Management of patients with heart failure and chronic kidney disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure are often co-existing conditions due to a shared pathophysiological process involving neurohormonal activation and hemodynamic maladaptation. A wide range of pharmaceutical and interventional tools are available to patients with CKD, consisting of traditional ones with decades of experience and newer emerging therapies that are rapidly reshaping the landscape of medical care for this population. Management of patients with heart failure and CKD requires a stepwise approach based on renal function and the clinical phenotype of heart failure. This is often challenging due to altered drug pharmacokinetics interactions with various degrees of kidney function and frequent adverse effects from the therapy that lead to poor patient tolerance. Despite a great body of clinical evidence and guidelines that have offered various treatment options for patients with heart failure and CKD, respectively, patients with CKD are still underrepresented in heart failure clinical trials, especially for those with advanced CKD and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Future studies are needed to better understand the generalizability of these therapeutic options among heart failures with different stages of CKD.

The efficacy and safety of ivabradine hydrochloride in hemodialysis patients with chronic heart failure

INTRODUCTION

There is little evidence for ivabradine hydrochloride in patients undergoing hemodialysis.

METHODS

In this open-label prospective interventional trial of hemodialysis patients with chronic heart failure, during 12 weeks of treatment, changes in Heart rate (HR), frequency of dialysis-related hypotension were examined, and we investigated health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and adverse effects.

RESULTS

18 patients from 6 facilities were enrolled in the study. HR significantly decreased over time, from 87 ± 12.61/min at baseline to 75.85 ± 8.91/min (p = 0.0003), and systolic blood pressure also increased significantly (p < 0.0001). The frequency of dialysis-related hypotension was markedly reduced (p = 0.0001). The HR-QOL survey showed significant improvements in Social Functioning among others (p = 0.0178). No specific adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

Ivabradine hydrochloride improved dialysis-related hypotension. Furthermore, the HR-QOL improvement effect were suggested. These results demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of ivabradine hydrochloride.

Assessment and management of heart failure in patients with chronic kidney disease

Heart failure (HF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are two pathological conditions with a high prevalence in the general population. When they coexist in the same patient, a strict interplay between them is observed, such that patients affected require a clinical multidisciplinary and personalized management. The diagnosis of HF and CKD relies on signs and symptoms of the patient but several additional tools, such as blood-based biomarkers and imaging techniques, are needed to clarify and discriminate the main characteristics of these diseases. Improved survival due to new recommended drugs in HF has increasingly challenged physicians to manage patients with multiple diseases, especially in case of CKD. However, the safe administration of these drugs in patients with HF and CKD is often challenging. Knowing up to which values ​​of creatinine or renal clearance each drug can be administered is fundamental. With this review we sought to give an insight on this sizable and complex topic, in order to get clearer ideas and a more precise reference about the diagnostic assessment and therapeutic management of HF and CKD.

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.

Association of cumulative resting heart rate exposure with rapid renal function decline: a prospective cohort study with 27,564 older adults

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prospective association between cumulative resting heart rate (cumRHR) and rapid renal function decline (RRFD) in a cohort of individuals aged 60 and older.

METHODS

In the Tianjin Chronic Kidney Disease Cohort Study, the individuals who underwent three consecutive physical examinations between 2014 and 2017, with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) greater than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and aged 60 years or older were enrolled. A total of 27,564 patients were prospectively followed up from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2020. The 3-year cumRHR was calculated. The primary outcome was RRFD, defined as an annualized decline in eGFR of 5 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or greater. Logistic and restricted spline regression models and subgroup analysis were used to investigate the association of cumRHR with RRFD after adjusting for all confounders.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 3.2 years, a total of 4,347 (15.77%) subjects developed RRFD. In fully-adjusted models, compared with the lowest quartile of cumRHR, the odds ratio (OR) for the highest was 1.44 (1.28-1.61), P < 0.001. Furthermore, each 1-standard deviation (27.97 beats/min per year) increment in cumRHR was associated with a 17% (P < 0.001) increased risk of RRFD, with a linear positive correlation (P for non-linear = 0.803). Participants with a 3-year cumRHR ≥ 207 (beats/min) * year (equivalent to ≥ 69 beats/min per year in 3 years) were found to be at a higher risk of RRFD.

CONCLUSIONS

The cumRHR is significantly associated with a higher risk of RRFD among older adults. These results might provide an effective goal for managing and delaying the decline of renal function in the older adults.

