Duration of chronic heart failure affects outcomes with preserved effects of heart rate reduction with ivabradine: findings from SHIFT

Soluble ST2, BCN-Bio-HF calculator and MAGGIC-HF score in long-term risk prediction after an urgent visit for heart failure

Soluble ST2 (sST2) is the expression of a pathogenic process related to adverse remodeling that ultimately leads to increased mortality in heart failure (HF). Risk score models provide a comprehensive approach for mortality prediction, beyond the use of biomarkers alone. The objective was to determine the additional value of sST2 and two well-validated contemporary risk scores, BCN-Bio-HF and MAGGIC-HF, in predicting mortality and readmission in the acute setting. This prospective study included 129 patients (mean age 75 ± 9 years; 52% males) after an urgent HF visit. Baseline sST2 levels were measured and the two risk scores were calculated. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, and the secondary endpoint was HF readmissions. The follow-up period was 3.6 ± 1.9 years. Patients who died (46%) had higher sST2 concentrations (80.5 vs. 42.7 ng/ml; p < 0.001). The BCN-Bio-HF calculator with sST2 demonstrated the best discriminative ability for mortality prediction (area under the ROC curve: 0.792; p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis for each risk score, the MAGGIC-HF score retained its predictive value only in the model without sST2 (3-year risk: HR = 1.036; 95% CI 1.019-1.054; p < 0.001). However, the BCN-Bio-HF score maintained its prognostic value with sST2 (HR = 1.032; 95%CI 1.020-1.044; p < 0.001), as well as without sST2 (HR = 1.035; 95% CI 1.021-1.049; p < 0.001). sST2 was not associated with readmission, and only the BCN-Bio-HF risk of HF hospitalization showed independent predictive value (OR = 1.040; 95% CI 1.005-1.076; p = 0.023). For predicting long-term mortality in HF in the emergency department, the BCN-Bio-HF calculator with sST2 demonstrated superior discrimination and allows estimation of the risk of HF hospitalizations.

Sex differences in clinical characteristics and long-term outcome in patients with heart failure: data from the KorAHF registry

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Sex differences in the prognosis of heart failure (HF) have yielded inconsistent results, and data from Asian populations are even rare. This study aimed to investigate sex differences in clinical characteristics and long-term prognosis among Korean patients with HF.

METHODS

A total of 5,625 Korean patients hospitalized for acute HF were analyzed using a prospective multi-center registry database. Baseline clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes including HF readmission and death were compared between sexes.

RESULTS

Women were older than men and had worse symptoms with higher N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide levels. Women had a significantly higher proportion of HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality and rate of guideline-directed medical therapies in men and women. During median follow- up of 3.4 years, cardiovascular death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.78; p = 0.014), and composite outcomes of death and HF readmission (adjusted HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.27; p = 0.030) were significantly higher in men than women. When evaluating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HFpEF separately, men were an independent risk factor of cardiovascular death in patients with HFrEF. Clinical outcome was not different between sexes in HFpEF.

CONCLUSION

In the Korean multi-center registry, despite having better clinical characteristics, men exhibited a higher risk of all-cause mortality and readmission for HF. The main cause of these disparities was the higher cardiovascular mortality rate observed in men compared to women with HFrEF.

Importance of heart failure duration for development of pulmonary hypertension in advanced heart failure

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) is critical when evaluating candidacy for advanced heart failure (HF) therapies, but risk factors for elevated PVR are not well studied. We hypothesized that HF duration would be associated with elevated PVR.

