Hypotension in heart failure is less harmful if associated with high or increasing doses of heart failure medication: Insights from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

How to tackle therapeutic inertia in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) reduces morbidity and mortality, but its implementation is often poor in daily clinical practice. Barriers to implementation include clinical and organizational factors that might contribute to clinical inertia, i.e. avoidance/delay of recommended treatment initiation/optimization. The spectrum of strategies that might be applied to foster GDMT implementation is wide, and involves the organizational set-up of heart failure care pathways, tailored drug initiation/optimization strategies increasing the chance of successful implementation, digital tools/telehealth interventions, educational activities and strategies targeting patient/physician awareness, and use of quality registries. This scientific statement by the Heart Failure Association of the ESC provides an overview of the current state of GDMT implementation in HFrEF, clinical and organizational barriers to implementation, and aims at suggesting a comprehensive framework on how to overcome clinical inertia and ultimately improve implementation of GDMT in HFrEF based on up-to-date evidence.

Quantifying Hemodynamic Cardiac Stress and Cardiomyocyte Injury in Normotensive and Hypertensive Acute Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

The characterization of the different pathophysiological mechanisms involved in normotensive versus hypertensive acute heart failure (AHF) might help to develop individualized treatments.

METHODS

The extent of hemodynamic cardiac stress and cardiomyocyte injury was quantified by measuring the B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP), and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) concentrations in 1152 patients presenting with centrally adjudicated AHF to the emergency department (ED) (derivation cohort). AHF was classified as normotensive with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 90-140 mmHg and hypertensive with SBP > 140 mmHg at presentation to the ED. Findings were externally validated in an independent AHF cohort (n = 324).

RESULTS

In the derivation cohort, with a median age of 79 years, 43% being women, 667 (58%) patients had normotensive and 485 (42%) patients hypertensive AHF. Hemodynamic cardiac stress, as quantified by the BNP and NT-proBNP, was significantly higher in normotensive as compared to hypertensive AHF [1105 (611-1956) versus 827 (448-1419) pg/mL, and 5890 (2959-12,162) versus 4068 (1986-8118) pg/mL, both p < 0.001, respectively]. Similarly, the extent of cardiomyocyte injury, as quantified by hs-cTnT, was significantly higher in normotensive AHF as compared to hypertensive AHF [41 (24-71) versus 33 (19-59) ng/L, p < 0.001]. A total of 313 (28%) patients died during 360 days of follow-up. All-cause mortality was higher in patients with normotensive AHF vs. patients with hypertensive AHF (hazard ratio 1.66, 95%CI 1.31-2.10; p < 0.001). Normotensive patients with a high BNP, NT-proBNP, or hs-cTnT had the highest mortality. The findings were confirmed in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

Biomarker profiling revealed a higher extent of hemodynamic stress and cardiomyocyte injury in patients with normotensive versus hypertensive AHF.

Titration of Medications After Acute Heart Failure Is Safe, Tolerated, and Effective Regardless of Risk

BACKGROUND

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) decisions may be less affected by single patient variables such as blood pressure or kidney function and more by overall risk profile. In STRONG-HF (Safety, tolerability and efficacy of up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies for acute heart failure), high-intensity care (HIC) in the form of rapid uptitration of heart failure (HF) GDMT was effective overall, but the safety, tolerability and efficacy of HIC across the spectrum of HF severity is unknown. Evaluating this with a simple risk-based framework offers an alternative and more clinically translatable approach than traditional subgroup analyses.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to assess safety, tolerability, and efficacy of HIC according to the simple, powerful, and clinically translatable MAGGIC (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic) HF risk score.

METHODS

In STRONG-HF, 1,078 patients with acute HF were randomized to HIC (uptitration of treatments to 100% of recommended doses within 2 weeks of discharge and 4 scheduled outpatient visits over the 2 months after discharge) vs usual care (UC). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death or first HF rehospitalization at day 180. Baseline HF risk profile was determined by the previously validated MAGGIC risk score. Treatment effect was stratified according to MAGGIC risk score both as a categorical and continuous variable.

RESULTS

Among 1,062 patients (98.5%) with complete data for whom a MAGGIC score could be calculated at baseline, GDMT use at baseline was similar across MAGGIC tertiles. Overall GDMT prescriptions achieved for individual medication classes were higher in the HIC vs UC group and did not differ by MAGGIC risk score tertiles (interaction nonsignificant). The incidence of all-cause death or HF readmission at day 180 was, respectively, 16.3%, 18.9%, and 23.2% for MAGGIC risk score tertiles 1, 2, and 3. The HIC arm was at lower risk of all-cause death or HF readmission at day 180 (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.50-0.86) and this finding was robust across MAGGIC risk score modeled as a categorical (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.62-0.68 in tertiles 1, 2, and 3; interaction nonsignificant) for all comparisons and continuous (interaction nonsignificant) variable. The rate of adverse events was higher in the HIC group, but this observation did not differ based on MAGGIC risk score tertile (interaction nonsignificant).

CONCLUSIONS

HIC led to better use of GDMT and lower HF-related morbidity and mortality compared with UC, regardless of the underlying HF risk profile. (Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy of Rapid Optimization, Helped by NT-proBNP testinG, of Heart Failure Therapies [STRONG-HF]; NCT03412201).