Efficacy of new medical therapies in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease already receiving neurohormonal inhibitors: a network meta-analysis

AIMS

We assessed the efficacy of the drugs developed after neurohormonal inhibition (NEUi) in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and concomitant chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The literature was systematically searched for phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving ≥90% patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <45%, of whom <30% were acutely decompensated, and with published information about the subgroup of estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Six RCTs were included in a study-level network meta-analysis evaluating the effect of NEUi, ivabradine, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), vericiguat, and omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) on a composite outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF. In a fixed-effects model, SGLT2i [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.69-0.89], ARNI (HR 0.79, 95% CrI 0.69-0.90), and ivabradine (HR 0.82, 95% CrI 0.69-0.98) decreased the risk of the composite outcome vs. NEUi, whereas OM did not (HR 0.98, 95% CrI 0.89-1.10). A trend for improved outcome was also found for vericiguat (HR 0.90, 95% CrI 0.80-1.00). In indirect comparisons, both SLGT2i (HR 0.80, 95% CrI 0.68-0.94) and ARNI (HR 0.80, 95% CrI 0.68-0.95) reduced the risk vs. OM; furthermore, there was a trend for a greater benefit of SGLT2i vs. vericiguat (HR 0.88, 95% CrI 0.73-1.00) and ivabradine vs. OM (HR 0.84, 95% CrI 0.68-1.00). Results were comparable in a random-effects model and in sensitivity analyses. Surface under the cumulative ranking area scores were 81.8%, 80.8%, 68.9%, 44.2%, 16.6%, and 7.8% for SGLT2i, ARNI, ivabradine, vericiguat, OM, and NEUi, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Expanding pharmacotherapy beyond NEUi improves outcomes in HFrEF with CKD.

Evidence-Based Medical Therapy in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Chronic Kidney Disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) as identified by a reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is a common comorbidity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The presence of CKD is associated with more severe heart failure, and CKD itself is a strong independent risk factor of poor cardiovascular outcome. Furthermore, the presence of CKD often influences the decision to start, uptitrate, or discontinue possible life-saving HFrEF therapies. Because pivotal HFrEF randomized clinical trials have historically excluded patients with stage 4 and 5 CKD (eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2), information on the efficacy and tolerability of HFrEF therapies in these patients is limited. However, more recent HFrEF trials with novel classes of drugs included patients with more severe CKD. In this review on medical therapy in patients with HFrEF and CKD, we show that for both all-cause mortality and the combined end point of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, most drug classes are safe and effective up to CKD stage 3B (eGFR minimum 30 mL/min/1.73 m2). For more severe CKD (stage 4), there is evidence of safety and efficacy of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, and to a lesser extent, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, vericiguat, digoxin and omecamtiv mecarbil, although this evidence is restricted to improvement of cardiovascular death/heart failure hospitalization. Data are lacking on the safety and efficacy for any HFrEF therapies in CKD stage 5 (eGFR < 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 or dialysis) for either end point. Last, although an initial decline in eGFR is observed on initiation of several HFrEF drug classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers/mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists/angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors/sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors), renal function often stabilizes over time, and the drugs maintain their clinical efficacy. A decline in eGFR in the context of a stable or improving clinical condition should therefore not be cause for concern and should not lead to discontinuation of life-saving HFrEF therapies.

The association between ivabradine and adverse cardiovascular events in acute decompensated HFrEF patients