METHODS

Danish single-center registry of consecutive in- and outpatients undergoing right heart catheterization as part of advanced HF work up. The relation between HF duration and PVR was estimated by regression analysis. Finally, the relation between PVR and long-term mortality was assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 549 patients (77% men, median age 54 (43-61) years, median HF duration 1.6 years (0.1-7.1)) were included. Univariate linear regression displayed an association between longer HF duration and increasing PVR (p = 0.014). PVR > 3 WU was present in 92 patients (17%) who were older (median p < 0.001) and had longer HF duration (p = 0.03). HF duration (per 1 year increase) did not predict PVR > 3 WU after adjustment for covariables (OR 1.00; p = 0.99). During a mean follow-up time of 4.5 years, there were 240 (44%) deaths. Increasing PVR was associated with elevated all-cause mortality risk (adjusted HR 1.24; p < 0.001). PVR > 3 WU was associated with higher mortality (adjusted HR 1.49; p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Longer duration of HF was associated with higher PVR in patients with advanced HF, but this association disappeared in multivariate analyses. Longer HF duration per se likely does not cause elevated PVR and should not discourage evaluation for heart transplantation.

Duration of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Outcomes With Sacubitril/Valsartan: Insights From the PARAGON-HF Trial

OBJECTIVE

In this post hoc analysis of the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF) trial, we evaluated clinical outcomes and responses to sacubitril/valsartan by duration of heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 45% at initial diagnosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations due to HF and cardiovascular deaths, analyzed by using a semiparametric proportional rates method, stratified by geographic region. Among 4784 (99.7%) randomized participants in the PARAGON-HF trial for whom baseline HF duration was captured, 1359 (28%) had durations of HF of < 6 months, 1295 (27%) of 6 months-2 years, and 2130 (45%) of > 2 years. Longer HF duration was associated with higher comorbidity burdens, worse health status and lower rates of prior hospitalization due to HF. Over a median follow-up of 35 months, longer HF duration was associated with a higher risk of first and recurrent primary events (per 100 patient-years): < 6 months, 12.0 (95% CI, 10.4-14.0); 6 months-2 years, 12.2 (10.6-14.2); > 2 years, 15.8 (14.2-17.5). Relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration on the primary endpoint (Pinteraction = 0.112). Clinically meaningful (≥ 5 point) improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Scores were also similarly observed, irrespective of HF duration; (Pinteraction = 0.112). Adverse events were similar between treatment arms across HF duration categories.

CONCLUSIONS

In PARAGON-HF, longer HF duration was independently predictive of adverse HF outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration, suggesting that even ambulatory patients with longstanding HFpEF and predominantly mild symptoms stand to benefit from treatment optimization.

Ivabradine in patients with heart failure: a systematic literature review

Background: Heart failure is a chronic disease linked with significant morbidity and mortality, and uncontrolled resting heart rate is a risk factor for adverse outcomes. This systematic literature review aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of ivabradine in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods: We searched electronic databases from their inception to July 2021 to include studies that reported on efficacy, safety, or PROs of ivabradine in patients with HFrEF. Results: Of 1947 records screened, 51 RCTs and 6 observational studies were identified. Ivabradine on top of background therapy demonstrated a significant reduction in composite outcomes including hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. In addition, observational studies suggested that ivabradine was associated with a significant reduction in mortality. Across all studies, ivabradine use on top of background therapy was associated with greater reductions in heart rate, improved EF, and improved health-related quality of life (QoL) and comparable risk of total adverse events compared to those treated with background therapy alone. Conclusions: Ivabradine on top of background therapy is beneficial for heart rate, hospitalization risk for HF, mortality, EF, and patients' QoL. Moreover, these benefits were achieved with no significant increase in the overall risk of total adverse events.

Underutilization of Mineralocorticoid Antagonists in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

It is unknown how the efficacy and safety of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists vary according to duration of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of eplerenone according to duration of HFrEF.

METHODS

In the EMPHASIS-HF trial, 3 patient groups were created according to HFrEF duration: <1 year, 1 to <5 years, and ≥5 years. The primary outcome was the composite of heart failure (HF) hospitalization or cardiovascular death. Outcomes were adjusted for prespecified prognostic variables and examined with the use of Cox regression models.

