAL-AF cohort was 75bpm [IQR 68-83]. Subjects with below-median HRs had 2.4-fold higher BNP levels compared to subjects with above-median HRs (median BNP [IQR]: 62 pg/dl [37-112] vs. 26 pg/dl [13-53], p < 0.001). HRs <75bpm were associated with a higher incidence of AF: 37% vs. 27%, p < 0.05. This was validated in the SPRINT cohort after adjusting for AF risk factors. Both a HR < 75bpm and beta-blocker use were associated with a higher rate of AF: 1.9 vs 0.7% (p < 0.001) and 2.5% vs. 0.6% (p < 0.001), respectively. The hazard ratio for patients on beta-blockers to develop AF was 3.72 [CI 2.32, 5.96], p < 0.001.

Conclusions

Lower HRs are associated with higher BNP levels and incident AF, mimicking the hemodynamic effects of diastolic dysfunction. Suppression of resting HR by beta-blockers could explain their association with incident AF.

Beta-blocker use and mortality among patients with systolic heart failure and pacemaker rhythm

AIMS

Beta-blockers are proven to improve survival among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Their efficacy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and pacemaker devices has not been demonstrated. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that beta-blocker therapy is associated with improved survival in patients with chronic heart failure and a pacemaker rhythm on electrocardiogram (ECG).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a post hoc analysis from the GISSI-HF randomized clinical trial. We evaluated efficacy of beta-blockers by creating Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for pacemaker rhythm and heart rate, among other variables. Interactions between pacemaker rhythm, heart rate, and beta-blocker were also examined. Of the 6975 patients enrolled in the GISSI-HF trial, 813 (11.7%) had a pacemaker rhythm on baseline ECG. Of these 813 patients, 511 (62.9%) were receiving beta-blocker therapy. The effect of beta-blocker therapy on mortality was assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards adjusted for 27 co-variates. In the whole cohort, beta-blocker therapy was significantly associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio 0.79 [0.72-0.87], P < 0.001), without interaction between beta-blockers, pacemaker rhythm and heart rate. Beta-blocker therapy was beneficial in the sub-group restricted to baseline pacemaker rhythm (hazard ratio 0.62 [0.49-0.79], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blocker therapy is associated with improved survival among patients with heart failure and a pacemaker rhythm on ECG. Further studies are necessary to analyse differences between atrial and ventricular pacemakers.

Retrospective analysis of SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), or diastolic failure, accounts for half of all HF cases and differs from HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Patients with HFpEF are typically older, female, and commonly seen with chronic kidney disease (CKD), one of the leading independent risk factors for mortality in these patients. Unfortunately, drugs that had shown significant improvements in mortality in HFrEF have not shown similar benefits in HFpEF. Recently, sodium glucose transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have been shown to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in HFrEF patients and slow down CKD progression. This study aimed to elucidate the impact of this drug class on mortality and risk of end stage renal disease in patients with HFpEF, which is currently unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively analysed the Research Data Warehouse containing electronic health records from de-identified patients (n = 1 266 290) from the University of Mississippi Medical Center from 2013 to 2022. HFpEF patients had an average follow-up of 4 ± 2 years. Factors associated with increased all-cause mortality during HFpEF included age, male sex, and CKD. Interestingly, the only treatments associated with significant improvements in survival were angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and SGLT2i, regardless of CKD or diabetes status. Additionally, SGLT2i use was also associated with significant decrease in the risk of end stage renal disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the use of SGLT2i in an HFpEF population with relatively high rates of hypertension, CKD, and black race and suggests that improvements in mortality may be through preserving kidney function.

Physician Perspectives on the Use of Beta Blockers in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

β-blockers are commonly used in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), even in the absence of a compelling indication and despite the potential to cause harm. Identifying reasons for β-blocker prescription in HFpEF could permit the development of strategies to reduce unnecessary use and potentially improve medication prescribing patterns in this vulnerable population. We administered an online survey regarding β-blocker prescribing behavior to physicians trained in internal medicine or geriatrics (noncardiology physicians) and to cardiologists at 2 large academic medical centers. The survey assessed the reasons for β-blocker initiation, agreement regarding initiation and/or continuation of β-blockers by another clinician, and deprescribing behavior. The response rate was 28.2% (n = 231). Among respondents, 68.2% reported initiating β-blockers in patients with HFpEF. The most common reason for initiating a β-blocker was for treatment of an atrial arrhythmia. Notably, 23.7% of physicians reported initiating a β-blocker without an evidence-based indication. When a β-blocker was considered not necessary, 40.1% of physicians reported they were rarely or never willing to deprescribe. The most common reason for not deprescribing a β-blocker when the physician felt that a β-blocker was unnecessary was the concern about interfering with another physicians' treatment plan (76.6%). In conclusion, a significant proportion of noncardiology physicians and cardiologists report prescribing β-blockers to patients with HFpEF, even when evidence-based indications are absent, and rarely deprescribe β-blockers in these scenarios.