AIMS

Ivabradine has been used in patients who have chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and concomitant sinus heart rate ≥70 bpm. This administration for acute HFrEF remains a concern. This study used a real-world multicentre database to investigate the effects of ivabradine among patients with acute decompensated HFrEF before discharge.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study retrospectively identified patients with acute decompensated HFrEF who were administered ivabradine at discharge from two multicentre HF databases. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders. Cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and recurrent HF rehospitalization risks were then compared between those with and without ivabradine treatment. After 1:2 propensity score matching, 876 patients (age, 60.7 ± 14.6 years; female, 23.2%; left ventricular ejection fraction, 28.2% ± 7.8%; and heart rate at discharge, 84.3 ± 13.8 bpm) were included in the final analysis, including 292 and 584 patients with and without ivabradine treatment at discharge, respectively. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between the two groups. At 1 year follow-up, patients in the ivabradine group had significantly lower heart rates (77.6 ± 14.7 vs. 81.1 ± 16.3 bpm; P = 0.005) and lower HF severity symptoms (New York Heart Association Functional class, 2.1 ± 0.7 vs. 2.3 ± 0.9; P < 0.001) than those from the non-ivabradine group. Ivabradine users had significantly lower risks of 1 year cardiovascular mortality (5.8 vs. 12.2 per 100-person year; P = 0.003), all-cause mortality (7.2 vs. 14.0 per 100-person year; P = 0.003), and total HF rehospitalization (42.3 vs. 72.6 per 100-person year; P < 0.001) than non-ivabradine users. Following multivariate analysis, the predischarge prescription of ivabradine remained independently associated with lower 1 year all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.74; P = 0.002) and cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.72; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study findings suggest that ivabradine treatment is associated with reduced risks of cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and HF rehospitalization within 1 year among patients with acute decompensated HFrEF in real-world populations.

Management of Heart Failure Patient with CKD

CKD is common in patients with heart failure, associated with high mortality and morbidity, which is even higher in people undergoing long-term dialysis. Despite increasing use of evidence-based drug and device therapy in patients with heart failure in the general population, patients with CKD have not benefitted. This review discusses prevalence and evidence of kidney replacement, device, and drug therapies for heart failure in CKD. Evidence for treatment with β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors in mild-to-moderate CKD has emerged from general population studies in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). β-Blockers have been shown to improve outcomes in patients with HFrEF in all stages of CKD, including patients on dialysis. However, studies of HFrEF selected patients with creatinine <2.5 mg/dl for ACE inhibitors, <3.0 mg/dl for angiotensin-receptor blockers, and <2.5 mg/dl for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, excluding patients with severe CKD. Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor therapy was successfully used in randomized trials in patients with eGFR as low as 20 ml/min per 1.73 m2 Hence, the benefits of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis inhibitor therapy in patients with mild-to-moderate CKD have been demonstrated, yet such therapy is not used in all suitable patients because of fear of hyperkalemia and worsening kidney function. Sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor therapy improved mortality and hospitalization in patients with HFrEF and CKD stages 3 and 4 (eGFR>20 ml/min per 1.73 m2). High-dose and combination diuretic therapy, often necessary, may be complicated with worsening kidney function and electrolyte imbalances, but has been used successfully in patients with CKD stages 3 and 4. Intravenous iron improved symptoms in patients with heart failure and CKD stage 3; and high-dose iron reduced heart failure hospitalizations by 44% in patients on dialysis. Cardiac resynchronization therapy reduced death and hospitalizations in patients with heart failure and CKD stage 3. Peritoneal dialysis in patients with symptomatic fluid overload improved symptoms and prevented hospital admissions. Evidence suggests that combined cardiology-nephrology clinics may help improve management of patients with HFrEF and CKD. A multidisciplinary approach may be necessary for implementation of evidence-based therapy.

Cardiovascular Disease in Chronic Kidney Disease: Pathophysiological Insights and Therapeutic Options

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) exhibit an elevated cardiovascular risk manifesting as coronary artery disease, heart failure, arrhythmias, and sudden cardiac death. Although the incidence and prevalence of cardiovascular events is already significantly higher in patients with early CKD stages (CKD stages 1-3) compared with the general population, patients with advanced CKD stages (CKD stages 4-5) exhibit a markedly elevated risk. Cardiovascular rather than end-stage kidney disease (CKD stage 5) is the leading cause of death in this high-risk population. CKD causes a systemic, chronic proinflammatory state contributing to vascular and myocardial remodeling processes resulting in atherosclerotic lesions, vascular calcification, and vascular senescence as well as myocardial fibrosis and calcification of cardiac valves. In this respect, CKD mimics an accelerated aging of the cardiovascular system. This overview article summarizes the current understanding and clinical consequences of cardiovascular disease in CKD.

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.

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.

New pharmacological treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF): A Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has contributed to an increasing number of deaths and readmissions over the past few decades. Despite the appearance of standard treatments, including diuretics, β-receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), there are still a large number of patients who have progressive deterioration of heart function and, inevitably, end-stage heart failure. In recent years, new medications for treating chronic heart failure have been clinically applied, but there is controversy surrounding drug selection and whether patients with HFrEF benefit from these medications. Therefore, we aimed to compare and rank different new pharmacological treatments in patients with HFrEF.