RESULTS

The numbers of patients in each group were: 975, <1 year; 769, 1 to <5 years; and 988, ≥5 years. Patients with longer-standing HF were older and more frequently had cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbidities. The rate of the primary outcome (per 100 person-years) increased with HFrEF duration: 9.8 (95% CI: 8.4-11.4) for <1 year, 13.5 (95% CI: 11.6-15.7) for 1 to <5 years, and 17.6 (95% CI: 15.6-19.8) for ≥5 years. The benefits of eplerenone were consistent across HF duration: HRs for the primary outcome were 0.57 (95% CI: 0.42-0.79) for <1 year, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.60-1.10) for 1 to <5 years, and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.48-0.78) for ≥5 years; Pinteraction = 0.24. The absolute benefit was greatest in the longest-duration group: the number needed to treat for the primary outcome was 14 for <1 year, 13 for 1 to <5 years, and 10 for ≥5 years duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with longer-standing HFrEF had worse clinical status and a higher rate of events, but the benefit of eplerenone was consistent regardless of HFrEF duration. (A Comparison of Outcomes in Patients in NYHA Class II Heart Failure When Treated With Eplerenone or Placebo in Addition to Standard Heart Failure Medicines [EMPHASIS-HF]; NCT00232180).

Combined treatment with sacubitril/valsartan plus dapagliflozin in patients affected by heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Background

Data about real-world effects of combined therapy with sacubitril/valsartan plus dapagliflozin in patients affected by heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has not been widely reported. In this article, the benefits of dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan respect to improvements of cardiac function in patients with HFrEF would be investigated.

Methods

HF patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan between January 2020 and January 2022 in a tertiary teaching hospital were selected using the Computerized Patient Record System. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether they were taking dapagliflozin. Clinical parameters at baseline and during follow-up were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

Results

Total of 136 consecutive patients were recruited for this study. 72 patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan and dapagliflozin were assigned to Group A, and another 64 patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan monotherapy were assigned to Group B. After treatment with sacubitril/valsartan plus dapagliflozin for a median follow-up period of 189 days (IQR, 180-276), significant improvements of cardiac function were achieved in Group A. Median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level was significantly decreased from 2585 pg/ml (1014-3702.5) to 1260.5 pg/ml (439.8-2214.3) (P < 0.001). Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved from 34.7 ± 4.6% to 39.2 ± 7.5% (P < 0.001). Mean daily dose of loop diuretics decreased from 37.1 ± 17.3 mg/day to 25.9 ± 18.5 mg/day (P < 0.001). Regarding safety, both systolic blood pressure (P = 0.002) and diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.002) significantly decreased. For patients in Group B, significant improvements in mean LVEF (P < 0.001), decreases in mean daily dose of loop diuretics (P = 0.001) and reductions in diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.023) were observed. Strikingly, both median Δ NT-proBNP (P = 0.04) and median Δ LAD (P = 0.006) in Group A were more pronounced in comparison with those seen in Group B.

Conclusions

The combined use of sacubitril/valsartan and dapagliflozin was associated with improved cardiac function in patents with HFrEF, and led to greater reductions in LAD and NT-proBNP levels compared to sacubitril/valsartan monotherapy. These findings suggest that the combination therapy may offer more potent cardiovascular benefits.

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

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

Periodic repolarization dynamics as predictor of risk for sudden cardiac death in chronic heart failure patients

The two most common modes of death among chronic heart failure (CHF) patients are sudden cardiac death (SCD) and pump failure death (PFD). Periodic repolarization dynamics (PRD) quantifies low-frequency oscillations in the T wave vector of the electrocardiogram (ECG) and has been postulated to reflect sympathetic modulation of ventricular repolarization. This study aims to evaluate the prognostic value of PRD to predict SCD and PFD in a population of CHF patients. 20-min high-resolution (1000 Hz) ECG recordings from 569 CHF patients were analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\hbox {PRD}^+$$\end{document}PRD+ and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\hbox {PRD}^-$$\end{document}PRD-, corresponding to PRD values above and below the optimum cutoff point of PRD in the study population. Univariate Cox regression analysis showed that SCD risk in the \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\hbox {PRD}^+$$\end{document}PRD+ group was double the risk in the \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\hbox {PRD}^-$$\end{document}PRD- group [hazard ratio (95% CI) 2.001 (1.127–3.554), \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\hbox {p}<0.05$$\end{document}p<0.05]. The combination of PRD with other Holter-based ECG indices, such as turbulence slope (TS) and index of average alternans (IAA), improved SCD prediction by identifying groups of patients at high SCD risk. PFD could be predicted by PRD only when combined with TS [hazard ratio 2.758 (1.572–4.838), \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\hbox {p}<0.001$$\end{document}p<0.001]. In conclusion, the combination of PRD with IAA and TS can be used to stratify the risk for SCD and PFD, respectively, in CHF patients.