METHODS

We performed a network meta-analysis to identify both direct and indirect evidence from relevant studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO through the OVID database and CENTRAL through the Cochrane Library for clinical randomized controlled trials investigating new pharmacological treatments in patients with HFrEF published up to September 30, 2018. We included trials of ivabradine, levosimendan, omega-3, tolvaptan, recombinant human B-type natriuretic peptide (rhBNP), isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine (ISDN/HYD) and angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition (LCZ696). We extracted the relevant information from these trials with a predefined data extraction sheet and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Based on these items, more than half of the entries were judged as having an overall low to moderate risk of bias; the remaining studies had a high or unclear risk of bias. The outcomes investigated were left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF %), heart rate (HR) and serum level of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). We performed a random-effects network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

We deemed 32 trials to be eligible that included 3810 patients and 32 treatments. Overall, 32 (94.1%) trials had a low to moderate risk of bias, while 2 (5.9%) trials had a high risk of bias. The quality of the included studies was rated as low in regard to allocation concealment and blinding and high in regard to other domains according to the Cochrane tools. As for increasing LVEF%, levosimendan was better than placebo (-3.77 (-4.96, -2.43)) and was the best intervention for improving ventricle contraction. As for controlling HR, n3-PUFA was better than placebo (4.01 (-0.44, 8.48)) and was the best choice for regulating HR. As for decreasing BNP, omega-3 was better than placebo (941.99 (-47.48, 1952.89) and was the best therapy for improving ventricle wall tension.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed the effectiveness of the included new pharmacological treatments for optimizing the structural performance and improving the cardiac function in the management of patients with HFrEF and recommended several interventions for clinical practice.

Optimization of Heart Failure Treatment by Heart Rate Reduction

Heart failure (HF) treatment should be optimized in addition to guideline-directed and recommended drugs to achieve an appropriate heart rate (i.e. 50−60 bpm) by ivabradine in patients with a heart rate >70 bpm in sinus rhythm and with an ejection fraction ≤35%. Heart rate reduction was to reduce cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization dependent on baseline resting heart rate. In particular in patients at a heart rate >75 bpm, a reduction in cardiovascular death, all-cause death, HF death, HF hospitalization and all-cause hospitalization has been observed. The optimal heart rate achieved appears to be between 50−60 bpm, if well tolerated as in these patients the lowest event rate is observed on treatment. Heart rate reduction is, therefore, a treatable risk factor in chronic HF. Observational studies support the concept that it is a risk indicator in other cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular conditions. Whether heart rate reduction is also modifying risk in other conditions than chronic HF should be explored in prospective clinical trials.

[Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy and coronary revascularization in end-stage renal failure]

There is a close physiological relationship between the kidneys and the heart. Cardiovascular diseases are the most prevalent cause of death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), whereas CKD may directly accelerate the progression of cardiovascular diseases and is considered to be a cardiovascular risk factor. In patients with mild CKD, i.e. an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) >60 ml/min/1.73 m², treatment of coronary artery disease and chronic heart failure is not essentially different from patients with preserved renal function; however, as most pivotal trials have systematically excluded patients with advanced renal failure, many treatment recommendations in this patient group are based on observational studies, post hoc subgroup analyses and meta-analyses or pathophysiological considerations, which are not supported by controlled studies. Therefore, prospective randomized studies on the management of heart failure and coronary artery disease are needed, which should specifically focus on the growing number of patients with advanced renal functional impairment.

Setting Up a Heart Failure Program in 2018: Moving Towards New Paradigm(s)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heart failure (HF) is the first cause of hospitalization in the elderly in Western countries, generating tremendous healthcare costs. Despite the spread of multidisciplinary post-discharge programs, readmission rates have remained unchanged over time. We review the recent developments in this setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent data plead for global reorganization of HF care, specifically targeting patients at high risk for further readmission, as well as a stronger involvement of primary care providers (PCP) in patients' care plan. Besides, tools, devices, and new interdisciplinary expertise have emerged to support and be integrated into those programs; they have been greeted with great enthusiasm, but their routine applicability remains to be determined. HF programs in 2018 should focus on pragmatic assessments of patients that will benefit the most from the multidisciplinary care; delegating the management of low-risk patients to trained PCP and empowering the patient himself, using the newly available tools as needed.