Novel biomarker-driven prognostic models to predict morbidity and mortality in chronic heart failure: the EMPEROR-Reduced trial

Aims

The aim of this study was to generate a biomarker-driven prognostic tool for patients with chronic HFrEF. Circulating levels of N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) each have a marked positive relationship with adverse outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). A risk model incorporating biomarkers and clinical variables has not been validated in contemporary heart failure (HF) trials.

Methods and results

In EMPEROR-Reduced, 33 candidate variables were pre-selected. Multivariable Cox regression models were developed using stepwise selection for: (i) the primary composite outcome of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death, (ii) all-cause death, and (iii) cardiovascular mortality. A total of 3730 patients were followed up for a median of 16 months, 823 (22%) patients had a primary outcome and 515 (14%) patients died, of whom 389 (10%) died from a cardiovascular cause. NT-proBNP and hs-cTnT were the dominant predictors of the primary outcome, and in addition, a shorter time since last HF hospitalization, longer time since HF diagnosis, lower systolic blood pressure, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III or IV, higher heart rate and peripheral oedema were key predictors (eight variables in total, all P < 0.001). The primary outcome risk score discriminated well (c-statistic = 0.73), with patients in the top 10th of risk having an event rate >9 times higher than those in the bottom 10th. Empagliflozin benefitted patients across risk levels for the primary outcome. NT-proBNP and hs-cTnT were also the dominant predictors of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, followed by NYHA Class III or IV and ischaemic aetiology (four variables in total, all P < 0.001). The mortality risk model presented good event discrimination for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality (c-statistic = 0.69 for both). These simple models were externally validated in the BIOSTAT-CHF study, achieving similar c-statistics.

Conclusions

The combination of NT-proBNP and hs-cTnT with a small number of readily available clinical variables provides prognostic assessment for patients with HFrEF. This predictive tool kit can be easily implemented for routine clinical use.

Timely and individualized heart failure management: need for implementation into the new guidelines

Due to remarkable improvements in heart failure (HF) management over the last 30 years, a significant reduction in mortality and hospitalization rates in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has been observed. Currently, the optimization of guideline-directed chronic HF therapy remains the mainstay to further improve outcomes for patients with HFrEF to reduce mortality and HF hospitalization. This includes established device therapies, such as implantable defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapies, which improved patients' symptoms and prognosis. Over the last 10 years, new HF drugs have merged targeting various pathways, such as those that simultaneously suppress the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system and the breakdown of endogenous natriuretic peptides (e.g., sacubitril/valsartan), and those that inhibit the I_f channel and, thus, reduce heart rate (e.g., ivabradine). Furthermore, the treatment of patient comorbidities (e.g., iron deficiency) has shown to improve functional capacity and to reduce hospitalization rates, when added to standard therapy. More recently, other potential treatment mechanisms have been explored, such as the sodium/glucose co-transporter inhibitors, the guanylate cyclase stimulators and the cardiac myosin activators. In this review, we summarize the novel developments in HFrEF pharmacological and device therapy and discuss their implementation strategies into practice to further improve outcomes.