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.

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

AIMS

In heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction and sinus rhythm, heart rate reduction with ivabradine reduces the composite incidence of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization.

METHODS AND RESULTS

It is unclear whether the duration of HF prior to therapy independently affects outcomes and whether it modifies the effect of heart rate reduction. In SHIFT, 6505 patients with chronic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤35%), in sinus rhythm, heart rate of ≥70 b.p.m., treated with guideline-recommended therapies, were randomized to placebo or ivabradine. Outcomes and the treatment effect of ivabradine in patients with different durations of HF were examined. Prior to randomization, 1416 ivabradine and 1459 placebo patients had HF duration of ≥4 weeks and <1.5 years; 836 ivabradine and 806 placebo patients had HF duration of 1.5 years to <4 years, and 989 ivabradine and 999 placebo patients had HF duration of ≥4 years. Patients with longer duration of HF were older (62.5 years vs. 59.0 years; P < 0.0001), had more severe disease (New York Heart Association classes III/IV in 56% vs. 44.9%; P < 0.0001) and greater incidences of co-morbidities [myocardial infarction: 62.9% vs. 49.4% (P < 0.0001); renal dysfunction: 31.5% vs. 21.5% (P < 0.0001); peripheral artery disease: 7.0% vs. 4.8% (P < 0.0001)] compared with patients with a more recent diagnosis. After adjustments, longer HF duration was independently associated with poorer outcome. Effects of ivabradine were independent of HF duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Duration of HF predicts outcome independently of risk indicators such as higher age, greater severity and more co-morbidities. Heart rate reduction with ivabradine improved outcomes independently of HF duration. Thus, HF treatments should be initiated early and it is important to characterize HF populations according to the chronicity of HF in future trials.

The Clinical Use of Ivabradine

The clinical use of ivabradine has and continues to evolve along channels that are predicated on its mechanism of action. It selectively inhibits the funny current (I_f) in sinoatrial nodal tissue, resulting in a decrease in the rate of diastolic depolarization and, consequently, the heart rate, a mechanism that is distinct from those of other negative chronotropic agents. Thus, it has been evaluated and is used in select patients with systolic heart failure and chronic stable angina without clinically significant adverse effects. Although not approved for other indications, ivabradine has also shown promise in the management of inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Here, the authors review the mechanism of action of ivabradine and salient studies that have led to its current clinical indications and use.

Heart failure 2016: still more questions than answers

Heart failure has reached epidemic proportions given the ageing of populations and is associated with high mortality and re-hospitalization rates. This article reviews and summarizes recent advances in the diagnosis, assessment and treatment of the patients with heart failure. Data are discussed based also on the most recent guidelines indications. Open issues and unmet needs are highlighted.

Ivabradine

Ivabradine is a blocker of the funny current channels in the sinoatrial node cells. This results in pure heart rate reduction when elevated without direct effect on contractility or on the vessels. It was tested in a large outcome clinical trial in stable chronic heart failure (CHF) with low ejection fraction, in sinus rhythm, on a contemporary background therapy including betablockers (SHIFT: Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the If inhibitor Trial).The primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization) was reduced by 18% whereas the first occurrence of heart failure hospitalizations was reduced by 26%. The effect was of greater magnitude in patients with baseline heart rate ≥75 beats per minute. Ivabradine improved also the quality of life and induced a reverse remodelling.The safety was overall good with an increase in (a)symptomatic bradycardia and visual side effects.The efficacy and tolerability were similar to those observed in the overall trial in subgroups with diabetes mellitus, low systolic blood pressure (SBP), renal dysfunction or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Ivabradine is indicated in CHF with systolic dysfunction, in patients in sinus rhythm with a heart rate ≥75 bpm in combination with standard therapy including betablocker therapy or when betablocker therapy is contraindicated or not tolerated (European Medicine Agency).

Ivabradine, a novel medication for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

PURPOSE

To critically evaluate current literature, review pharmacology, and discuss clinical role of ivabradine for patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search was conducted using the search terms ivabradine and HF. All human studies analyzing the use of ivabradine in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction and prescribing information were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater benefit was seen in the prespecified subgroup with heart rate (HR) > 70 beats per minute (bpm) in the BEAUTIFUL study. Therefore, SHIFT examined the effect of ivabradine on patients with higher resting HR, lower ejection fraction, who had been hospitalized for HF within the previous year. A significant difference was found in the composite primary endpoint of cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for worsening HF in patients with HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction, driven primarily by reduction in hospitalizations for worsening HF. The most common adverse effect was bradycardia.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Ivabradine is a safe and effective medication for HR reduction to reduce hospitalizations in patients with stable, symptomatic HF (ejection fraction < 35%), in sinus rhythm, and HR > 70 bpm.

Update on ivabradine for heart failure

Despite dramatic advances in therapy for heart failure (HF) during the past 3 decades, hospitalization and mortality rates remain relatively high. In recent decades, it has become apparent that HF is divisible into two equally lethal but pathophysiologically different sub-classes, the first comprising patients with LV systolic dysfunction [heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)] and the other, approximately equal in size, involving patients with "preserved" systolic function [heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)]. Evidence-based event reducing therapy currently is available only for HFrEF. With the completion of seminal trials of beta blockers, now part of standard therapy for HFrEF, it was apparent that heart rate slowing is an underlying basis of clinical effectiveness of HFrEF therapy. With the discovery of the "f current" that modulates the slope of spontaneous diastolic depolarization of the sino-atrial node, a non-beta blockade approach to heart rate slowing became available. Ivabradine, the first FDA-approved f-current blocker for HFrEF, markedly reduces hospitalizations for worsening heart failure, while also progressively reducing mortality as pre-therapy heart rate increases, and also promotes beneficial left ventricular remodeling, improves health-related quality of life and is effective despite a wide range of comorbidities. The drug is well tolerated and adverse effects are relatively few. Ivabradine represents an important addition to the armamentarium for mitigation of HFrEF.

Heart Rate Control With If Inhibitor, Ivabradine, in Japanese Patients With Chronic Heart Failure - A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Study

BACKGROUND

Elevated heart rate (HR) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes in various cardiac diseases, including heart failure (HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Randomized placebo-controlled study was conducted to evaluate the effects of ivabradine, an Ifinhibitor, on the resting HR in 126 Japanese symptomatic HF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, resting HR ≥75 beats/min in sinus rhythm, and stable, optimal background treatment. Patients were randomly allocated into 3 groups: placebo; starting dose of ivabradine 2.5 mg twice daily (BID; 2.5 mg group); 5 mg BID group. The dose was increased up to 7.5 mg BID according to dose-adjustment criteria. After the 6-week treatment, the reductions in resting HR were significant in both the 2.5-mg (16.6±8.1 beats/min) and 5-mg (16.4±9.6 beats/min) groups (P<0.0001 for both groups) compared with placebo (1.7±8.7 beats/min). The most frequent side effect of ivabradine was phosphenes, but all were mild. Treatment was discontinued in 1 patient due to HF in the 5 mg group.

CONCLUSIONS

Ivabradine starting at 2.5 or 5 mg BID effectively reduced resting HR in Japanese HF patients. Ivabradine at the starting dose of 2.5 mg BID could be safer than 5 mg BID. (Circ J 2016; 80: 668-676).

The Role of Ivabradine and Trimetazidine in the New ESC HF Guidelines

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) is increasing, representing a major cause of death and disability, and a growing financial burden on healthcare systems. Despite the use of effective treatments with both drugs and devices, mortality remains high. There is therefore a need for new and effective therapeutic agents. Ivabradine is a specific sinus node inhibiting agent that was approved in 2005 by the European Medicines Agency, alone or in combination with a beta-blocker. Trimetazidine is a cytoprotective, anti-ischaemic agent established in the treatment of angina pectoris. In the 2012 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of HF, ivabradine was recommended in symptomatic HF patients who are in sinus rhythm with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35 % and heart rate higher than 70 beats per minute, despite optimal medical therapy, including maximally tolerated dose of beta-blocker. The role of trimetazidine in this setting was not mentioned. In the 2016 ESC guidelines, recommendations for ivabradine are unchanged but trimetazidine is included for the treatment of angina pectoris with HF. This article discusses the need for new therapeutic options in HF and reviews clinical evidence in support of these two therapeutic options.