Ivabradine in Cardiovascular Disease Management Revisited: a Review

Ivabradine is a unique agent that is distinct from beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers as it reduces heart rate without affecting myocardial contractility or vascular tone. Ivabradine is a use-dependent inhibitor targeting the sinoatrial node. It is approved for use in the United States as an adjunct therapy for heart rate reduction in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. In this scenario, ivabradine has demonstrated improved clinical outcomes due to reduction in heart failure readmissions. However, there has been conflicting evidence from prospective studies and randomized controlled trials for its use in stable ischemic heart disease regarding efficacy in symptom reduction and mortality benefit. Ivabradine may also play a role in the treatment of patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia, who often cannot tolerate beta-blockers and/or calcium channel blockers. In this review, we highlight the evidence for the nuances of using ivabradine in heart failure, stable ischemic heart disease, and inappropriate sinus tachycardia to raise awareness for its vital role in the treatment of select populations.

Association of heart failure duration with clinical outcomes after transcatheter mitral valve repair for functional mitral regurgitation

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the association of heart failure (HF) chronicity with clinical outcomes after transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) for functional mitral regurgitation (MR).

METHODS

From January 2011 to March 2019, consecutive patients with functional MR who underwent a MitraClip procedure were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups according to HF duration-those with duration ≤18 months and those with >18 months. The primary outcome measure was a composite of all-cause mortality and re-HF rehospitalization within 1 year after the procedure. These outcomes were also assessed separately. A Cox proportional hazard model was conducted for investigating the association of HF duration with the primary outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 208 patients were analyzed. Patients with HF duration >18 months had a higher rate of the primary outcome compared to those with HF duration ≤18 months (38.1 vs. 19.0%, log-rank p = .003). A longer duration of HF was associated with an increased risk of the primary outcomes (adjusted-HR of >18 months, 2.12 95% CI, 1.14-4.19; p = .03; adjusted-HR (hazard ratios) for 1 year increase, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09; p = .004). The association of HF duration with the primary outcomes showed a steep rise during the first 2 years of HF duration and progressive increase after 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

A longer HF duration before TMVR was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality or HF rehospitalization. HF duration can be used for the risk stratification marker in patients undergoing TMVR for functional MR.

Prognostic Impact of Heart Failure History in Patients with Secondary Mitral Regurgitation Treated by MitraClip

The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic role of heart failure (HF) history in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR) underwent MitraClip. We retrospectively analyzed 186 patients with SMR undergoing MitraClip at 4 centres. HF history was defined as number or days of HF hospitalizations in the 12-month before MitraClip, or as time from last HF hospitalization to MitraClip, or time between first SMR diagnosis and MitraClip. More severe symptoms were observed in patients with >1 HF hospitalization compared with those with ≤1 HF hospitalizations, in those with ≥10 days versus <10 days of HF hospitalization and in those with shortest time from the last HF hospitalization. No significant differences were observed for procedural data in the population stratified according to the different definitions. In variables related with HF history, only the number of HF hospitalizations before MitraClip was associated with an increased risk of clinical events (hazard ratio 1.59; 95% confidence interval [1.09 to 2.12]; p = 0.015), whereas days of previous HF hospitalization, time from last HF hospitalization and from first diagnosis of SMR do not impact on prognosis. A significant decrease in the number and days of HF hospitalizations was observed in the 12-month after MitraClip compared with the 12-month before. In conclusion, in variables related with HF history, recurrence (>1) of HF hospitalizations before MitraClip was the most powerful predictor of prognosis. Latency of intervention did not affect outcomes.

Patient Characteristics, Clinical Outcomes, and Effect of Dapagliflozin in Relation to Duration of Heart Failure: Is It Ever Too Late to Start a New Therapy?

BACKGROUND

The impact of heart failure (HF) duration on outcomes and treatment effect is largely unknown. We aim to compare baseline patient characteristics, outcomes, and the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin, in relation to time from diagnosis of HF in DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure).

METHODS

HF duration was categorized as ≥2 to ≤12 months, >1 to 2 years, >2 to 5 years, and >5 years. Outcomes were adjusted for prognostic variables and analyzed using Cox regression. The primary end point was the composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. Treatment effect was examined within each duration category and by duration threshold.