Influence of Cardiovascular and Noncardiovascular Co-morbidities on Outcomes and Treatment Effect of Heart Rate Reduction With Ivabradine in Stable Heart Failure (from the SHIFT Trial)

Incidence of chronic heart failure (HF) increases with age and cardiovascular (CV) morbidity. Co-morbidities increase hospitalization and mortality in HF, and non-CV co-morbidities may lead to preventable hospitalizations. We studied the impact of co-morbidities on mortality and morbidity in Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the I(f) Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial, and investigated whether the impact of ivabradine was affected by co-morbidities. We analyzed the Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the I(f) Inhibitor Ivabradine Trialpopulation, with moderate-to-severe HF and left ventricular dysfunction (in sinus rhythm with heart rate at rest ≥70 beats/min), according to co-morbidity: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, anemia, stroke, impaired renal function, myocardial infarction, hypertension, and peripheral artery disease. Co-morbidity load was classed as 0, 1, 2, 3, 4+ or 1 to 2 co-morbidities, or 3+ co-morbidities. Co-morbidities were evenly distributed between the placebo and ivabradine groups. Patients with more co-morbidities were likely to be older, women, had more advanced HF, were less likely to be on β blockers, with an even distribution on ivabradine 2.5, 5, or 7.5 mg bid and placebo at all co-morbidity loads. Number of co-morbidities was related to outcomes. Cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization events significantly increased (p <0.0001) with co-morbidity load, with the most events in patients with >3 co-morbidities for both, ivabradine and placebo. There was no interaction between co-morbidity load and the treatment effects of ivabradine. Hospitalization rate was lower at all co-morbidity loads for ivabradine. In conclusion, cardiac and noncardiac co-morbidities significantly affect CV outcomes, particularly if there are >3 co-morbidities. The effect of heart rate reduction with ivabradine is maintained at all co-morbidity loads.

Ivadradine

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent in print and are also available on-line. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. A drug class review is now published monthly with The Formulary Monograph Service. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The October 2015 monograph topics are sacubitril/valsartan, daclatasvir, sonidegib, alirocumab, and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate. The Safety MUE is on sacubitril/valsartan.

Resting heart rate is associated with renal disease outcomes in patients with vascular disease: results of the ONTARGET and TRANSCEND studies

BACKGROUND

Resting heart rate (RHR) is associated with cardiovascular disease outcomes in high-risk patients. It is not known whether RHR is predictive of renal outcomes such as albuminuria, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or doubling of creatinine. We evaluated whether RHR could predict renal endpoints in patients at a high risk of cardiovascular disease. We also tested the effects of RHR at different levels of systolic blood pressure (SBP).

METHODS

We analysed data from 28 757 patients in the ONTARGET and TRANSCEND trials. RHR and SBP were available for a mean of 4.9 ± 0.4 visits (range 3-5) within the first 2 years of the studies. Albuminuria was determined at baseline, at 2 years and at study end.

RESULTS

Mean RHR was predictive of incident micro-albuminuria [hazard ratio (HR) for RHR ≥80 vs. <60 beats min(-1) 1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29-1.71, P < 0.0001], incident macro-albuminuria (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.39-2.42, P < 0.0001), doubling of creatinine (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.00-2.17, P = 0.050) and ESRD (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.00-3.16, P = 0.050), and the combined renal end-point (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.32-1.74, P < 0.0001). Associations were robust at SBPs from <120 to ≥150 mmHg, with the lowest risk at a SBP of 130-140 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

Resting heart rate is a potent predictor of these renal outcomes, as well as their combination, in patients with cardiovascular disease. RHR at all SBP levels should be considered as a possible renal disease risk predictor and should be investigated as a treatment target with RHR-reducing agents.

Resting heart rate: risk indicator and emerging risk factor in cardiovascular disease

Resting heart rate is central to cardiac output and is influenced by changes occurring in numerous diseases. It predicts longevity and cardiovascular diseases, and current evidence suggests that it is also an important marker of outcome in cardiovascular disease, including heart failure. Beta-blockers improve outcomes in heart failure; however, they have effects outside reducing heart rate. Ivabradine has demonstrated efficacy in reducing rehospitalizations and mortality in heart failure and in improving exercise tolerance and reducing angina attacks in patients with coronary artery disease, whereas selective heart rate reduction may also prove to be beneficial in therapeutic areas outside those in which ivabradine has already demonstrated clinical efficacy. This review provides an update on the associations between heart rate and cardiovascular outcomes in various conditions, the experimental effects of heart rate reduction with ivabradine, and the potential new indications in cardiovascular disease.