RESULTS

The number of patients in each category was: 1098 (≥2-≤12 months), 686 (>1-2 years), 1105 (>2-5 years), and 1855 (>5 years). Longer-duration HF patients were older and more comorbid with worse symptoms. The rate of the primary outcome (per 100 person-years) increased with HF duration: 10.2 (95% CI, 8.7-12.0) for ≥2 to ≤12 months, 10.6 (8.7-12.9) >1 to 2 years, 15.5 (13.6-17.7) >2 to 5 years, and 15.9 (14.5-17.6) for >5 years. Similar trends were seen for all other outcomes. The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent across HF duration and on threshold analysis. The hazard ratio for the primary outcome ≥2 to ≤12 months was 0.86 (0.63-1.18), >1 to 2 years 0.95 (0.64-1.42), >2 to 5 years 0.74 (0.57-0.96), and >5 years 0.64 (0.53-0.78), P interaction=0.26. The absolute benefit was greatest in longest-duration HF, with a number needed to treat of 18 for HF >5 years, compared with 28 for ≥2 to ≤12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer-duration HF patients were older, had more comorbidity and symptoms, and higher rates of worsening HF and death. The benefits of dapagliflozin were consistent across HF duration. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Ivabradine as adjuvant treatment for chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Chronic heart failure is one of the most common medical conditions, affecting more than 23 million people worldwide. Despite established guideline-based, multidrug pharmacotherapy, chronic heart failure is still the cause of frequent hospitalisation, and about 50% die within five years of diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of ivabradine in individuals with chronic heart failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CPCI-S Web of Science in March 2020. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We checked reference lists of included studies. We did not apply any time or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in which adult participants diagnosed with chronic heart failure were randomly assigned to receive either ivabradine or placebo/usual care/no treatment. We distinguished between type of heart failure (heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction or heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction) as well as between duration of ivabradine treatment (short term (< 6 months) or long term (≥ 6 months)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and checked data for accuracy. We calculated risk ratios (RR) using a random-effects model. We completed a comprehensive 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. We contacted authors for missing data. Our primary endpoints were: mortality from cardiovascular causes; quality of life; time to first hospitalisation for heart failure during follow-up; and number of days spent in hospital due to heart failure during follow-up. Our secondary endpoints were: rate of serious adverse events; exercise capacity; and economic costs (narrative report). We assessed the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies (76 reports) involving a total of 19,628 participants (mean age 60.76 years, 69% male). However, few studies contributed data to meta-analyses due to inconsistency in trial design (type of heart failure) and outcome reporting and measurement. In general, risk of bias varied from low to high across the included studies, with insufficient detail provided to inform judgement in several cases. We were able to perform two meta-analyses focusing on participants with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and long-term ivabradine treatment. There was evidence of no difference between ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment for mortality from cardiovascular causes (RR 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.11; 3 studies; 17,676 participants; I² = 33%; moderate-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found evidence of no difference in rate of serious adverse events amongst HFrEF participants randomised to receive long-term ivabradine compared with those randomised to placebo, usual care, or no treatment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.00; 2 studies; 17,399 participants; I² = 12%; moderate-certainty evidence). We were not able to perform meta-analysis for all other outcomes, and have low confidence in the findings based on the individual studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence of no difference in cardiovascular mortality and serious adverse events between long-term treatment with ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment in participants with heart failure with HFrEF. Nevertheless, due to indirectness (male predominance), the certainty of the available evidence is rated as moderate.

Relationship between duration of heart failure, patient characteristics, outcomes, and effect of therapy in PARADIGM-HF

Aims

Little is known about patient characteristics, outcomes, and the effect of treatment in relation to duration of heart failure (HF). We have investigated these questions in PARADIGM‐HF. The aim of the study was to compare patient characteristics, outcomes, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, in relation to time from HF diagnosis in PARADIGM‐HF.

Methods and results

HF duration was categorized as 0–1, >1–2, >2–5, and >5 years. Outcomes were adjusted for prognostic variables, including N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP). The primary endpoint was the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death. The number of patients in each group was as follows: 0–1 year, 2523 (30%); >1–2 years, 1178 (14%); >2–5 years, 2054 (24.5%); and >5 years, 2644 (31.5%). Patients with longer‐duration HF were older, more often male, and had worse New York Heart Association class and quality of life, more co‐morbidity, and higher troponin‐T but similar NT‐proBNP levels. The primary outcome rate (per 100 person‐years) increased with HF duration: 0–1 year, 8.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.6–9.2]; >1–2 years, 11.2 (10.0–12.7); >2–5 years, 13.4 (12.4–14.6); and >5 years, 14.2 (13.2–15.2); P < 0.001. The hazard ratio was 1.26 (95% CI 1.07–1.48), 1.52 (1.33–1.74), and 1.53 (1.33–1.75), respectively, for >1–2, >2–5, and >5 years, compared with 0–1 year. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across HF duration for all outcomes, with the primary endpoint hazard ratio 0.80 (95% CI 0.67–0.97) for 0–1 year and 0.73 (0.63–0.84) in the >5 year group. For the primary outcome, the number needed to treat for >5 years was 18, compared with 29 for 0–1 year.

Conclusions

Patients with longer‐duration HF had more co‐morbidity, worse quality of life, and higher rates of HF hospitalization and death. The benefit of a neprilysin inhibitor was consistent, irrespective of HF duration. Switching to sacubitril/valsartan had substantial benefits, even in patients with long‐standing HF.

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Heart rate and blood pressure monitoring in heart failure

It has been long known that incessant tachycardia and severe hypertension can cause heart failure (HF). In recent years, it has also been recognized that more modest elevations in either heart rate (HR) or blood pressure (BP), if sustained, can be a risk factor both for the development of HF and for mortality in patients with established HF. Heart rate and BP are thus both modifiable risk factors in the setting of HF. What is less clear is the question whether routine systematic monitoring of these simple physiological parameters to a target value can offer clinical benefits. Measuring these parameters clinically during patient review is recommended in HF management in most HF guidelines, both in the acute and chronic phases of the disease. More sophisticated systems now allow long-term automatic or remote monitoring of HR and BP and whether this more detailed patient information can improve clinical outcomes will require prospective RCTs to evaluate. In addition, analysis of patterns of both HR and BP variability can give insights into autonomic function, which is also frequently abnormal in HF. This window into autonomic dysfunction in our HF patients can also provide further independent prognostic information and may in itself be target for future interventional therapies. This article, developed during a consensus meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC concerning the role of physiological monitoring in the complex multi-morbid HF patient, highlights the importance of repeated assessment of HR and BP in HF, and reviews gaps in our knowledge and potential future directions.

Physiological monitoring in the complex multimorbid heart failure patient - Conclusions

Comorbidities are increasingly recognized as crucial components of the heart failure syndrome. Main specific challenges are polypharmacy, poor adherence to treatments, psychological aspects, and the need of monitoring after discharge. The chronic multimorbid patient therefore represents a specific heart failure phenotype that needs an appropriate and continuous management over time. This supplement issue covers the key points of a series of meeting coordinated by the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), that have discussed the issues surrounding the effective monitoring of our ever more complex and multimorbid heart failure patients. Here, we present an overview of the complex issues from a healthcare delivery perspective.

Duration of Heart Failure and Effect of Defibrillator Implantation in Patients With Nonischemic Systolic Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Patients with nonischemic systolic heart failure (HF) have increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) and death from progressive pump failure. Whether the risk of SCD changes over time is unknown. We seek here to investigate the relation between duration of HF, mode of death, and effect of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined the risk of all-cause death and SCD according to the duration of HF among patients with nonischemic systolic HF enrolled in the DANISH (Danish Study to Assess the Efficacy of ICDs in Patients with Non-ischemic Systolic Heart Failure on Mortality). In all, 1116 patients were included. Patients were divided according to quartiles of HF duration (≤8, 9≤18, 19≤65, and ≥66 months). Patients with the longest duration of HF were older, more often men, had more comorbidity, and more often received a cardiac resynchronization therapy device. Doubling of HF duration was an independent predictor of both all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.38; P<0.0001), and SCD (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.11-1.50; P=0.0007). The proportion of deaths caused by SCD was not different between HF quartiles (P=0.91), and the effect of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation on all-cause mortality was not modified by the duration of HF (P=0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Duration of HF predicted both all-cause mortality and risk of SCD independently of other risk indicators. However, the proportion of death caused by SCD did not change with longer duration of HF, and the effect of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was not modified by the duration of HF.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00542945.

[Evidence-based drug therapy for heart failure-an update]

Chronic heart failure affects millions of people worldwide and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Because of steadily increasing ageing populations and improved survival rates after myocardial infarction, the incidence of chronic heart failure is rising. As acute decompensated heart failure is one of the leading causes for hospitalization in Germany, heart failure imposes a huge economic burden on its health care system. Guideline directed therapy is important to improve prognosis. In the following, we give an overview about novel heart failure clinical trial results and point to important comorbidities.

The MAGGIC risk score predicts mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: sub-analysis of the OCEAN-TAVI registry

This study is aimed to evaluate the performance of MAGGIC risk score for predicting mortality by external validation using multicenter transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) registry. We assessed 1383 patients who underwent TAVR from October 2013 to April 2016. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the median of MAGGIC score and we compared the incidence of all-cause death between high and low MAGGIC score. To assess whether the MAGGIC risk score add prognostic value on STS risk score, we also compared the incidence of all-cause death between the 2 groups according to low, intermediate, and high STS score. The median of MAGGIC score was 29 (interquartile range: 13-46). Within 2 years, 147 cases of all-cause death were observed. The high MAGGIC (30-46) risk score was significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause death as compared to low MAGGIC (11-29) risk score and this relationship was also observed in patients with high STS risk score. However, this relationship was not observed in patients with low and intermediate STS score. Multivariate analysis showed that the MAGGIC risk score was an independent predictor of all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11). Our results demonstrated that the MAGGIC score predicts all-cause death in TAVR population and provides better risk stratification, particularly in patients with high STS risk.

Efficacy of ivabradine for heart failure: A protocol for a systematic review of randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Previous clinical trials have reported that ivabradine can effectively treat heart failure (HF). However, no systematic review has explored its efficacy and safety for HF. This systematic review will aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ivabradine for the treatment of patients with HF.

METHODS

We will search the literature from the following electronic databases from inception to the January 31, 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, MEDILINE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Information, and Wanfang Data. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ivabradine for HF will be fully considered for inclusion without any restrictions. Additionally, grey literature including clinical trial registries, dissertations, and reference lists of included studies, conference abstracts will also be searched. Two researchers will review these literatures, extract data, and assess risk of bias of included RCTs separately. Data will be pooled by either fixed-effects model or random-effects model, and meta-analysis will be conducted if it is appropriate.

RESULTS

The primary outcome is all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes comprise of change in body weight, urine output, change in serum sodium, and all adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study will summary provide up-to-dated evidence for assessing the efficacy and safety of ivabradine for HF.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

It is not necessary to acquire ethical approval for this systematic review, because no individual patient data will be used in this study. The results of this systematic review will be published through peer-reviewed journals.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019120814.

Ivabradine for the Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases

Higher heart rate (HR) is independently related to worse outcomes in various cardiac diseases, including hypertension, coronary artery disease, and heart failure (HF). HR is determined by the pacemaker activity of cells within the sinoatrial node. The hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated (HCN) 4 channel, one of 4 HCN isoforms, generates the I_f current and plays an important role in the regulation of pacemaker activity in the sinoatrial node. Ivabradine is a novel and only available HCN inhibitor, which can reduce HR and has been approved for stable angina and chronic HF in many countries other than Japan. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge of the HCN4 channel and ivabradine, including the function of HCN4 in cardiac pacemaking, the mechanism of action of I_f inhibition by ivabradine, and the pharmacological and clinical effects of ivabradine in cardiac diseases as HF, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation.